Ibrohimova & Boehler [2025] FedCFamC1F 885 (8 December 2025)

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 60CG, 102NA, 114UB

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW) s 28

Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996

Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268; [2009] FamCAFC 196

Friseal & Friseal (2025) FLC 94-257; [2025] FedCFamC1A 102

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68

Pickford & Pickford (2024) FLC 94-230; [2024] FedCFamC1A 249

Re W (Sex abuse: Standard of Proof) (2004) FLC 93-192; [2004] FamCA 768

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

1. All previous parenting orders are discharged.
2. The Mother has sole parental responsibility and sole decision-making for all major long-term issues in respect of X, born in 2019 and Y, born in 2021 (together "the children").
3. In exercising sole decision-making for all major long-term issues, the Mother shall notify the Father in writing of any decision she intends to make not less than 14 days prior to making the decision, invite the Father to have input into the decision being made and consider the Father's input prior to making the final decision if such input from the Father is received in writing within seven days of the written notification being sent by the Mother.
4. The children will live with the Mother.
5. Prior to the children's departure from Australia, the Mother is to obtain from a court of competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and at her own expense recognition and registration of these Orders pursuant to Articles 24 and 26 of the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996 ("the Child Protection Convention") and provide to the Father evidence that she has done so.
6. On or after 4 July 2026, the Mother is permitted to travel outside of Australia with the children and to establish the children's residence in the United Kingdom, provided she has:

(a) Complied with Order 5;

(b) Given the Father at least four weeks' notice of the date upon which she and the children will travel;

(c) Given the Father a telephone number on which he may contact the children in the United Kingdom and a postal address in the United Kingdom to which he may send parcels, letters and the like to the children.

1. The parents will forthwith do all such things as are necessary to have X, born in 2019, and Y, born in 2021, removed from the Airport Watchlist.

Time with the Father until the children depart for the United Kingdom

1. The children will spend time with the Father until the children's departure to the United Kingdom as follows:

(a) Until 19 January 2026, each Saturday from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm;

(b) On Christmas Day 2025, from 3.00 pm until 3.00 pm on Boxing Day;

(c) From 19 January 2026 until the conclusion of Term 1 2026, on a fortnightly basis as follows:

(i) In week 1 on Thursday from after school or pre-school (or 3.00 pm) to 6.00 pm;

(ii) In week 2 from Saturday at 9.00 am until Sunday at 5.00 pm.

(d) From the conclusion of Term 1 2026 until the children depart to the United Kingdom, on a fortnightly basis as follows:

(i) In week 1 on Thursday from after school or pre-school (or 3.00 pm) to 6.00 pm;

(ii) In week 2 from Friday after school or pre-school (or 3.00 pm) to Sunday at 5.00 pm.

1. The Father's time with the children is suspended on the Mother's Day weekend 2026.
2. The Father shall collect the children from and return the children to the Mother or her nominee outside B Children's Play Centre, C Shopping Centre, save on days when X or Y is attending school or pre-school, when he shall collect the children from school or pre-school.
3. The Mother is to notify the Father in writing of any person who she nominates to facilitate changeover at least 24 hours prior to the relevant changeover taking place.

Time with the Father after the children are living in the United Kingdom

1. The children will spend time with the Father in the United Kingdom as agreed between the parents in writing and failing agreement, subject to Order 13 below:

(a) Until Y has attained 10 years of age, for each United Kingdom school holiday period nominated by the Father pursuant to Order 13 below for two blocks of three nights separated by at least one night from 9.00 am on the first day of each block until 4.00 pm on the last day of each block.

(b) For each UK school holiday period nominated by the Father pursuant to Order 13 below which falls after Y has attained 10 years of age, for one block of up to six nights from 9.00 am on the first day of the block until 4.00 pm on the last day of the block.

1. The Father is at liberty to nominate the dates he will spend time with the children in the United Kingdom pursuant to Order 12 and for the purposes of this Order:

(a) The Father will give the Mother not less than 60 days' written notice (inclusive of the intended date of commencement of his time with the children) of:

(i) His intention to travel to the United Kingdom to spend time with the children.

(ii) The Father will not nominate time which falls:

1. During more than one mid-term break in any one school year; or
2. During both of the Christmas and Easter breaks in any one school year.

(b) No later than seven days prior to the commencement of the children's time with the Father, the Father will provide the Mother with the address where the children will be staying when they are spending overnight time with the Father and a telephone number on which he can be contacted.

(c) Changeover will occur at such location as may be agreed in writing between the parents or, failing agreement, at the location nominated by the Mother which is within half an hour's drive from the children's residence.

(d) The Father will facilitate the children communicating with the Mother by telephone on the second night of any overnight block time they spend with him and each alternate night thereafter at 5.00 pm.

(e) The Father will be responsible for the costs of his own travel between Australia and the United Kingdom.

1. Once Y has attained 10 years of age and the Father has travelled to the United Kingdom on at least five occasions to spend time with the children pursuant to Order 12, the Mother will cause the children to travel to Australia to spend time with the Father for the first two weeks of each summer school holiday period at the school(s) attended by the children (in addition to any time the Father may continue to spend with the children pursuant to Order 12).
2. For the purposes of Order 14:

(a) No less than 60 days prior to the commencement of the relevant summer school holiday period:

(i) The Father shall book the children's flight from London to Sydney departing the day after the last day of the preceding school term (London time) and he shall be solely responsible for the costs of that flight;

(ii) Subject to Order 15(c)(iii), the Mother shall book the children's flight from Sydney to London departing 15 days after the last day of the preceding school term (Sydney time) and she shall be solely responsible for the costs of that flight;

(iii) Subject to Order 15(c)(i), each parent will notify the relevant airline(s) that the children are travelling as unaccompanied minors for the flight booked by that parent;

(iv) Each parent will provide a copy of the children's flight booking confirmation to the other parent.

(b) The Father will collect the children from Sydney Airport and drop them back to Sydney Airport subject to Order 15(c)(iii);

(c) If the Mother chooses to accompany the children on the flights between London and Sydney, then:

(i) Order 15(a)(iii) will not apply;

(ii) The Mother will be solely responsible for the costs of her own flights;

(iii) The Mother may choose a later date than that prescribed in Order 15(a)(ii) for the children's return flight to London, in which case changeover back into her care shall take place at the Father's residence at 5.00 pm on the date prescribed in Order 15(a)(ii);

(iv) On the first occasion when the children spend time with the Father in Australia, the children will return to the care of the Mother for one night after the children have spent six nights with the Father.

(d) The Father will notify the Mother of the address or addresses where the children will be staying during their time in Australia at least seven days prior to the commencement of the children's time with him pursuant to this Order.

(e) In the event the children are attending different schools with different school holiday periods, the applicable summer school holiday dates are the later ones.

(f) The Father will facilitate the children communicating with the Mother by telephone on the first, fifth, ninth and final night of the two-week block at 5.00 pm and at any other time reasonably requested by the children or either of them.

1. The Father is entitled to communicate with the children by telephone/video calls every Wednesday from 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm (being the time in Sydney while the children are living in Australia, and the time in the United Kingdom after the children move there), and the Mother will ensure:

(a) That she provides and keeps the Father updated with a telephone number which he can use to contact the children;

(b) The children are available to receive such call;

(c) The children are afforded privacy during such call.

1. The Mother will do all acts and things and sign and execute all documents necessary to authorise any medical practitioner upon whom the children attend to provide all requested information with respect to the children to the Father.
2. The Mother will do all things and sign all documents necessary to authorise and direct any school attended by the children or either of them to discuss with the Father the children's school attendance and progress, furnish reports, photos and copies of correspondence, newsletters or other material produced by the school and distributed to parents or relating to the children or either of them specifically.
3. The Father is entitled to attend all school events which parents are invited to attend such as parent teacher interviews, school concerts, assemblies, prize-givings and the like, provided that he does not approach the Mother, and gives her at least 48 hours' notice of his intention to attend and arranges to attend parent-teacher interviews at a different time from the Mother.
4. Each parent is restrained from denigrating the other parent or any member of the other parent's family to or in the presence or hearing of the children and will not allow any other person to engage in such behaviour to or in the presence or hearing of the children.
5. Within seven days of the date of these Orders, the Mother is to nominate to the Father the form of communication (text message, parenting app, email or the like) by which the parents are to communicate in relation to the children, and thereafter, except in an emergency, the parents are only to communicate with each other using that form of communication and only in relation to the children's care, welfare and development.
6. X is to be known by the name X Ibrohimova-Boehler and the Mother, by this Order, is authorised to apply to the New South Wales Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages ("the Registrar") so that the child registered as X born in 2019 be now registered as X Ibrohimova-Boehler.
7. Pursuant to s 28(5) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 (NSW), the Registrar register X's name in the form specified in Order 22.
8. The Mother shall serve a sealed copy of this Order upon the Registrar.
9. The Mother shall pay all the costs of and associated with the changes to X's name pursuant to Orders 22-24 above.
10. The Father is at liberty to send letters, parcels and the like to the children and for that purpose the Mother will keep the Father informed of a postal address to which he may send such items, and will provide what is sent by the Father to the children.
11. The parents are at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to any school which the children attend and any medical practitioner treating the children.
12. Neither parent is liable to contribute to the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer.
13. All extant applications are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings between the applicant father, Mr Ibrohimova, and the respondent mother, Ms Boehler. Mr Ibrohimova is 52 and Ms Boehler is 31. The proceedings concern their children - X, aged six, and Y, aged four. X and Y were born during and following a short "on again, off again" relationship between their parents. Mr Ibrohimova has a daughter from a previous relationship, D (aged 16), who is not the subject of these proceedings. D lives with her mother, Ms F and spends regular time with Mr Ibrohimova. All these people live in Sydney, Australia.
2. Mr Ibrohimova is a finance professional who operates his own business in partnership with other professionals. Ms Boehler is engaged in the care of the children and does not participate in paid employment.
3. Ms Boehler is seeking orders that enable her to relocate X's and Y's residence to the United Kingdom. Mr Ibrohimova and Ms Boehler were both born and raised in the United Kingdom. Mr Ibrohimova relocated to Australia in 2001. Ms Boehler relocated here in 2019, when she was pregnant with X. Mr Ibrohimova is an Australian citizen and Ms Boehler is a permanent resident of Australia. Mr Ibrohimova has no relatives living in Australia apart from D and the children. Ms Boehler has an uncle living in City W, and a maternal grandfather living in City E with whom she has no relationship.
4. Ms Boehler's evidence was that she would not consider relocating to the United Kingdom unless she was allowed also to relocate the children's residence. Mr Ibrohimova's evidence was that he would not move to the United Kingdom, even if orders were made for the children to live there.
5. Mr Ibrohimova and Ms Boehler separated in about November 2020 when Ms Boehler moved with X to a domestic violence refuge. She was pregnant with Y at the time. In early 2021, Ms Boehler and X moved into an apartment leased by Mr Ibrohimova. Y was born in 2021. Ms Boehler then moved into Mr Ibrohimova's home with Y and X in January 2022. They lived there together until June 2022, when Mr Ibrohimova moved out of their shared home.
6. Mr Ibrohimova commenced these proceedings in December 2022. At that time, he had not spent time with the children since July 2022, following events at a changeover. A few days after those events, Mr Ibrohimova was arrested while at Ms Boehler's and the children's home, and was charged with common assault (domestic violence related). A provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ("ADVO") was issued for the protection of Ms Boehler in late 2022. This ADVO was varied to prevent Mr Ibrohimova from, amongst other things, approaching or contacting Ms Boehler other than through a lawyer or as ordered by the Court with respect to contact with X and Y, and to add X and Y as protected persons. The criminal charges were ultimately dismissed following a defended hearing at Suburb G Local Court, however, a final ADVO was made for the protection of Ms Boehler. The ADVO expired in early 2025.
7. On 15 March 2023, interim orders were made by consent for the children to have professionally supervised time with Mr Ibrohimova. Such time took place on one occasion in June 2023, during which X became distressed. The children then did not spend time with their father until November 2024, when professionally supervised time at a contact centre recommenced. This time included D. In February 2025, the children commenced spending time with Mr Ibrohimova and D supervised in the community for two hours each Saturday. On the final day of the final hearing, I made interim orders progressing the children's time with Mr Ibrohimova to unsupervised daytime each Saturday, to commence from the following week.
8. X's and Y's interests in these proceedings were represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"). The ICL did not meet with the children prior to the final hearing. On the second day of the final hearing, I declared that I was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed which justified her not performing that duty.
9. On 19 February 2025, an order was made pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). Both parents and the ICL were represented by counsel at the final hearing. Ms Boehler's legal representation was pursuant to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme.

1. By his Amended Initiating Application filed 26 November 2024, Mr Ibrohimova sought that the parents have joint parental responsibility, that the children remain living in Australia, live with Ms Boehler and spend time with him increasing to five nights a fortnight and half school holidays. He also sought alternate orders for the children to spend time with him in the event they are to live in the United Kingdom.
2. By her Further Amended Response filed 11 December 2024, Ms Boehler sought orders that she be permitted to relocate the children's residence to the United Kingdom, that she be permitted to change X's surname to Ibrohimova-Boehler (Y's surname is already Ibrohimova-Boehler), that she have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the children spend time with their father progressing to unsupervised time, provided that Mr Ibrohimova complies with certain conditions, including completion of a Men's Behaviour Change program and various assessments. She proposed that all time with Mr Ibrohimova take place in the United Kingdom until Y turns 16.
3. By her Case Outline filed 17 August 2025, the ICL sought orders that the children live with Ms Boehler, that she have sole parental responsibility for X and Y, that the parents communicate via the My Family Wizard app, that Mr Ibrohimova participate in a Men's Behaviour Change program and both parents participate in a Parenting After Separation course, as well as various restraints against both parents. The ICL reserved her position in relation to the relocation until after the evidence had been heard and tested. At the commencement of the final hearing, counsel for Mr Ibrohimova indicated that Mr Ibrohimova agreed with the parenting orders sought by the ICL for Ms Boehler to have sole parental responsibility but with an obligation to notify Mr Ibrohimova, allowing for international travel, and for X's surname to be changed to Ibrohimova-Boehler.
4. During the final hearing, Ms Boehler told the Court that she would be willing to stay in Australia until Mr Ibrohimova's time with the children moved to unsupervised in Australia, and proposed that she relocate the children's residence in July 2026. An interim Minute of Orders Sought by Ms Boehler provided for the children's time to progress to unsupervised on 19 January 2026, provided that Mr Ibrohimova had completed a Men's Behavioural Change program. A final Minute of Orders Sought provided for Mr Ibrohimova to have overnight time in the United Kingdom from September 2028.
5. On the final day of the proceedings but, somewhat unusually, before the Minute was provided to the Court, the Single Expert received from the ICL a Minute of Final Orders Sought. That Minute provided for the children to live with Ms Boehler in Australia or, in the event Ms Boehler relocates to the United Kingdom, for the children to live in Australia with Mr Ibrohimova and spend time with Ms Boehler as agreed between the parents. Were the children and Ms Boehler to remain in Australia, the orders sought by the ICL provided for X and Y to spend time with their father on a graduated basis, commencing with each Wednesday from after school until the commencement of school on Thursday and each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until the commencement of school on Monday. Such an arrangement would be in place until the conclusion of Term 4 2026, after which the children would begin spending time with Mr Ibrohimova five nights a fortnight from the conclusion of school on Friday until the commencement of school the following Wednesday. The Final Orders Sought by the ICL also provided for the children to spend time with Mr Ibrohimova for half of the school holidays from 2027.
6. The ICL's Amended Minute of Orders Sought opposing the relocation had been provided by the ICL to the Single Expert after the parents had given evidence, but prior to the Single Expert giving evidence. Counsel for the ICL did not explore with the Single Expert the disadvantages of Mr Ibrohimova's proposal. It was not clear to me why the ICL sought an order in the event Ms Boehler relocates to the United Kingdom without the children; Ms Boehler was adamant that she would not and, to his credit, Mr Ibrohimova did not seek an order in that event. He explained to the Single Expert that "everything X and Y have known is their Mum and to be taken from her primary care would be really difficult for them". Counsel for the ICL confirmed Ms Boehler's evidence as follows:

Counsel for the ICL: Now, I'm going to put, again, looking through the hypothetical crystal ball, if this court determines that it is not in the best interests of [Y] and [X] to relocate to the United Kingdom, would you consider relocating without them?

[Ms Boehler]: No, never.

Counsel for the ICL: Yes. So whatever happens, you will stay with the children?

[Ms Boehler]: Absolutely, yes.

1. It is difficult to see how an order that these children live primarily with Mr Ibrohimova could be in their best interests when they have only just started spending unsupervised time with him, that time is not yet overnight, the parents separated before Y was born, and Ms Boehler has always been the children's primary carer. Given Ms Boehler's unequivocal evidence that she would not move without the children, such an application was unnecessary and likely caused distress.

1. At their broadest, the issues I am required to resolve in this dispute are as follows:

(1) Whether Ms Boehler should be required to take account of Mr Ibrohimova's input when making major long-term decisions for the children, notwithstanding it is agreed that she is to have sole parental responsibility for the children;

(2) Whether the children should live with Ms Boehler in Australia, or in the United Kingdom;

(3) What time the children spend with Mr Ibrohimova in the event Ms Boehler and the children live in the United Kingdom and what the conditions of such time should be;

(4) What time the children spend with Mr Ibrohimova in the event Ms Boehler and the children remain in Australia or for such period as they remain in Australia, and what the conditions of such time should be.

Underlying these issues are the following factual issues:

(5) Has Mr Ibrohimova used family violence against Ms Boehler and, if so, how does this affect issues of risk, relationships and parental capacity? Has Ms Boehler used family violence against Mr Ibrohimova (but noting that he does not say that the children are at any risk in her care and seeks orders that they remain in her primary care)?

(6) Will Ms Boehler facilitate relationships between Mr Ibrohimova, the children and D, and how will those relationships be affected by a relocation as opposed to the children remaining in Australia?

(7) How will Ms Boehler's well-being, mental health, happiness and parenting capacity be affected if, on the one hand, she remains living in Australia and if, on the other hand, she relocates with the children to the United Kingdom?

1. Mr Ibrohimova relied upon the following documents:

(1) His affidavit filed 17 July 2025;

(2) An affidavit of his ex-wife, Ms F, filed 28 July 2025;

(3) An affidavit of his partner, Ms H, filed 25 July 2025.

Mr Ibrohimova had not filed an updated Financial Statement in accordance with directions, and one was filed in Court on 19 August 2025.

1. Ms Boehler relied upon the following documents:

(1) Her affidavit filed 18 July 2025;

(2) An affidavit of Ms J, an ex-partner of Mr Ibrohimova, filed 16 July 2025;

(3) An affidavit of her mother, Ms K, filed 16 July 2025;

(4) Her Financial Statement filed 24 July 2025.

1. I received the affidavits of Mr Ibrohimova and Ms Boehler into evidence without their annexures, which I required to be tendered separately. I received the affidavits of the parties' respective witnesses into evidence with their annexures.
2. I also received into evidence two reports of the Single Expert, Ms M; the Family Report dated 6 June 2025 and the Child Impact Report dated 6 May 2024. Ms M had been provided with additional material from the ICL, which included the parties' trial affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses; X's school report for Term 1 2025; L Family Services contact reports detailing visits between the children, Mr Ibrohimova and D; and drafts of the ICL's proposed interim and final orders.
3. The Single Expert opined in the Family Report that she was "hesitant to make a recommendation about living arrangements", having formed the view that in the circumstances of this case, "there is no parenting arrangement that can properly support the children's relationships and development". Accordingly, the recommendations of the Single Expert were essentially premised upon whether, and the extent to which, the Court determines that Ms Boehler will continue to experience the effects of past domestic violence and the risk to the children of future domestic violence. With respect to the time the children spend with their father, the Single Expert recommended that time progressively increases from professionally supervised time each weekend to the eventual introduction of overnight time in 2027, when Y is in mid-childhood. This recommendation was made with the caveat that "this is not the preferred option as it is not foreseeable that the children can be protected from the dynamics between the parents, Ms Boehler's persistent mental health challenges and in the context of Ms Boehler's claim to be unable to continue to live in Australia". A "preferred option" was not identified in the Family Report.

1. Mr Ibrohimova presented as a father who obviously loves X and Y and is motivated to have a meaningful relationship with them. His evidence and behaviour was, however, quite self-focused at times. I refer below to what I find has been his wavering commitment to the children.
2. He was very defensive when asked about his own conduct. He sought to place blame for what had occurred upon Ms Boehler and the circumstances, and generally did not show insight into his own behaviour, how Ms Boehler has perceived his behaviour, nor into Ms Boehler's situation. While his evidence was not tested as closely as it might have been under cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler, I did not believe aspects of his evidence about his conduct towards Ms Boehler and her conduct towards him. He gave evidence that he had "never touched" her, but had to concede that in fact he had grabbed her by the arms twice (he said in self-defence) and caused bruising to her arms on one occasion. He did ultimately accept that his behaviour in July 2022 in trying to force open a door to the bedroom in which Ms Boehler and Y were located and then, when that was unsuccessful, climbing through a window to that bedroom, would have frightened Ms Boehler and the children.
3. Mr Ibrohimova was evasive at times. The following interchange occurred during his cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And you admit that you told her she was abusive, sick, awful, ungrateful, rude, horrible, and dangerous, didn't you? You said those words to her?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I can't recall.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You can't recall.

Her Honour: Well you do give that evidence in your affidavit?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm not reading it here.

Her Honour: Well you don't need to read your affidavit unless you're asked to. But have a look at paragraph 21?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: So you recall saying those things at the time you made this affidavit, but you don't recall them now until you've read that again. Is that right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. Yes, I probably did say those things.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And this affidavit of yours was sworn by you on 16 July this year?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: So just over one month ago?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And you remember reading it before you swore it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You used to take Xanax at times to relax and fall asleep, didn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You say you never took Xanax?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: See paragraph 45 of her affidavit, [Ms Boehler] says:

I observe that [Mr Ibrohimova] would frequently abuse prescription medication Xanax to relax and fall asleep. [Mr Ibrohimova] would often awake in the middle of the night and begin rummaging around in his bathroom cabinet before taking a tablet of Xanax. [Mr Ibrohimova] stated that Xanax reminded him of taking heroin in his younger days.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Are you denying that you ever have consumed a Xanax tablet?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I've never taken Xanax.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Have you taken something similar to Xanax to relax?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I've taken some prescription medication that helps with sleep.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: What prescription medication is that?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Melatonin.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes. Anything else?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think there was another one, but I can't remember the name of it.

...

Her Honour: Were you taking that during your relationship with [Ms Boehler]?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Her Honour: You didn't take it at all?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Very rarely.

Her Honour: Well no, or very rarely?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Very rarely.

1. In another interchange, Mr Ibrohimova both denied that he knows what the application Life360 is, and then said that he had put it on his phone three months ago. Unhelpfully, he was not challenged about that evidence. Notwithstanding his affidavit evidence that he had left the Town N residence and spent four nights in Sydney at Ms F's house, Mr Ibrohimova at one point denied having left the Town N home at times for up to three or four days to stay with Ms F, saying that he had only ever left for two days. Later, he gave evidence that he had been gone for four days on one occasion. When I asked him about this inconsistency, the following interchange occurred:

Her Honour: Sorry. I thought you were previously asked how long you had left for. And you said - when you were asked could it ever have been three or four days, you said no. Is that right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: So are you saying that you did, in fact, leave on one occasion for four days?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: That was - typically when I left, there was still communication with myself and [Ms Boehler]. And she asked me to come back. And I came back. On this occasion, there was radio silence for a very long time.

Her Honour: I'm just asking you - in fairness to you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour:    whether I'm right in thinking that there's an inconsistency in your evidence there. Because previously you had said you had never left for three or four days. And now you're saying you left for four days. I just want to give you the opportunity to tell me anything you want to?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. I can't - I don't know if it was between two and four days. But I remember it being a longer time than usual. Sometimes I would only leave for one night.

Her Honour: Thank you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: But I remember that being longer than usual.

1. Mr Ibrohimova denied slamming a kitchen door at the Suburb O residence, saying there was no door. He was later shown a photograph of the residence which depicted a door to the kitchen. It was, however, not put to him that he had been not telling the truth when he denied there was a door.
2. Mr Ibrohimova obfuscated in his evidence about whether he had stopped paying rent on a property Ms Boehler and the children were living in after separation - first saying that he paid the rent until they moved out, and then admitting that he did stop paying the rent, but paid the arrears before they moved out. He also obfuscated in his evidence about his failure to comply with a partial property order, saying that he could not remember whether he was late in making the payment, notwithstanding that there had been a significant delay, significant correspondence and an enforcement application filed.
3. Exchanges during cross-examination, including these outlined above (though noting some are in relation to relatively minor matters), caused me to conclude that Mr Ibrohimova did not always give truthful evidence.
4. Particularly troubling was his evidence in relation to whether or not he had used physical force against Ms Boehler. In his affidavit, he gave evidence that he had done so on one occasion - namely, in early 2018, and that in so doing he caused Ms Boehler to sustain bruises. However, when under cross-examination he gave evidence about what he said was a physical attack by Ms Boehler on him in mid-2020. During that evidence, he said that he had grabbed Ms Boehler by the arms. After this evidence was given, I asked Mr Ibrohimova to confirm approximately when this incident had occurred, as I was unable to find any reference to it in his affidavit. He said that it had occurred in April or July 2020, probably April, and that Y had not been born. I then asked some questions to clarify:

Her Honour: So, [Mr Ibrohimova], as I understand it, the incident that you referred to in [mid-]2020 when you say that the mother attacked you, and you - is that the occasion when you say you grabbed her by the arms and caused the bruising?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I think that was in - I think that was the one in [the United Kingdom]. I don't know the date of that photo.

Her Honour: Well, I understood your evidence to have been - and you even held your hands up   ?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I did.

Her Honour: that that occurred on that occasion?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Well, I defended myself in a similar way on both occasions.

...

Her Honour: Thank you. So if you have a look at paragraph 52 of that affidavit, [Mr Ibrohimova], is that the incident that you were just giving evidence about?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: And that doesn't make any reference to you having defended yourself or grabbed the mother or held the mother by the arms or anything like that, does it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Her Honour: But you're now saying that you did do that. What do you say you did?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I defended myself, yes.

Her Honour: By doing what?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: By trying to grab her arms.

Her Honour: By trying to grab her arms, or grabbing her arms?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: To stop her from hitting me.

Her Honour: Did you physically make contact with her arms?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: All right. And so why didn't you put any reference to that in paragraph 52 of your affidavit?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm not sure. I could have put more detail around the attack.

Her Honour: All right. And I think you said that that only occurred on one occasion. If you have a look at paragraph 40 of your affidavit. This is the incident in [early] 2018 in the UK?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: And this is where you say you:

... had to use considerable force on her arms to prevent her from striking me, and later realised I had caused bruises.

Her Honour: So is this the second occasion on which you say you used physical force, albeit you say in self-defence?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think the pictures are from the UK attack, but it was a very similar attack in [Town N].

Her Honour: Well, I'm asking about your conduct, [Mr Ibrohimova]. So my concern is that you have consistently given evidence that you only made contact with the mother's arms on one occasion, but it seems to be that you're now saying that happened on two occasions; is that right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I did defend myself on two occasions.

Her Honour: And, to your knowledge, did you cause any bruises on the second occasion?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I don't think I did, no.

Her Honour: in [mid-]2020?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Her Honour: And the reason for you omitting that you had done that in [mid-]2020 in your affidavit is what?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Sorry. What was the question?

Her Honour: Why did you fail to give any evidence about having made physical contact with the mother [in mid-]2020 in your affidavit?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I don't know. I don't have a reason.

1. In fact, there is what appears to be a brief reference to an incident in mid-2020 in his affidavit, but it makes no mention of Mr Ibrohimova having made any physical contact with Ms Boehler:

[In mid-2020], [Ms Boehler] attacked me in the living room by kicking me, scratching me and punching me in the genitals. After the attack, [Ms Boehler] then called the police and claimed that I had assaulted her. When the police arrived, I explained to the police what had happened. Because [Ms Boehler] could not drive, I agreed to leave the house so that [Ms Boehler] could cool down. No charges were laid.

1. Mr Ibrohimova's credibility was damaged by him not having included in his affidavit reference to him having grabbed Ms Boehler's arms, giving evidence first that he had "never touched" Ms Boehler and then giving evidence that he had only once grabbed her arms. As I set out below, I did not believe his account that on this occasion he was cowering and unable to escape from Ms Boehler's physical attacks (including while he said she was giving herself a "Chinese burn".
2. I have approached Mr Ibrohimova's evidence with caution.

1. Mr Ibrohimova's former partner, Ms F, gave evidence in his case. She was very defensive and obfuscated when asked questions which I infer she perceived might not assist Mr Ibrohimova's case - including the history of her own relationship with Mr Ibrohimova, and even where Mr Ibrohimova was currently living (being in a different apartment in the same building as her). This led me to be concerned that Mr Ibrohimova may in fact have behaved towards her in the ways that Ms Boehler alleged, but the evidence (including the fact that Ms Boehler had not directly seen or heard Mr Ibrohimova behaving in those ways towards Ms F) is not sufficient to enable me to make such a finding.
2. Having seen Ms F give evidence, I accept Ms Boehler's evidence that Ms F has at times been difficult for her to deal with and that Ms F's unusual behaviour led to the breakdown of a previously supportive relationship between Ms Boehler and Ms F. Understandably, Ms F was concerned about the impact on D of the proposed relocation but, to her credit, gave evidence that she would facilitate D travelling to the United Kingdom to spend time with the children there if that was the outcome of these proceedings.
3. Mr Ibrohimova's current partner, Ms H, gave evidence in his case. She has never met the children and does not live with Mr Ibrohimova and so her evidence did not assist me.

1. Ms Boehler presented as very distressed at times, to the extent that on the third day of the final hearing, Court had to be adjourned for the day because she had been in a state of distress in the witness box for close to an hour while the Court was temporarily adjourned, and was not able to continue. I was close to asking for an ambulance to be called on that occasion.
2. Ms Boehler tended to resort to advocating her own case from the witness box, rather than simply answering the questions put to her, but, as I set out below, this was to some extent understandable and did not undermine her credibility. In her affidavit, she did not give an account of behaviour (including physical violence) which, when under cross-examination, she readily admitted she had engaged in. I formed the view that, on occasion, her oral account of her relationship with Mr Ibrohimova also glossed over her own behaviour, and she was not fulsome in her affidavit evidence about her own behaviour - for example, in relation to the incident which occurred in mid-2020.
3. At times, Ms Boehler resorted to broad generalisations which minimised Mr Ibrohimova's parenting role at least prior to July 2022: for example, "I have been the children's sole and primary caregiver since birth, providing for their daily needs without any emotional, practical, or consistent support from the father". She was unwilling to make concessions which gave Mr Ibrohimova any credit - including for the parenting work he did when the parents were living together. Some of her affidavit evidence was of poor quality and/or constituted submissions, rather than evidence, for example: "[i]t was apparent that [Mr Ibrohimova] had a pattern of skewing narratives in order to gain sympathy from others and portray himself as a victim". Ms Boehler appears to have had minimal (if any) legal assistance in drafting her affidavit. She admitted that she had used Chat GPT in the preparation of her affidavit.
4. I am satisfied that sometimes she misattributed abusive intent to Mr Ibrohimova's words to her - for example, his account that he had said to her "how did two ugly buggers like us make those beautiful kids?" is more believable than her account that Mr Ibrohimova was being verbally and emotionally abusive towards her.
5. Nonetheless, I found her to give a credible account of the impact of Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour and the parties' relationship on her. I found that she generally tried to tell the truth, although I could not always be confident as to the accuracy of her evidence about the detail of what occurred on each occasion and, given also Mr Ibrohimova's poor credibility, have only been able to make limited findings about that detail. I believed her evidence about photographs which were tendered and in respect of contemporary records. Various attempts were made to challenge the authenticity of the photographs and emails, but they came to nothing. Her evidence and presentation were consistent with her having been deeply affected by the relationship with Mr Ibrohimova, by these proceedings, and by the application to restrain her from returning to live in the United Kingdom. She presented as deeply committed to the children, and to her role as their mother.
6. Ms Boehler has been a fierce advocate of her own case and has done so in that way defies the usual stereotypes of a victim of family violence, and which might have caused some loss of sympathy for her. Of course, stereotypes, sympathy and punishment have no role to play in determining what parenting orders are in the children's best interests. At times, Ms Boehler's advocacy has been inappropriate and misguided - including in her communications with the Single Expert. Her position that Ms F should not have been interviewed was patently unreasonable and her concern about the number of "supporting witnesses" who were interviewed by the Single Expert misconceived the role of that expert. She also went too far in her communications with the supervision service. Her communication with Mr Ibrohimova has at times been terse and provocative, and she has communicated inappropriately with Ms F (as she ultimately conceded).
7. Her persistent, fierce and, at times, misguided advocacy should be seen in the context that she was without legal representation for lengthy periods during the proceedings, and that her legal representation for the final hearing was made available through the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme - and so was not the representation of her choice and only available to her for a limited time and limited purposes. I also accept that it is also a reflection of her anxiety and of what she perceives to be the importance of the outcome of these proceedings to her and to the children. In the lead up to the final hearing, Mr Ibrohimova sent her a message:

OK

This is very disappointing. This now means we will be going to a final hearing of 5 days, I will now begin briefing my barrister and lawyer and pay them $100,000. That is money that could have gone to you and the children. But this is the path you have chosen, I hope you don't regret it.

Please refer to the children as our children not my children. As [Ms M] said they should know who their loving father is. [Y, X, D] and me had a great time together on Saturday we sat near the river and everyone was soo happy.

When the court case is finished and the children are old enough, they will get to read the transcript, they will get to know the truth.

Get the best lawyer money can buy, you will need it.

I infer that this message would have caused Ms Boehler further anxiety. Unfortunately, it was not put to Mr Ibrohimova, so I cannot make any findings about what his intentions were in sending it.

1. It is Ms Boehler's proposal that she and the children will live with her mother, Ms K, in the United Kingdom. Ms Boehler's mother, Ms K, was a believable witness, and her evidence about her daughter having reported some of Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour towards her, about having herself witnessed concerning behaviour by Mr Ibrohimova and having had concerning interactions with Mr Ibrohimova, and about the support she would provide to Ms Boehler was not at all undermined in cross examination.
2. I did not attach any weight to the evidence of Ms J, who was called in Ms Boehler's case. She is a former, very short-term partner of Mr Ibrohimova, her affidavit evidence was of poor quality and she presented in cross-examination as determined to say whatever negative thing about Mr Ibrohimova she thought would assist Ms Boehler's case.

1. It is relevant to set out some of the (tumultuous) history of the relationship between Ms Boehler and Mr Ibrohimova and some other matters before making the factual findings I can make, and which are relevant.
2. Mr Ibrohimova and Ms Boehler met whilst she was in Australia on a working holiday visa in 2016 and she worked for him for a period of some weeks. At that time, she was 21 and Mr Ibrohimova was 42. They commenced a romantic relationship in Australia shortly after Ms Boehler stopped working for Mr Ibrohimova. Shortly after that, Ms Boehler returned to the United Kingdom, and the parties conducted an "on again, off again" and long-distance relationship, which included travel to various locations and Mr Ibrohimova travelling to the United Kingdom in March 2017. In June 2017, Ms Boehler travelled to Australia to be with Mr Ibrohimova. Ms Boehler gave evidence that during these periods together, Mr Ibrohimova was verbally abusive towards her, and alternated between showering her with affection and gifts, and being cold or abusive. Ms Boehler gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova bit her hand during an argument ("the [mid-]2017 incident"). Mr Ibrohimova denied that he had done so. She returned to the United Kingdom shortly after that incident.
3. In September or October 2017, the parties resumed their relationship, travelling through Europe. They were together in the United Kingdom again when Mr Ibrohimova travelled there in early 2018. Ms Boehler gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova was physically violent towards her after she noticed messages from an Australian number on his phone, contacted that number and then confronted Mr Ibrohimova with messages she had received in response ("the [early] 2018 incident"), and that she reported his behaviour to police in the United Kingdom. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that Ms Boehler became jealous on this occasion and physically attacked him. The parents separated again.
4. In July 2018, they resumed their relationship - which included an overseas holiday. Ms Boehler gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova was verbally abusive towards her during that trip, and that she hoped her subsequent return to the United Kingdom would lead to the conclusion of their relationship. She commenced studying towards an undergraduate degree at P University in the United Kingdom. In late 2018, Mr Ibrohimova travelled to the United Kingdom. Ms Boehler then discovered she was pregnant with X. She travelled to Australia for a holiday in April 2019 and then returned to the United Kingdom to complete her first year of university, which she did successfully. In May or June 2019, Mr Ibrohimova again travelled to the United Kingdom.
5. In mid-2019, Ms Boehler relocated to Australia. At that time, she was pregnant with X. In 2019, X was born. In March 2020, the family relocated to Town N in the context of COVID. Ms Boehler gave evidence that she felt isolated and unsupported during this time, and to the effect that Mr Ibrohimova verbally and financially abused her and verbally abused X at times. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that this was a difficult time for the family, and that Ms Boehler was at time physically and verbally abusive towards him. Ms Boehler gave evidence that in early 2020, Mr Ibrohimova took her phone from her and physically abused her ("the [early] 2020 incident"). There was another incident in mid-2020, which I have referred to above ("the [mid] 2020 incident"). During 2020, the Department of Communities and Justice ("DCJ") became involved with the family following a report made by a General Practitioner following a disclosure by Mr Ibrohimova of physical violence used against him by Ms Boehler, and for a time the parties engaged with a counsellor to whom they were referred by DCJ. Ms Boehler gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova was physically violent towards her again in the early weeks of her pregnancy with Y.
6. In November 2020, Mr Ibrohimova left the Town N home and Ms Boehler and X went to live in a women's refuge. Mr Ibrohimova identifies this as the date when the parties separated. At that time, Ms Boehler was pregnant with Y. Ms Boehler and X lived at the refuge for a short period, and then moved to an apartment in Suburb Q leased for them by Mr Ibrohimova. During this period, Mr Ibrohimova spent time with X, including some overnight time. Y was born in 2021. Mr Ibrohimova was not present for the birth, but saw Y a few days later. Mr Ibrohimova began spending time with Y for a few hours each weekend. Ms Boehler gave evidence that she subsequently became concerned about X spending overnight time with Mr Ibrohimova, and so stopped that time. There was further brief involvement from DCJ after a family health nurse made a mandatory report based on what Ms Boehler had told her about Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour in entering her home without her permission. Ms Boehler gave evidence that the parents attempted a brief period of reconciliation in the last months of 2021. In January 2022, Ms Boehler and the children moved into Mr Ibrohimova's home at Suburb O. Mr Ibrohimova moved out of the shared home in June 2022. The parents have not lived together since then. He spent time with the children by agreement between him and Ms Boehler, and Ms Boehler conceded that the communication between the parents over those two months was cooperative. There was an incident at changeover in mid-2022 ("the [mid] 2022 incident"), resulting in criminal charges against Mr Ibrohimova and an ADVO.
7. Mr Ibrohimova commenced these proceedings in December 2022. At that time, Ms Boehler remained living in the Suburb O home and Mr Ibrohimova had continued paying the rent. At some stage, he stopped doing so and Ms Boehler needed to vacate the property. An interim partial property order was made requiring Mr Ibrohimova to pay Ms Boehler $60,000. Mr Ibrohimova did not pay this amount when due, and in early 2023 Ms Boehler travelled with the children to City W to stay with her uncle, who lives there. In May 2023, Ms Boehler's father lent her some money and she and the children moved back to Sydney. Ms Boehler then leased the apartment where she and the children remain living. Final consent orders in relation to property were made on 24 July 2024 and Ms Boehler received a lump sum of $325,000.
8. Mr Ibrohimova did not spend time with the children from August 2022 until June 2023. On 15 March 2023, interim parenting orders were made by consent for supervised time. On 10 June 2023, the first occasion of supervised time occurred, but X became very distressed and Mr Ibrohimova ended the supervision session. Mr Ibrohimova then did not spend time with the children until November 2024. In the meantime, the children spent time with D as organised between Ms Boehler and D's mother, Ms F. The relationship between the two mothers broke down and D started spending time with the children with just Ms Boehler present. In November 2024, Mr Ibrohimova recommenced spending supervised time with the children, with that time moving to supervised in the community in February 2025.

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence to the effect that Mr Ibrohimova engaged in controlling and coercive behaviour towards her throughout their relationship, including some physical violence but also emotional, psychological, verbal and financial abuse, and that he engaged in "systems abuse" after the parents' separation. She gave evidence that she felt manipulated by Mr Ibrohimova, and that her experiences of her relationship with him have led to her suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").
2. Ms Boehler also gave evidence that, on occasion, Mr Ibrohimova swore at X, slapped him and treated him roughly. She also gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova sometimes swore at and threatened D, and that he told her he had physically attacked Ms F.
3. Mr Ibrohimova denied this characterisation of his behaviour and the relationship. He gave evidence that Ms Boehler had "difficulties mental health wise" and that "[s]he seemed to me to be swinging in moods and not really - she didn't know if she wanted me to stay or leave". He accepted that the relationship was volatile and dysfunctional at times, but gave evidence that it was most often Ms Boehler who initiated arguments. He gave evidence that she physically assaulted him, spat on him, called him names and verbally abused him and deliberately damaged property. In his trial affidavit, he gave the following evidence:

I experienced [Ms Boehler] to be controlling, emotionally manipulative and demanding. If I did not acquiesce to [Ms Boehler]'s various demands, including demands for money, [Ms Boehler] would fly into a fit of rage and abuse me verbally and physically. After [Ms Boehler] first moved to Australia in 2016 [Ms Boehler] would frequently attempt to control my movements including when I could go to work and who I could spend any time with outside of the home.

1. Mr Ibrohimova and Ms F denied that he had been abusive towards Ms F or D. Mr Ibrohimova admitted that he had referred to X on rare occasions as a "little shit" and "a little bugger", and that he had threatened to smack X "on occasions he was misbehaving", but denied worse allegations, including that he referred to him as a "cunt" and hit him.

The law about the making of findings of family violence

1. The question of whether a primary judge should strive to make findings in relation to family violence in a parenting matter was explored by the Full Court in Amador & Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196; (2009) 43 Fam LR 268. There, the Full Court referred to the High Court's decision in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 and the Full Court's previous decision in Re W (Sex abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] FamCA 768; (2004) FLC 93-192 and indicated at [96] that:

It is important, in our view, not to confuse what has been said by the High Court and the Full Court as to the obligations on a trial judge to make positive findings of fact in relation to allegations of abuse or sexual abuse against a child where parenting orders are sought and where the test to be applied is "unacceptable risk", with the circumstance in a parenting case where allegations have been made of domestic violence and/or assault by one party upon another. In the latter case it will be necessary for the Court to make findings where the evidence enables that to be done.

1. I am also conscious of the Full Court's recent decision in Friseal & Friseal (2025) FLC 94-257, where Christie J (with whom Kari J and Alstergren CJ agreed) acknowledged and endorsed at [25] that:

a trial judge may not be obliged to resolve all disputed allegations of historical violence between parties, where the resolution of such disputes could not bear on the ultimate disposition: Pickford per Austin & Williams JJ at [80].

I agree that it will not always be possible for a trial judge to make findings and a trial judge is permitted to reach that conclusion. However, when the allegations of violence relate to objectively serious incidents over an extended period and resolution of the dispute is central to the case advanced by a party, the ICL and the intervenor, the determination of the dispute becomes an essential element of disposition of the competing applications.

1. In this matter, while Ms Boehler agreed that time for Mr Ibrohimova and the children should move to unsupervised overnight time, her position was that such time should only occur after Mr Ibrohimova had completed a Men's Behaviour Change program. In any case, issues of family violence are relevant to the issues I need to determine. In particular, such findings are relevant to findings about whether Ms Boehler has been acting protectively towards the children or in an unreasonably obstructive way, and to the impact upon her (and hence on the children) of a decision which effectively restrains her from living where she wishes to live.

The difficulties of making findings in this matter

1. The making of findings of fact in relation to family violence was particularly difficult in this matter because of the following:
   • Trial affidavits were filed contemporaneously, and no affidavit in reply was filed. The evidence about what occurred on each occasion was constituted by very different accounts which for the most part did not engage with each other.
   • Both parents omitted relevant details from those accounts which they subsequently admitted to under cross-examination.
   • Ms Boehler's affidavit evidence was riddled with submissions and arguments and was generally of poor quality.
   • Mr Ibrohimova's evidence was not tested in cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler in the way and to the extent that I would have expected it to be.
2. The fact-finding exercise was, however, assisted by the fact that several of the allegations made by Ms Boehler were supported by photographs or contemporary records. Also, her mother gave credible evidence that Ms Boehler had reported some of Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour to her at the time that it occurred. Generally, Ms Boehler was consistent across time in terms of her evidence that Mr Ibrohimova had used family violence, and consistently reported to those supporting her that Mr Ibrohimova had been abusive towards her. The Single Expert opined that "all that collateral information of the [Town N] years is consistent with Mum's narrative at that time of absolutely feeling she was a victim of family violence." When she spoke with a General Practitioner around 2018, Ms Boehler did not provide details of the incidents which she now says had occurred before then (including Mr Ibrohimova biting her hand), but I do not attach any particular significance to that. She also did not report to police many of the details about which she now gives evidence. I accept Ms Boehler's evidence that she did not report details because she was completely dependent on Mr Ibrohimova and was worried about what would happen.
3. On 23 June 2021, Ms Boehler was interviewed by DCJ workers in respect of a report made to them about controlling behaviour by Mr Ibrohimova, as well as previous reports. She denied abuse by Mr Ibrohimova, said "we would say hurtful things to each other", and denied there had been any physical incidents, including her leg being slammed into a door. She gave evidence that her answers to the DCJ worker were given in a context where she was worried that the children would be taken away from her. Consistently with that evidence, at one point she is recorded as saying "[s]hould I worry about losing my kids?". She is also recorded as denying that Mr Ibrohimova came into her home unannounced and looked through her things. She said "OK, this was not happening. I'm concerned that you will talk to [Mr Ibrohimova]. I've had people asking about it". She is also recorded as having said "[t]his is just going to make everyone upset". I accept Ms Boehler's evidence that her denials were because of her concerns that DCJ may intervene.
4. At an appointment with a General Practitioner on 16 April 2020, Ms Boehler is recorded as saying "[Mr Ibrohimova] is abusive and toxic and she wants to go back to [the United Kingdom]". The doctor's notes record under the "Presenting Problem" heading "?DV" and "?PND".
5. On 18 August 2022, DCJ spoke with Mr Ibrohimova, who denied all allegations of violence. There is a record that "DCJ assessed that [Mr Ibrohimova] minimised all concerns, and shifted the blame completely onto [Ms Boehler]". The children were assessed as safe:

Based on current concerns DCJ believe that though the presence of violence between [Ms Boehler] and [Mr Ibrohimova] is concerning and put [Y] and [X] at risk of harm, it has been assessed that this is not a current danger to [Y] or [X]. As [Mr Ibrohimova] is not currently having any contact with [Ms Boehler] and all family contact with [Mr Ibrohimova] is being facilitated by [Mr Ibrohimova]'s ex-wife [Ms F]. [Mr Ibrohimova] does not wish to have any contact with [Ms Boehler] and there is a current AVO protecting [Ms Boehler] from [Mr Ibrohimova]. Furthermore [Ms Boehler] is being supported by formal services that can increase her independence so that she does not have to live off of child support payments and feel financially controlled by [Mr Ibrohimova].

1. Tendered in Mr Ibrohimova's case was an unsigned statutory declaration of Ms Boehler and a signed statutory declaration of her mother in respect of Ms Boehler's application for a partner visa. Neither of those declarations mentioned that the relationship between Ms Boehler and Mr Ibrohimova was abusive. Ms K does, however, state the following:

[Ms Boehler] has two children with [Mr Ibrohimova] and due to family laws and the Hague Convention she is unable to return to the UK as the children are Australian citizens. They are legally bound to remain in Australia due to the father, [Mr Ibrohimova], refusing to give permission or signatures for passports for the children to relocate to the UK. Her lack of residency status and inability to return to the UK has placed her in an extremely vulnerable and stateless situation. This has had extreme repercussions on her ability to build a life of her own and gain independence from [Mr Ibrohimova], who has taken advantage of her non-residency status to exert control.

I do not attach any significance to the absence of more specific references to the relationship being abusive, given the purpose the statutory declarations served - namely, to demonstrate that there had been a genuine de facto relationship.

1. I turn now to consider the specific occasions about which the parents give evidence and about which I am able to make some findings.

1. Mr Ibrohimova deposed in his affidavit as follows:

That night, which was [in mid] 2017, [Ms Boehler] stayed at my residence. She cooked lasagne. I said to [Ms Boehler] in a playful manner something to the effect of, "it tastes like porridge". I was trying to be playful but [Ms Boehler] took offence to it. She picked up the lasagne dish from the kitchen counter, raised it above her head and forcefully threw it onto the floor near her feet, causing the dish to smash and the lasagne to go everywhere. [Ms Boehler] then walked to the wall where some paintings in glass-fronted frames were hanging. In succession she removed a number of paintings off the wall, raised it above her head and forcefully threw it onto the floor, in the same way she had done with the lasagne, causing the frames to smash. I was concerned about [Ms Boehler]'s behaviour and her causing further damage. I called the police. Before the police arrived, [Ms Boehler] left the house. I later discovered my credit card was missing from my wallet and I observed a hotel booking transaction on my account which [Ms Boehler] had made for herself. Later that night, [Ms Boehler] sent me a photo on WhatsApp of her kissing another man.

1. Confusingly, he also gave the following evidence, which appears to relate to the same incident but contains a different date and details:

The first time that I witnessed violent behaviour from [Ms Boehler] was in [mid] 2017 following a camping trip to [Region R]. [Ms Boehler] began yelling, throwing and smashing items in the house including framed family paintings and glass kitchen items. She also attacked me and stole my credit card to book a motel without my knowledge. When [Ms Boehler] stormed out of the house I called the police.

1. The discrepancies between these two accounts were not put to him in cross-examination.
2. Tendered in Mr Ibrohimova's case was a police record of an incident on an evening in mid-2017, while the parties were living in Sydney. Mr Ibrohimova called police and is recorded as the victim ("VIC"). Ms Boehler is referred to as the "PN". The record is as follows:

About 10.30 pm [in mid] 2017, the VIC and the [PN] were at the above LOC when they became in a verbal argument over their relationship that had recently ended.

The PN yelled and swore at the VIC before smashing a photo frame belonging to her in frustration.

A short time later police attended the LOC and obtained the above details of the incident. [T]he VIC stated that he had nil fears fro [sic] his safety and [sic] that stage, but had called police for assistance as he was not able to calm the PN during the argument.

The PN stated to police that she was leaving the house and intended to stay at a hotel until she was leaving the country to return living in [the United Kingdom] on Saturday 15/07/2017.

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence in her affidavit about that incident and the police call out as follows:

In [mid] 2017, [Mr Ibrohimova] and I went out for drinks at the [S Hotel] in [Suburb T], a short walking distance from where [Mr Ibrohimova] and I were living with one another. [Mr Ibrohimova] got up to use the restroom and had left his phone open by accident. When I glanced at the screen, I had noticed the Tinder icon on his phone, which urged me to open the app and discover that he had been meeting up with women behind my back the entire time. When [Mr Ibrohimova] returned, he had seen I was on his Tinder account and remarked 'oh dear'. I walked out of the hotel pub towards the home we shared together, and [Mr Ibrohimova] began following me.

When we arrived home, we began arguing. I went to pick up [Mr Ibrohimova]' phone, and he pushed me against the wall and began to force it out of my hand. When I did not let go, [Mr Ibrohimova] bit my hand, leaving a mark.

I began to scream and cry, and clutched my hand as [Mr Ibrohimova] walked off to his bedroom. Regretfully, I reacted by throwing a photo frame on the floor, causing damage. I understand this was not an appropriate action or response to what had happened and I deeply regret my behaviour.

[Mr Ibrohimova] said he would pay for me to stay in a hotel and read aloud his card details. After [Mr Ibrohimova] received a notification of how much the hotel was, [Mr Ibrohimova] became enraged and started screaming at me. [Mr Ibrohimova] then phoned his bank and told them that his credit card had been stolen. I quickly left the home and met an Uber car nearby which took me to the hotel. I had discovered that after I left, [Mr Ibrohimova] had filed a police report for the damage to the photo frame. [Mr Ibrohimova] did not disclose where I was, and I deeply regret not filing a report for the bite mark inflicted by [Mr Ibrohimova] as I was afraid of the consequences I would face for the property damage.

1. Tendered in evidence was a photograph which Ms Boehler identified as showing a bite mark on her hand.
2. Under cross-examination, Ms Boehler admitted that she had picked up a photo frame (not taken one from a wall):

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Right. Paragraph 56, this is the incident you recount in which you say [Mr Ibrohimova] bit your hand?

[Ms Boehler]: That's correct.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Right. Well, what actually happened was [Mr Ibrohimova] didn't bite your hand at all?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes, he -

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Do you agree or disagree?

[Ms Boehler]: I disagree, and there's a photograph.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. And you smashed a lasagna dish on this occasion?

[Ms Boehler]: No.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: And you destroyed several photo frames around the house that evening?

[Ms Boehler]: There was not several photo frames. I picked up one single photo frame that was not hanging on the wall. It was stacked on the floor behind me when he pushed me against the wall and bit my hand.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: After the incident, you took [Mr Ibrohimova]' credit card without his permission?

[Ms Boehler]: I - this is not true.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: You booked yourself a hotel room. Do you agree with that?

[Ms Boehler]: I booked myself a hotel room, but he read out his credit card details to me, and it was confirmed by his Commonwealth Bank pin code that would have come through on his phone, which is a security feature of that app.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I suggest you took his credit card and used it to pay for the hotel?

[Ms Boehler]: No, this is not true.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Right. And the reason you didn't approach police about what you say [Mr Ibrohimova] did to your hand is because that never happened. Do you agree or disagree with that?

[Ms Boehler]: That's - I disagree.

1. I believe Ms Boehler was giving a truthful account of what occurred.
2. Mr Ibrohimova did not address in his affidavit the allegation that on this occasion he had bitten Ms Boehler's hand. The cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler about this issue was thoroughly inadequate, but Mr Ibrohimova appears to deny that he bit Ms Boehler's hand:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Remember there was an incident at the [S Hotel]?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: ... you were aware that [Ms Boehler] had discovered on your phone that you had a Tinder account. Do you remember that?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Sorry, when was this?

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: The [S Hotel], it was about [mid] 2017?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: So eight years ago?

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes. Do you remember there was an incident though, a fairly significant incident, when you were with [Ms Boehler] at the [S Hotel], and she discovered that you had a Tinder account on your phone when you left the phone with her? Remember that?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No, I don't remember.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: In fact, she had your phone and you bit her hand. Remember that incident?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: In the [S Hotel]?

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: In or around the [S Hotel], yes?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You had a disagreement?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: When [Ms Boehler] indicated that she had seen you had a Tinder account on your phone, and that you had an altercation, and that you had bit her hand.

Her Honour: Well it wasn't at the hotel though, was it, if you read paragraph 57 of your client's affidavit.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: So you say you can't remember anything about that?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: About what, sorry?

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: About you biting her hand?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Later, Mr Ibrohimova was shown a photograph of what, according to Ms Boehler's evidence, was a mark he had inflicted by biting her hand. He denied that he had caused the mark in the photograph. Again, the cross-examination was unsatisfactory.

1. Mr Ibrohimova's more lengthy account is not consistent with the police record, in that the date is different, and the police record a single photo frame had been damaged and make no reference to a smashed lasagne dish. Ms Boehler's account is not consistent with the police record because she says that she was not present when the police attended, but they have apparently recorded her having told them certain things. On the other hand, Mr Ibrohimova's briefer account is consistent with Ms Boehler's account, in that his version of events refers to him having called the police after Ms Boehler had left the house.
2. Ms Boehler's mother gave evidence in her affidavit as follows:

In [mid] 2017, [Ms Boehler] returned from Sydney visibly shaken and distressed. She told me she was pregnant. She also disclosed that [Mr Ibrohimova] had been unfaithful, had threatened to hit her, and had bitten her hand. She reluctantly elected to terminate the pregnancy due to events and became increasingly withdrawn and anxious.

1. I find that, in mid-2017, while the parties were in Australia, Ms Boehler took Mr Ibrohimova's phone and refused to give it back and Mr Ibrohimova bit her hand. That constituted the use of family violence by Mr Ibrohimova. Ms Boehler threw a photo, but not in a way which caused Mr Ibrohimova fear or coerced or controlled him.

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence in her affidavit that:

[In early] 2018, [Mr Ibrohimova]' phone kept going off, and I noticed several text messages from an unsaved Australian number which prompted my curiosity as the messages seemed inappropriate in nature. [Mr Ibrohimova]' phone was locked, so I saved the number on to my WhatsApp, and saw the profile photo was of the same woman that had been on the spare phone leant to me by [Mr Ibrohimova].

When I questioned [Mr Ibrohimova] as to who she was, he remarked that she was 'just a friend', and that he 'couldn't remember her name'. I asked [Mr Ibrohimova] if he would be comfortable with me contacting her and he said that was 'fine'.

When I contacted her, I discovered that her name was [Ms J], and that [Mr Ibrohimova] had been seeing her behind my back while we were living together in Sydney. [Ms J] revealed to me that during my absence the year prior, they had been dating and planning to move in together after four weeks of knowing one another.

I was sat on the couch next to [Mr Ibrohimova] when I read aloud the hurtful messages I received from [Ms J], confirming an affair. [Mr Ibrohimova] became enraged and punched me in the side of the leg. I had a photograph of this bruise but this was unfortunately lost.

[Mr Ibrohimova] then snatched my phone and attempted to leave the house with my phone in his back pocket. It was the middle of the night, and I feared that [Mr Ibrohimova] would drive off with my phone and dispose of it. As [Mr Ibrohimova] tried to leave, I attempted to reach around his back pocket to retrieve my phone. [Mr Ibrohimova] punched me in the side of the head and manhandled me to the point that I was left with bruises along my arms. He agreed not to leave with my phone and said we should go to bed to not wake his mother sleeping in the adjacent granny flat. As I laid next to him in bed and spoke to him, he turned and placed his hand around my throat and told me 'Shut the fuck up'.

1. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence about this incident that:

[Ms Boehler] and I drove to the bank. I went into the bank and left my phone in the car. [Ms Boehler] remained in the car while I was in the bank. When I returned, [Ms Boehler] started questioning me about a woman named [Ms J] with whom I had exchanged some text messages during the latter half of 2017 when [Ms Boehler] and I were living our respective lives in the UK and Australia. That night, after we returned to my mother's house, [Ms Boehler] started physically attacking me without warning. She aggressively scratched the back of my neck, drawing blood. She ripped my shirt. She attempted to strike me with her hands. I grabbed her forearms to prevent her from striking me. She then started kicking my groin and I released her forearms to cover my groin. She then began striking me so I again grabbed her forearms to prevent her from continuing to do so. [Ms Boehler]'s behaviour was frightening. She appeared to be completely out of control of her body and her pupils were enlarged. I had to use considerable force on her arms to prevent her from striking me. I later realised that my hold on her arms caused bruises to her. [Ms Boehler] set about damaging the interior of my mother's house.

1. Mr Ibrohimova was not properly cross-examined about these conflicting accounts. Ms Boehler under cross-examination gave the following evidence:

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: In [early] 2018, you travelled with [Mr Ibrohimova] to stay with his mother in [City U]?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes. We travelled

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: do you recall that?

[Ms Boehler]: from Sydney to [City U].

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. That's a yes?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. [Mr Ibrohimova] left you and he went to the bank and you left his phone in the car?

...

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: [Mr Ibrohimova] left his phone in the car with you on that occasion, madam; do you agree with that?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: And you looked through that phone on that occasion?

[Ms Boehler]: I didn't look through it. I saw it on the lock screen.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. No. I will just stop you there. That was - this is the occasion when you saw a number come up, you added it into WhatsApp?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes. So

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: discovered it was [Ms J]; is that correct?

[Ms Boehler]: Yes.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: This is - is this the occasion?

[Ms Boehler]: But it was on a lock screen. I didn't go into the phone

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Right. Yes?

[Ms Boehler]: as you're suggesting.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. Right. Okay. You became inflamed when you discovered who that account was linked to, [Ms J]?

[Ms Boehler]: No. I didn't react because I asked him about it.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: And after you returned to [Mr Ibrohimova]'s mother's house, that - later that evening, you started physically attacking [Mr Ibrohimova]; do you agree with that?

[Ms Boehler]: No, I disagree.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: You scratched the back of his neck, which caused him to bleed; do you agree with that?

[Ms Boehler]: Disagree.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: And you ripped his shirt?

[Ms Boehler]: No, no. He ripped his shirt and he said it was insurance.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. He grabbed your forearms to prevent you from striking him?

[Ms Boehler]: No. He was trying to run out the apartment - sorry, the house with my phone in his back pocket and he physically manhandled me

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. So do you?

[Ms Boehler]: and he punched me in the side of the head.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: So you disagree with that, that I've?

[Ms Boehler]: I disagree.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: just put to you then?

[Ms Boehler]: I was not attacking him. I was trying to retrieve my phone because he was trying to leave the house with it.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: You were angry and upset that [Mr Ibrohimova] had been speaking to [Ms J], weren't you, madam?

[Ms Boehler]: No. I was crying and I was shaking and I was asking him to console me and he physically assaulted me when I tried to retrieve my phone from him.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. Is this one example of you having rewritten history, madam?

[Ms Boehler]: No. It's absolutely not and I'm going to issue a subpoena for that police record.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Why haven't you done that before, madam?

[Ms Boehler]: I've requested that of my solicitor yesterday and he will be doing that.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Why haven't you requested it previously, madam?

[Ms Boehler]: Because I've been self-represented for a substantial period of time and when I communicated these things with my former solicitor, he didn't issue any subpoenas, he didn't request them. There was a real issue of communication with him.

1. Ms K gave evidence that Ms Boehler had reported to her at the time an account of what had occurred which was consistent with Ms Boehler's evidence. I am also satisfied that Ms Boehler made a report to police - although that report was not before me. There was no evidence that Mr Ibrohimova had told anyone about a physical attack on him by Ms Boehler.
2. I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova used physical violence against Ms Boehler on this occasion when she tried to retrieve her phone from him, and that that physical violence resulted in bruising to Ms Boehler's arms.

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence that Mr Ibrohimova was jealous of her relationships and acted accordingly. In her affidavit, she gave the following evidence:

In [early] 2020, I was sat on the sofa texting a friend from the UK for a recipe, when [Mr Ibrohimova] noticed I was smiling at my phone as my friend had made a humorous quip. [Mr Ibrohimova] kept asking who I was speaking to and then suddenly snatched my phone out of my hands and took it with him to his bedroom. When I attempted to open his bedroom door to retrieve it, [Mr Ibrohimova] pulled my hair, pushed me to the ground and then proceeded to slam my leg with the door. I phoned the police who arrived a short time later. I was anxious to escalate and worsen the situation, remarked that I didn't want to file a report but that I wanted him to leave desperately as I did not want [X] around this. The police provided me with reference number [...]. [Mr Ibrohimova] agreed to leave but then returned home 7 days later.

1. No police record was tendered, and Mr Ibrohimova did not give evidence about those events in his affidavit (although he generally denied physical violence except on one occasion and denied taking Ms Boehler's phone without her permission). The following evidence given under cross-examination relates to that incident and is consistent with Mr Ibrohimova acting in a controlling way, motivated by jealousy:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You say you remember an incident. What is the incident you remember?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I remember that we - [Ms Boehler] wanted to learn how to cook, and that an ex-boyfriend was a chef. And I didn't know that she texted the ex-boyfriend. And then she showed it to me.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: All right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Trying to provoke me.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You say she was trying to provoke you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I said, "couldn't you go on a website and find a recipe?"

Her Honour: Why couldn't she text her ex-boyfriend and ask him for a recipe?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I suppose she could.

Her Honour: Well why did you hold her to the count for that?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I didn't. I just - I thought there were easier ways of getting a recipe.

Her Honour: You said to her - you told me, "couldn't you just have gone and looked for a recipe." So isn't that holding her to account for what she had done in contacting her ex-boyfriend?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I suppose it was the manner in which she did it. Showing me the message, trying to goad me.

Her Honour: Why do you say she was trying to goad you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: The look on her face when she did it.

Her Honour: The look on her face?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: Right. Thank you.

1. I accept that Mr Ibrohimova became jealous on this occasion and used some physical violence against Ms Boehler.

1. This incident is referred to above in relation to Mr Ibrohimova's credibility. In his affidavit, he gave a very brief account of what occurred. In cross-examination by counsel for the ICL, Mr Ibrohimova expanded, saying that he had been "cowering in a corner" and was being attacked by Ms Boehler:

Counsel for the ICL: Any reason why you couldn't just move around her and leave the?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Because I was backed in a corner.

Counsel for the ICL: All right. So you say [Ms Boehler] backed you in a corner?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: And you could not get out?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I tried. She kicked me in the genitals. There were multiple attacks. It was genitals. It was scratching at face. It was punching. It was slapping. And then some of the time she would withdraw her arm and give herself like a Chinese burn. And then this attack carried on for about three minutes, and I'm begging her to stop.

Counsel for the ICL: In hindsight though, despite what you have told the court about being backed in the corner, having your genitals kicked, you could have got away, couldn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for the ICL: [Ms Boehler] is only of small build; do you agree?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: In hindsight, you could have got away?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I don't think I could.

Counsel for the ICL: But you were maintaining the argument, weren't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No, I wasn't - I was being attacked.

Her Honour: Why could you not have got away while she was giving herself a Chinese burn, for instance? That would have occupied both her hands. Why wouldn't you just have been able to get away?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Because all that happened very quickly.

Counsel for the ICL: Were you recording that incident?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: And where was your phone when you say you were backed in a corner?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: In the kitchen.

Counsel for the ICL: How was it that your phone was in the kitchen and you were recording it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: It was an open kitchen living room.

Counsel for the ICL: So you pressed record. I'm not sure of the timeline here?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: You press record, you engage in an altercation with [Ms Boehler]?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for the ICL: You get backed into a corner. What happened?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: There was an argument that happened in the bedroom. I walked away. I went to watch TV. I felt that something may happen. Obviously, this wasn't the first attack. And I hit the record button and I was just watching TV.

Counsel for the ICL: All right. So you were anticipating?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I thought it may have - it was a possibility.

Counsel for the ICL: So how long was it on record for before you were backed into a corner? Do you know?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I can't recall.

Counsel for the ICL: All right. So you were anticipating this argument was going to continue?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: You press record?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: You go and watch television?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: Phone is still recording?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: And how did you come to be backed in the corner?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Ms Boehler] stormed into the room and began the attack.

Counsel for the ICL: Sorry. You?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Ms Boehler] stormed into the room.

Counsel for the ICL: You stormed into the room?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. [Ms Boehler] stormed   

Counsel for the ICL: [Ms Boehler] stormed into the room where you were watching television?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes, yes.

Counsel for the ICL: And then what happened?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Then she began kicking me in the genitals, striking me in the face, scratching me.

Counsel for the ICL: Where were you watching TV?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: In the open living room kitchen.

Counsel for the ICL: Were you sitting on the lounge?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: Well, how did you come to be in a corner?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I was trying to back away from the attack.

1. I am satisfied that the following is Ms Boehler's affidavit evidence about that incident (although it is not dated):

On one occasion, when I didn't respond, he followed me into my bedroom and as I

sat on my bed, he started screaming at me, remarked that he wished I was dead,

and that he hoped someone with COVID would spit on my face and started kicking

my folded washing onto the floor. Some moments after he left, I followed him back

to the living area and regretfully reacted by slapping him in what I now understand

was a set up. I recall [Mr Ibrohimova]' phone was frequently plugged into the living/dining

area and it was only after the discovery that he had been recording me, why that

was as he appeared to have many recordings of me as I went about my daily

business taking care of [X]. I believe [Mr Ibrohimova] did this to find a moment that

would catch me reacting to his abuse.

1. No police record was tendered.
2. I simply do not believe that Mr Ibrohimova was cowering in a corner unable to escape from a physical attack by Ms Boehler. Ms Boehler, however, had not given a full account of what occurred in her affidavit. In cross-examination, she readily admitted that she slapped Mr Ibrohimova "multiple times". This was the use of family violence, and on her own evidence it was physical violence initiated by her (and not in self-defence).

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence in her affidavit about this incident:

[In mid] 2022, [Mr Ibrohimova] came to my home to assist with assembling a TV unit prior to his scheduled visitation with [X] and [Y]. I had left my phone on the couch, and [Mr Ibrohimova] picked it up and read my notifications. Upon discovering that I had joined a dating app, [Mr Ibrohimova] became angry and began yelling and swearing at me in front of the children. He stated that he would not allow another man near the children and that he would ensure I never saw them again if I permitted this to occur.

I informed [Mr Ibrohimova] that I did not want him to take the children that day, as he was acting aggressively and I feared they would not feel safe in his presence following the altercation. He continued to shout at me, referred to me as a "cunt", and then grabbed [X] and removed him from the home.

Concerned for [X]'s safety, I locked [Mr Ibrohimova] outside and kept [Y] with me. After securing the front door, I heard it unlock again and realised [Mr Ibrohimova] had used a spare key to re-enter and had left [X] alone in his car parked on the street. I quickly locked myself in the children's bedroom with [Y].

[Mr Ibrohimova] began kicking the door repeatedly and attempted to force it open through a small crack. After some time, he stopped and walked away.

A few minutes later, [Mr Ibrohimova] began trying to access the bedroom through the window from outside the house. He knocked items off the children's side table and attempted to climb inside. When he got up, he placed both hands on my shoulders and shoved me while I was holding [Y]. I lost balance and staggered. [Mr Ibrohimova] then aggressively tried to pull [Y] out of my arms. [Y] became distressed and began crying. Fearing she would be harmed; I let go of her. I was highly distressed immediately phoned my mother and at her advice promptly contacted the police.

1. A statement given by Ms Boehler to police on the day of the incident contained a similar description to that contained in her affidavit, although police record that the bedroom door sustained a split near the handle as a result of Mr Ibrohimova's kicking. There were also some discrepancies between her affidavit evidence and her description of this incident as contained in a handwritten statement provided by Ms Boehler to police in late 2022, wherein she reported that she had removed Mr Ibrohimova's belongings, including his phone, from the house prior to Mr Ibrohimova taking X outside to his car, and also described herself as trying to push Mr Ibrohimova out of the window that he ultimately used to gain entry to the bedroom. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence in his affidavit about this incident:

[In mid] 2022 at about 7.30am I again attended the [Suburb O] property to continue assembling Ikea furniture for [Ms Boehler]. It was usual for me to have the children from 9am on Sundays but I attended earlier to spend time assembling the furniture beforehand, at [Ms Boehler]'s request.

Shortly after arriving at the [Suburb O] property [in mid] 2022, I bent down to put on [X]'s shoes. As I did so, [Ms Boehler] removed my phone from my back pocket and, holding it and [Y], ran into the children's bedroom. I followed her to retrieve my phone. I tried to open the bedroom door but it was locked. I tried to force open the door by pushing hard against it. I was concerned that [Ms Boehler] might try to erase information on my phone including recordings I had previously taken.

After one unsuccessful attempt at forcing open the door, I turned back to [X] and took him to the car. I went to the window of the children's bedroom and climbed in through it. [Ms Boehler] and [Y] were still standing in the bedroom, but the bedroom door was not open. I asked [Ms Boehler] where my phone was. She told me that she had put it outside. I went through the bedroom door, into the living area and then through to the outdoor area and found my phone on the table in that outdoor area.

I then went back into the children's bedroom and put my arms out for [Ms Boehler] to pass [Y] over to me, which she did without hesitation. [Y] was calm. I took [Y] to the car and took the children out for the day as planned.

I returned the children at about 5.30pm and changeover took place without incident.

1. Tendered in the ICL's case was a photograph of the door which showed a large split. Mr Ibrohimova conceded in cross-examination that he could have caused the split in the door by barging the door with his shoulder. When asked by counsel for the ICL, Mr Ibrohimova conceded that his conduct on this occasion might have caused Ms Boehler to feel afraid, in circumstances where she was holding Y behind the bedroom door. The following interchange occurred:

Counsel for the ICL: So you accept that doing that caused her to feel some fear?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. And no justification for it. But all I wanted was my phone back, because of recordings, because my phone had been stolen so many times before.

Counsel for the ICL: All right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: But it's not a justification. I understand. I didn't want to be there putting Ikea furniture up. I was trying to extract myself from [Ms Boehler] and the house and the relationship. I had moved to [Suburb V]. You know, if I hadn't have turned up that day, I wouldn't be - you know, probably would be sat here, but none of it would have happened. I was trying to help, and I got - it got twisted on me again.

Despite saying that there was no justification for his behaviour, Mr Ibrohimova then attempted to justify it. He also conceded that Y would have been impacted if her mother was fearful. When asked if Y might have been negatively impacted, he replied "I don't know, but it can't have been a positive experience". He also agreed that at the point that he was barging the door with his shoulder, his anger was "heightening".

1. Under cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler, Mr Ibrohimova was asked about his subsequent act in using the window to gain entry to the bedroom where Ms Boehler and Y were located.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And on that occasion you weren't allowed to get in through the door, were you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Ms Boehler] had locked herself in the bedroom again.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes. And by the time you had climbed in through the window would it be fair to say that you were pretty upset?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I was trying to get my phone back off [Ms Boehler].

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Well, would it be fair to say you were a bit agitated?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I just wanted my phone back.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Right. And when you got inside the house you put your hands on [Ms Boehler]'s shoulders, didn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No, I didn't.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Because the - sorry - A couple of - several days later you went to the house, and the police arrived, and arrested you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: That's correct.

...

Her Honour: Do you accept it would have been frightening for the children to see you coming in through a window, and their mother distressed?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: This is -   

Her Honour: Do you accept it would have been - ?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Her Honour: frightening for the children?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I do. But I didn't cause the incident.

Her Honour: You're the one who climbed in the window, though, aren't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Ms Boehler] was - yes. I did. Yes.

1. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that he saw the children the next day and "nothing was said", with the implication that the incident had passed without comment by Ms Boehler and so could not have been significant. However, he subsequently had to concede that the incident likely occurred on Sunday (not Saturday, as he had previously given evidence), and that he did not have the children on Monday. It was in fact his evidence in his affidavit that the incident occurred on a Sunday. The following exchange occurred:

Her Honour: And I also checked your evidence in relation to the incident on [...]. It seems clear in your affidavit that you say that that incident occurred on the Sunday?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay. It's difficult. I've been up here a long time. I'm a bit tired. It's not deliberate. I'm just trying to recall things from a while back. It's not easy.

Her Honour: Well, my concern is that you took care to give evidence that on the next day you went to collect the children and there was no - just listen to me - there was no mention of what had occurred on the previous day. So that appears to me to be evidence that was made up in order to convey the impression that, in fact, what happened on that occasion had not recorded a concern with the mother?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: It wasn't made up at all. It was just my recollection at the time of being asked.

1. Tendered in evidence was a text message exchange between the parents, which read as follows:

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You attempted to keep [Y] from me this weekend. I need assurance that my time is my time

[Ms Boehler]: You need to put how much you are giving us a week in writing

[Ms Boehler]: Your behaviour was dangerous and erratic

[Ms Boehler]: I was within my rights as a mother to try and keep ehem [sic] with me

[Ms Boehler]: For now on please only correspond via email

[Ms Boehler]: I do not want to engage with you any longer

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You stole my phone and took [Y] and locked yourself in a room

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I was concerned for [Y]

[Ms Boehler]: This is an utter fabrication

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Confirm our agreement with the children

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You are mentally ill

[Mr Ibrohimova]: And have no control of your anger

[Ms Boehler]: You started calling me a 'funking [sic] cunt' in front of the children because you learned I was dating

[Ms Boehler]: Started kicking the door down, climbed through the window

[Mr Ibrohimova]: To the point you digress [sic] the chilfmdren [sic]

[Ms Boehler]: You even shoved me by the shoulders when I was holding [Y]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Children

[Ms Boehler]: I had to release [Y] from my arms because she was screaming in pain how you were grabbing her

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Why did you steal my phone

[Ms Boehler]: You do not gaslight me abymore [sic]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: And lock yourself in a room with [Y]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: It is you that are the danger

[Ms Boehler]: I left your belongings outside so you would leave our home after you failed to do so after I asked

[Ms Boehler]: You are dangerous

[Ms Boehler]: You cannot gaslight me abymore [sic]

[Ms Boehler]: You do not get to abuse me abymore [sic] and I will not live in fear anymore

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Why did you seek my help to build your furniture

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You are the abuser

1. Again, this exchange was not put to Mr Ibrohimova in cross-examination, but the messages sent by Ms Boehler are consistent with Ms Boehler's account of what occurred.
2. I am satisfied that in mid-2022, in the presence of X (who he had put in the car) and Y, Mr Ibrohimova used significant physical force to try and enter a bedroom where Ms Boehler was holding Y. He damaged the door in doing so. Having been unsuccessful in entering the bedroom, he went to the outside of the house and entered the bedroom through a window. Given Ms Boehler did not give evidence in her affidavit about whether she had Mr Ibrohimova's phone with her, I cannot be satisfied whether Mr Ibrohimova was attempting to get Y and/or to retrieve his phone. If he was simply trying to retrieve his phone, that aim does not excuse his conduct on that occasion in the presence of the children. I accept Ms Boehler's evidence that Mr Ibrohimova used some force to take Y from her on this occasion.

1. I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova punched a fridge while in the presence of Ms Boehler and X, in or about August 2020, causing a dent. I believed Ms Boehler's account, and she had a photograph of the dented fridge. While there were some issues with her credibility at times, I do not believe that she produced, in corroboration of her evidence that Mr Ibrohimova punched the fridge and caused a dent, a photograph of a fridge with a dent which was caused in some other way, such as by removalists.
2. As set out above, I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova damaged a bedroom door trying to enter in mid-2022.

1. Except for one very brief period, Ms Boehler has not been engaged in paid work while living in Australia, and has been dependent on Mr Ibrohimova and has also, from time to time, received some financial support from her family. I am satisfied that in December 2022, Mr Ibrohimova was in arrears of child support in the approximate amount of $7,000, and that this left Ms Boehler in significant financial difficulty.
2. After Mr Ibrohimova left in June 2022, Ms Boehler and the children had remained living in the Suburb O home the parents had shared. Mr Ibrohimova was paying the rent on that home. Mr Ibrohimova gave the following evidence in his affidavit:

In March 2023, the landlord of the [Suburb O] property asked to meet with me. He told me that he wanted [Ms Boehler] to move out. I could not stand in the way of that. I thought that [Ms Boehler] would contact me via my solicitor if she needed assistance obtaining a new residence for herself and the children. She did not do so.

1. In fact, the position was more complicated and not to his credit. It became clear during cross- examination that Mr Ibrohimova stopped paying that rent at one stage. Initially, he rejected that accusation. The following exchange then occurred:

Her Honour: Just going back to the rent issue. There seemed to be some messages that suggest that you did stop paying the rent before March 2022.

...

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. I paid it.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you accept - do you accept that you indicated to the landlord that it was up to [Ms Boehler] to pay the rent?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Well, as - as of the lease expiring. Yes. But I paid it until March.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you accept that the contents of - what's stated in that page I have just showed you represents the - what happened at that time, on your behalf - what happened on your behalf.

Her Honour: I think what [Mr Ibrohimova] is saying is that he did ultimately pay it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I paid it - all the rent up until March, which is the expiry date of the lease.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: So is your evidence that you paid the rent up until the time the lease expired, but after that you refused to pay any rent?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think the landlord didn't want [Ms Boehler] there anymore.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: But you were aware that [Ms Boehler] still was able to stay there with the children?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I was paying child support as well. The thing is, these rental payments -   

Her Honour: No. No. Just wait for questions, please. If there are further things that need to be asked your counsel can do that -   

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay.

Her Honour: in re-examination.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: ... you paid rent up until the lease expired in March 2022?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: After March 2022 you wouldn't pay any rent for [Ms Boehler] and the children, would you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: She had moved to [City W].

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: You weren't prepared to pay rent because you say you were paying child support?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. The rent was not being taken into consideration as part of the child support payments. I paid it on top of child support.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Now, you didn't pay the amount that was ordered to be paid, by way of partial property settlement, on time, did you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: There's been lots of property settlements.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Remember that you were ordered to pay $60,000 within seven days of orders?

Her Honour: Do you remember some orders where you were to pay $60,000 to [Ms Boehler] within seven days?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I thought it was $80,000 but -   

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Well, in fact [Ms Boehler] had to get her solicitors to write your solicitors demanding payment, didn't she?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I don't recall specifically, but possibly.

1. There was a further interchange about this at a later stage:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Well in December 2022, you stopped paying the rent, didn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Have you got any evidence that you paid the rent after December 2022?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. I paid it directly to the landlord.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Right. Perhaps I will ask you this question. From in December 2022, you stopped paying the rent until a couple of months later when you paid the landlord a lump sum. That is correct, isn't it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think that is correct. Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And when you stopped paying the periodic rent in December 2022, you started to pay one half of the child support assistance, didn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I paid all of the child support.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: No. From December 2022, for a couple of months, you paid one half of the child support assessment, and then paid it up later - the balance up later?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Possibly. It is whatever is on the child support statement.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: So you agree - you agree that is possible. Is that right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I would have to look at the child support statement.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And you're aware that [Ms Boehler] and the children moved out of that property in March 2023?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And at that time, there were, in fact, three months arrears of rent owing, which you subsequently paid?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No, I paid it before that.

Her Honour: Were there three months of arrears owing?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I don't believe it was that much, no.

Her Honour: What do you think it was?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I thought it was maybe six weeks.

1. Later, when under cross examination by counsel for the ICL, he was asked about how ceasing to pay Ms Boehler's rent must have made her feel. He obfuscated: "I don't think I did stop paying the rent. I think there might have been a gap in paying the rent. But it would have made me feel, if I was [Ms Boehler], worried that I wouldn't have anywhere to live".
2. The following interchange occurred:

Counsel for the ICL: All right. And why was there an arrangement that you were going to stop paying the rent? What was that an arrangement, or is that something you just decided?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I wasn't being recognised. So I was paying child support, plus at the time, I hadn't seen the children for, I think, four months. [D] hadn't seen the children for four months. I wasn't probably in the best state of mind. The child support wouldn't recognise my contribution to the rent.

Her Honour: Weren't you in arrears of child support at that time? Didn't you admit that you were in arrears of child support?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I could have been. I wasn't   

Her Honour: So you were in arrears of child support as well as   ?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I was suffering, myself, from not seeing the children, and watching my daughter suffer as well. I can't say that I was in the best frame of mind.

Her Honour: So were you refusing to pay the rent in order to try and achieve something?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I think I was angry that I couldn't see the children, that my daughter couldn't see the children.

...

Counsel for the ICL: So is it fair of me to say that that was in retaliation?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Could have been, yes.

Counsel for the ICL: Was it a means by which you were hoping [Ms Boehler] might relent and allow you to see the children?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes, yes.

Counsel for the ICL: Because that act of not paying - not continuing to pay the rent - do you accept - caused [Ms Boehler] and the children a lot of hardship, didn't it?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: It didn't last for long, but -   

Counsel for the ICL: No. Please answer my question ... Either yes or no?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: Do you accept it caused [Ms Boehler]   ?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for the ICL: and the children quite some hardship?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

1. Immediately after that interchange, it was put to him:

Counsel for the ICL: Now, thinking back to all of the allegations that have been put to you about ... family violence again - I'm going to give you another opportunity - do you think there was any time at all where your behaviour, when you reflect on it, was not ideal or could have been better?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes. In arguing back.

Counsel for the ICL: All right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: It was COVID. You know, I would have removed myself more often from the situation if I could. Things were intensified because of COVID.

1. He admitted later that he had "weaponised" the rent but said that he thought that he was not in "sound mind" at that time.
2. Further, in March 2023, the Court had made an order for Mr Ibrohimova to pay Ms Boehler $60,000 by way of partial property settlement, which he did not pay on time. I have set out his evidence about that matter above in relation to his credibility.
3. I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova put Ms Boehler in a position where she and the children were effectively left homeless, and that he did so to try and cause her to let him see the children. That conduct forced her to move from Sydney to the only place she had family support in Australia, namely, City W. Mr Ibrohimova's conduct was family violence and reflects very poorly on his parenting capacity and child focus. That finding does not change because he has, at other times, provided unconditional financial support.

1. Mr Ibrohimova recorded Ms Boehler, although the recordings were not tendered. I accept Ms Boehler's evidence that Mr Ibrohimova threatened to use these recordings against her.
2. In cross examination of Mr Ibrohimova, the following interchange occurred:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Now, there was an occasion when you replayed one of the audio recordings that you took of [Ms Boehler], when she was clearly distressed. And you would say to [Ms Boehler] words along the lines of, "I have something against you if you fall out of line." You said that to her, didn't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Because you had been hanging on to these audio recordings of [Ms Boehler] for some time now, haven't you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I played them when I felt threatened. And when I was being attacked. Or thought I was going to be attacked. Which I was.

Her Honour: So you played the recordings that you had of?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I never played them to [Ms Boehler].

Her Honour: Just wait for the question. You played the recordings that you had of [Ms Boehler] to her when you felt threatened. Is that what your evidence is?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I started recording when I felt threatened.

Her Honour: Well, I thought you said something about played them ... ?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I never - I didn't say that.

Her Honour: Have you ever played them to her?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Never played them to her.

Her Honour: Never?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Never.

Her Honour: How did she know you had them?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Because I told her.

Her Honour: Did you send them to her?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No.

Her Honuor: Never?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Never.

Her Honour: So I have - just in fairness to you, [Mr Ibrohimova], I have a record of you answering in this way:

I played them when I felt threatened. And I was being attacked

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Sorry.

Her Honour: Or I felt I was going to be attacked. Which I was

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I recorded when I felt I was going to be attacked.

Her Honour: Well, you gave evidence that you played them. So you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: That was a mistake. I didn't mean to say that. I meant to say I started recording when I felt like I was being attacked.

1. A text message exchange between the parties, which was tendered in Ms Boehler's case, read as follows:

[Ms Boehler]: No more sleepovers

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I will be there at 9.39

[Ms Boehler]: I'm not afraid of you anymore

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Saturday

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Have him ready

[Ms Boehler]: And he is due back at 5pm

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm not afraid of you

[Ms Boehler]: If you fail to bring him back I will make my way there to collect him myself

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Sunday 5 pm as usual

[Ms Boehler]: No Saturday

[Ms Boehler]: Trying to instill [sic] fear in a little boy

[Ms Boehler]: Evil

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Your lies will not stand up

[Ms Boehler]: These are not lies so do not gaslight me

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm.calling social.servies [sic]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm calling [Ms Z]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Form. [sic] social services

[Mr Ibrohimova]: At 9 am

[Ms Boehler]: Great. Maybe she can put a care plan in place for you to better take care of [X] on weekends

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You are using [X]to hurt [D] and me

[Ms Boehler]: No you are hurting [X]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Using g [sic] the children as a weapon

[Ms Boehler]: I won't let you ruin him

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Only that you are unstable

[Ms Boehler]: Whatever you throw at me

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Me too

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You.push me too far

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I want a well fare [sic] check

[Mr Ibrohimova]: And the doctor will.agree

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Y] bot [sic] putting weight on

...

[Ms Boehler]: No I'm protecting them

[Ms Boehler]: It's my job

[Ms Boehler]: I care and love them

[Mr Ibrohimova]: [Ms Z] will.get the recordings

[Ms Boehler]: That's fine [Mr Ibrohimova]

[Mr Ibrohimova]: You are losing your mind

1. I find that Mr Ibrohimova was manipulative of Ms Boehler in making recordings and threatening her with them. In the text messages extracted above, Mr Ibrohimova used family violence by threatening to contact DCJ and to provide them with recordings in an attempt to get Ms Boehler to agree to particular spend time arrangements.

Overall findings in relation to family violence

1. I am not satisfied to the requisite standard on the evidence before me, and given Ms F's denial and D's presentation to the Single Expert, that Mr Ibrohimova has used family violence towards Ms F or D.
2. I accept Ms Boehler's and Ms K's evidence that Mr Ibrohimova was at times impatient, inattentive and occasionally swore at and was physically rough with X when he was very young and prior to the parents ceasing to live together.
3. My findings about the specific incidents referred to above, taken together with my findings about the relevant context, lead me to be satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova has used family violence, including some coercive and controlling conduct, towards Ms Boehler. I do not accept that a pregnant woman with a toddler would move to a domestic violence refuge over Christmas if she was not genuinely fearful and without other options.
4. Ms Boehler was not a "passive victim" of Mr Ibrohimova's conduct; she initiated some arguments, shouted and swore at times, and used some physical violence, including by damaging property. That behaviour was, at times, initiated by her - rather than being in self-defence, for example. She herself used family violence. But that does not mean that the conduct can be dismissed as mutual, the relationship as simply "dysfunctional" and Mr Ibrohimova's use of family violence as irrelevant or equivalent to Ms Boehler's. Ms Boehler was in a vulnerable position - including because of her young age, and the facts that she was isolated, without her own financial resources, without family support and either pregnant or caring for young children. I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour has had significant impacts upon Ms Boehler's mental health and her happiness and has affected decisions she has made. Ms Boehler experienced the relationship as an abusive one. The facts that Ms Boehler returned to a relationship with Mr Ibrohimova on several occasions before final separation, sought him out, and went on overseas holidays with him are not inconsistent with that finding. Ms Boehler's conduct, including what I find is her resistance to promoting and facilitating the children's relationship with Mr Ibrohimova, must be seen in light of those findings. It is, for example, understandably difficult for her to have a photograph of Mr Ibrohimova in her home. I accept the Single Expert's evidence in response to a question about what the Court would be looking for in a person who has the capacity to support a very positive relationship between the children and the parent in the other country:

Single Expert: [t]he very things that I will now suggest would be things that I cannot suggest to someone who identifies as a victim of family violence, who - with the result of trauma. So the things would be things like talking about - having pictures of Dad. Talking about Dad in the home. Facilitating same - FaceTimes. Talking about the country back in Australia. Memories of where they used to live; many, many - all sorts of things. Part of general family dialogue, which are very - which are probably the wrong things to be suggesting to someone who has experienced, from their view, family violence and who has a diagnosis of PTSD. So it's a big problem

1. Mr Ibrohimova sought to explain the relationship by reference to Ms Boehler's poor mental health and erratic behaviour. Nonetheless, at no time has he sought an order that the children live with him - although he is reported as having referred to that possibility during the interviews for the Family Report. Ms Boehler gave evidence that, apart from some anxiety when she was a teenager, she was in good mental health prior to her relationship with Mr Ibrohimova.
2. Ms Boehler had sought to rely on a report from a counsellor, Mr AA. The affidavit attaching that report had been filed very late and the report did not comply with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) in respect of reports from treating practitioners. Leave to rely on it was opposed and, following indications from me, it was not sought to be relied upon. I was then left in the unsatisfactory situation where Ms Boehler's mental health and the impacts upon it of the various options available to me was a key issue in the proceedings, but I had only the evidence of the Single Expert (who was not a psychologist) and tendered records containing opinions which were not able to be tested in cross-examination, as well as Ms Boehler's own evidence about her mental health. I have had to do the best that I can with the evidence available.
3. To the Single Expert, Ms Boehler described herself as suffering from PTSD. She had been taking Escitalopram for anxiety, but had stopped taking that because of side effects. She had also tried Sertraline. She also took Brintellix for depression in the lead up to the final hearing for a short time, but again experienced side effects. She explained her decision to counsel for the ICL:

[Ms Boehler]: I think I tried it for about a week and a half and my doctor did say that usually that's the worst period, and you have to, kind of persevere. But I said that I was just, kind of, worried about how this would affect me in court this week because I was having some gastrointestinal issues, and I was feeling a bit more panicked that I would usually. So she, kind of, just recommended tapering off very slowly just while we were coming up to this week, and then swapping over when I felt it was appropriate to.

1. I accept her evidence that she becomes triggered by contact with Mr Ibrohimova and experiences significant physical and psychological effects when she is preparing for, and during, such contact.
2. The Single Expert read records of Ms Boehler's current psychologist, who had diagnosed Ms Boehler with PTSD, which has symptoms including:

[i]ntrusive memories, (including feeling distressed and upset, reactions to memories and cues), persistent avoidance (including avoiding thinking and connecting with emotions of the trauma, and external things that remind her of the trauma), negative mood and cognition (including negative beliefs and emotions about self, others and the world, loss of interest in activities [that] she would usually enjoy), reactivity associated with the trauma (including hypervigilant, jumpy, difficulties in concentration and sleeping) impacting on functioning.

1. The Single Expert opined that "[h]er defensive presentation is reflective of a trauma presentation as per the diagnoses of anxiety and PTSD". The Single Expert opined that Ms Boehler may have been predisposed to developing PTSD. I do not have the expert evidence to enable me to make any findings about that, but there is sufficient evidence for me to find that Ms Boehler has been diagnosed with PTSD.
2. Ms Boehler has engaged with a number of mental health professionals and with her General Practitioner in relation to her mental health. She consulted with an accredited mental health social worker, Mr BB, for several years. She also attended on a counsellor, Mr AA, but gave evidence that she found the sessions that he provided over video chat less helpful than face to face sessions, and is now engaged with a clinical psychologist, Ms CC. She was engaged in cognitive behavioural therapy with Mr AA, but did not find that as helpful as the schema therapy which she is engaging in with Ms CC.
3. The Single Expert gave evidence, which I accept, that there is not a basis to be critical of Ms Boehler for the number of professionals she has engaged with, and also that she has no concerns about Ms Boehler's compliance with prescription medication:

Single Expert: It takes a long time to unravel what has happened for you, and how it's affected your mental health. So engagement and willingness can absolutely be there. But whether that can take time to get to the source or resolve issues to then be liberated to just move on; move forward ... She seems to have actually engaged with - engaged, and had a go with plenty of people. And that's not unusual.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Certainly. What about her compliance with prescription medication? Any concern about that?

Single Expert: No.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Okay?

Single Expert: I'm not getting a view on that.

1. Tendered was a report dated 24 April 2024 from Ms Boehler's counsellor to her General Practitioner. Her counsellor opined:

[Ms Boehler] presents with longstanding anxiety that has been exacerbated by trauma from a past DV relationship and ongoing stressors of raising two young children on her own with very limited support and re-finding her identity post this relationship[.] She presents with raised baseline anxiety that can peak to near panic at times both in response to normal life stressors but also stimuli reminiscent of past trauma relationship, such as driving. Difficulty managing these issues can lead to low mood struggles as well.

1. According to the Single Expert, Ms Boehler's General Practitioner, Dr DD, reported that:

[Ms Boehler] presents with a high level of insight, picks up concepts quickly, and quite psychologically minded but appear[s] to have difficulty managing the trauma when constantly triggered. She said ongoing triggers, therefore reliving the trauma are barristers in combination with financial instability and social isolation. She said therapy will take time to progress from symptom management to longer term changes such as could eventually be achieved through therapies such as schema therapy.

1. Dr DD wrote a medical certificate for Ms Boehler dated 24 July 2025 in which she recorded a diagnosis for Ms Boehler of PTSD. On 8 August 2025, Dr DD recorded "[Ms Boehler] has reported ongoing psychological distress and has exhibited symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. She is currently engaged in regular psychological therapy".
2. Ms Boehler's distress in the witness box on day three of the final hearing left me very concerned about her at the time, and about whether she was capable of caring for the children at that time. I was considering whether I needed to put some temporary arrangements in place and to order psychological assessments of both parents (the Single Expert not being a psychologist). Fortunately, Ms Boehler's mother was staying with her and able to assist, and Ms Boehler sensibly obtained assistance from FASS workers present at Court and from her psychologist. She was able to continue giving evidence on day four.
3. In answer to questions from counsel for the ICL, Ms Boehler expressed a commitment to continue engaging with mental health professionals and acknowledged that she needs to deal with the effect on her of a sexual assault she experienced in her late teens along with the other issues . I accept that she will do so.
4. A finding was sought on behalf of the ICL (and in support of the ICL's position that the children should remain living in Australia) both that Ms Boehler has good access to mental health support in Australia, and that I could not be satisfied that she would obtain such appropriate support in the United Kingdom. Ms Boehler has been diligent in accessing mental health support for herself - including by speaking with her psychologist to help her through the Court proceedings. Her current psychologist wrote that:

Her engagement has remained consistent and goal-directed, even while navigating ongoing stressors related to family and legal matters. She has expressed a clear intention to continue therapeutic work beyond the current proceedings, with the goal of building a healthier and more stable life for herself and her children.

1. Ms Boehler gave evidence that she had made inquiries of mental health professionals in the United Kingdom. She gave evidence that she had identified a "trauma-informed psychologist, [Dr EE]" to assist her. She was not challenged in this evidence. I am satisfied that she will get any necessary support for her mental health wherever she lives, and was surprised that the ICL sought a finding to the contrary.
2. The Single Expert identified for Ms Boehler that "[l]iving at a distance from [Mr Ibrohimova] could secure her a better psychological foundation for parenting as [X] and [Y]'s primary carer". It is difficult to see how that would not be the case.

1. When making parenting orders, the best interests of X and Y are the paramount consideration. In working out what is in their best interests, I am required to have regard to the matters in s 60CC of the Act. As neither X nor Y are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, the matters that apply only to such children are not extracted below.

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

General considerations

(2) ...the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

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

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

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

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

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

I am also required to apply s 60CG of the Act which provides:

(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:

(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and

(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.

1. Much of the case law in relation to international relocation was decided under the pre-May 2024 amendments to Pt VII of the Act and dealt with the interrelationship between s 65DAA (which no longer exists) and the other sections of the Act (which have been significantly amended). Still relevant, however, are the key principles from that case law that:
   • as with all applications for parenting orders, the best interests of the children are the paramount, but not the sole, consideration;
   • parents have a right of freedom of movement, including the right to live where they choose but that right must defer to the paramount consideration; and
   • that the relevant inquiry is not whether the parent seeking to relocate has an adequate reason to do so (and therefore whether they should be "permitted" to relocate), but rather, which of the various options available for the care of the children are in the children's best interests.
2. The task in a case like this one - where a parent proposes to remain in Australia unless the children are allowed to relocate and where the other parent does not propose to relocate themselves and does not seek primary care of the children - is to ask whether the children living with their primary parent in Australia or in the proposed new location is in the children's best interests. Unless the matter is one in which an order for "no contact" is to be made, then part of the assessment of that question is the impact on the children of the proposed "spend time" arrangements in the two locations and the impact of the relocation on the children's relationship with the parent who is proposing to remain in Australia. Almost invariably relevant also are the impacts on the primary parent and their parenting capacity of the various options. Findings of family violence may be relevant to children's best interests in various ways (including in relation to any impact on the parent against whom family violence has been used of being required, on the application of the other parent, to remain living in a place they do not choose), but parenting orders must always be assessed by reference to the best interests of the children, and are not to be used to "punish" a parent who has been found to have used family violence (per Austin and Williams JJ in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230).
3. My tasks then are:

(1) to analyse the relevant s 60CC factors and make relevant findings of fact (in addition to those already made above);

(2) to use those findings to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the parents' respective proposals; and then

(3) to determine whether it is in the children's best interests to remain living in Sydney with Ms Boehler or to move to live with her in the United Kingdom; and then

(4) to determine the appropriate "spend time arrangements".

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF S 60CC FACTORS

1. I have set out above my findings in relation to family violence. Notwithstanding those findings, and the making of the ADVO, I am satisfied that the children are not at an unacceptable risk of being subjected to or exposed to family violence in spending unsupervised time with Mr Ibrohimova, and that the children continuing to have and further developing their relationship with him is safe. He has not been charged with breaching the ADVO, there have been no ADVOs in the context of other relationships, he does not have previous criminal charges for family violence, and he has a good relationship with D. The supervision reports raise no concerns about Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour. Further, I accept the Single Expert's evidence that: "[a]ny risk to their care and safety is significantly reduced in the context of the separation, their older ages, and spending only several days each fortnight with him", and that D's presence also assists him to meet the children's needs appropriately.
2. I accept that Ms Boehler is genuinely concerned, and anxious, about the children's safety with their father. She has little basis from which to trust that he is able to keep them safe and meet their needs. She will need to work with her mental health professionals in that regard.
3. Any contact between the parents carries some risk of verbal abuse, and I am satisfied that there are risks to Ms Boehler's emotional and psychological safety from having to have contact with and communicate with Mr Ibrohimova. These risks can be mitigated in various ways, including by enabling changeover to occur through a third party nominated by Ms Boehler, and by limiting the communication between the parents.
4. An advantage of Ms Boehler's proposal is that it will put considerable physical distance between her (and the children) and Mr Ibrohimova. I am satisfied that is the parenting arrangement likely to make her feel more emotionally and psychologically safe.

1. Ms Boehler is clearly a devoted mother to X and Y and has met their needs well in very difficult circumstances, including her poor mental health. Her evidence to the effect that X and Y are not affected by her own anxiety or her own views about Mr Ibrohimova lacked insight. Undoubtedly they are - as the comments they made to the Single Expert about their father make clear. I do not find, however, that Ms Boehler has been deliberately manipulative, including by saying damaging things to the children about their father.
2. When it was put to Ms Boehler that the children are likely to say things to her that they think she wants to hear, she could not accept that might be the case for X and Y. Again, this evidence shows a lack of insight.
3. I have made findings above about Ms Boehler's mental health and have concluded that a move to the United Kingdom will provide her with a better psychological foundation for parenting the children.
4. D lives primarily with Ms F and spends time with Mr Ibrohimova on a flexible basis, mostly on weekends. D was interviewed by the Single Expert and described a close and loving relationship with Mr Ibrohimova, and a good co-parenting relationship between him and her mother. I accept the Single Expert's evidence that D is "testament to [Mr Ibrohimova]'s parenting capacity". I accept that he was involved in the care of the children during X's infancy and toddlerhood, and during Y's infancy. However, Mr Ibrohimova's parental capacity in respect of X and Y is largely untested, and there are reasons to have some concerns about it.
5. Mr Ibrohimova has behaved in ways that I am satisfied would have frightened Ms Boehler and the children - including by his behaviour in mid-2022. His behaviour in stopping paying the rent for a time, and then delaying paying the interim property settlement was damaging both to the children and to Ms Boehler. He has minimal insight into his behaviour and its impact. This tells against his parenting capacity.
6. Mr Ibrohimova has demonstrated a wavering commitment to taking appropriate steps to spend time with the children. He did not spend time with the children between about August 2022 and June 2023, and explained that gap on the basis that there was an ADVO in place, and that he instead arranged through Ms F for D to spend time with the children. Orders were made for supervised time to commence in March 2023. One visit occurred on 10 June of that year, but after that Mr Ibrohimova stopped spending supervised time and did not see the children for about 18 months. He is recorded as having explained this to the Single Expert as follows:

[Mr Ibrohimova] explained the breakdown in the Orders being due to problems in the service managing his reintroduction to the children. He said [D] was present and they met [X] and [Y] with the supervisor at a park in [Suburb O]. He said the session started well and the children played with toys but as [X] started playing on the slide [Mr Ibrohimova] thinks he ([X]) might have made the connection between him and [D] and then understood he had not seen him ([Mr Ibrohimova]) for a long time which was distressing to [X]. [Mr Ibrohimova] said [X]'s distress was inconsolable, it was an awful sight, for some reason [X] recognising him was awful for [X]. [Mr Ibrohimova] said he suggested the meeting should end and the supervisor should contact [Ms Boehler] who then took some time to arrive. [Mr Ibrohimova] said he felt the reintroduction had not been thought out, [D] the only person in the situation who the children knew, him ([Mr Ibrohimova]) and the supervisor being strangers to the children.

1. Mr Ibrohimova's affidavit evidence about this issue was self-focused:

I was highly distressed at having seen [X] in the state he was in on this occasion and I formed the view that it was in the best interests of the children for me to explore with [Ms Boehler] alternative arrangements for time.

[t]he unsuccessful supervised visit with the children on 10 June 2023 left me emotionally ravaged. It had been the first time that I had ever heard [Y]'s voice, and seeing [X] distressed caused me a high level of distress. [D] was also distressed that she had been separated from the children. I was under a lot of stress, and I developed chest pains and ultimately required a scan of my heart as a result of the trauma that I had experienced.

At no point did Mr Ibrohimova give evidence about how the children would have felt, having seen him for the first time, and having him then not spend time with them for months, nor about how his decisions at that time may have impacted the children's relationships with him (although he did tell the Single Expert that he understood that it would have had an impact on the children). The Single Expert opined, and I accept:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Now, would those periods of not seeing the children have had any effect on the children and their relationship with [Mr Ibrohimova]?

Single Expert: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And what would that effect be?

Single Expert: They definitely would have. They were a breach - they were an abruption that required reunification. And that's - the reunification aspect is very important now for the children. But yes, they would have got to the point of not knowing who he was, presumably. And it affects the security of their relationship with him and what they know about him.

1. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that he had missed six occasions of Saturday time with the children this year. That evidence was clarified in re-examination when he gave evidence that only three of those occasions had been at his instigation - either because he was on holiday, moving house, or inspecting houses on a Saturday.
2. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that he had only enrolled in the Triple P parenting course about three weeks before the final hearing, and after doing so had been recommended by his barrister. Interim orders were made on the last day of the final hearing for him to attend a Men's Behaviour Change program. That may help him to gain insight into the impacts of his behaviour, and may improve his parenting capacity.
3. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that he did not know who X's teacher is. When I asked Mr Ibrohimova if he had asked X for his teacher's name, he obfuscated. Later, it became clear that he had received X's school report from Ms Boehler, and that the report listed the name of X's teacher. Mr Ibrohimova had taken a passive approach to this issue, rather than making himself responsible for finding out about X's teacher - a course of action which was within his capacity.
4. Given that Mr Ibrohimova agrees to the children being able to travel internationally for holidays, I am satisfied that they will be exposed to and share in their English heritage and culture (on both sides) whatever parenting order I make. Exposure to their Australian culture will necessarily be very limited if they are to relocate to the United Kingdom, and only travel back to Australia when Y is 10 (which is Mr Ibrohimova's alternate proposal). That is a matter which I take into account.
5. I am very pessimistic that there is any prospect of the parents developing an effective co-parenting relationship, even if Ms Boehler and the children remain living in Australia. I accept the Single Expert's evidence that "[g]iven the extent of the dysfunction and immovable contributing negative factors, there is the likelihood that the coparenting relationship will not improve". This is notwithstanding that both parents gave evidence that they wanted to try and improve things (although without any plan about how this would occur). I do not accept that Ms Boehler is able to take the necessary steps to do more than communicate basic information about the children to Mr Ibrohimova and comply with orders for time and communication. To some extent, that is understandable, given the impact on her of Mr Ibrohimova's behaviour and these proceedings. Having said that, I am critical of even her limited communication with Mr Ibrohimova, as the following interaction demonstrates:

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: All right. You've then sent a further email - and I'm just trying to see the date on that. I think it's - yes, later in the day, later on the same day, being 20 February this year:

PS I'm aware that this is your second partner in a short space of five months. Your last partner claimed to have a very tumultuous relationship with you and perhaps you should consider refraining from exposing the children from any more of these types of relationships for their well-being and sense of stability. Stick to the orders as agreed and please advise when you have hired a solicitor as you indicated during the hearing the past week.

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Do you think that's a reasonable communication to send to [Mr Ibrohimova]?

[Ms Boehler]: I mean, I can see how that would upset him. But I want the orders to be stuck to until other orders are made and I want those orders to be in the best interest of the children.

...

Her Honour: That email clearly goes beyond you simply saying, "Stick to the orders", doesn't it? You're having a go at him, aren't you?

[Ms Boehler]: I am, yes.

Her Honour: I mean, you're the one who's saying you don't want to have any contact with him and yet, having told him your position, you go back again and send him another email about his partner?

[Ms Boehler]: I shouldn't have done.

...

1. And in relation to further email correspondence sent by Ms Boehler to Mr Ibrohimova:

Her Honour: You say there - so you asked the teacher if she can schedule another session; is that your evidence?

[Ms Boehler]: I asked her and she said she could provide the slides. I spoke to the principal about the situation and she said it would - they have to stick to the court orders and they have a copy of those orders, obviously, at the school.

Her Honour: So I'm just looking at the way that you're communicating with the father here. You say:

I've spoken to the school and [X]'s teacher will not be holding another session but she can provide you with the slides.

Her Honour: So you didn't think it would be appropriate to say, "I did ask [X]'s teacher if she could schedule another session for you but she says she can't", or - can you see how that would have been a more effective, less combative way of communicating with Mr?

[Ms Boehler]: I think it's just because we can't communicate. Like, I struggle with communication with him. There's obviously a lot of resentment there and I think, obviously, not in what he has provided to the court, but he has been very volatile in his communications to me and I don't think it has helped.

1. The Single Expert opined that a benefit of the relocation would be that the children would be spared from exposure to ongoing conflict between their parents. She acknowledged in cross-examination by counsel for Ms Boehler that exposure to such conflict is very damaging for children, with potential impacts on their mental health, their cognitive development, their peer relationships and their significant relationships in their adulthood. She opined that those impacts were similar to the impacts from a loss of a relationship with their father. I accept that evidence. I also find it is likely that the children will continue to be exposed to conflict between their parents wherever they live - but to a greater extent if the children remain living in Australia and have regular weekly or fortnightly time with their father.

1. The Single Expert gave evidence that, at the time when she saw the family in February and March 2025, the children's relationships with Mr Ibrohimova were "anxious, ambivalent and thin", having been impacted by "breaches in time, not having spent time with him over significant periods of their early childhood development, their relationships not reinforced positively by [Ms Boehler]". That was in a context where the children had only restarted spending time with him again in November 2024. Since then, there had been regular Saturday time until the commencement of the final hearing. At the final hearing, the Single Expert had read the contact reports and opined that, while it's very difficult to extrapolate a relationship from the reports, "I would say that the trend looks like it's settling, rather than getting worse". The relationships had not turned "in a more negative direction", which she said she might have predicted. She also opined that, in terms of attachment with their father "there is some - some stability which has built in". She described the relationship as "[n]o longer estranged".
2. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that X had gone back to referring to him as "dad" - although not all the time. Mr Ibrohimova gave evidence that there had been improvements in terms of his relationship with X and, although he couldn't confirm what X thinks, changes in terms of X's understanding that Mr Ibrohimova is his father - "[i]t has changed significantly over the last eight months". Y has become much more physical towards him and has started saying she loves him. She wants to be close and affectionate towards him.
3. Tendered by the ICL were contact reports which recorded increasingly happy and loving interactions between the children, D and Mr Ibrohimova. X is recorded as referring to Mr Ibrohimova as "daddy" on 2 August 2025, and both children referred to him as "dad" during a visit on 9 August 2025. Y is recorded as having told Mr Ibrohimova she loved him on several occasions during various visits. X also told his father he loved him.
4. The significant benefit of Mr Ibrohimova's proposal over Ms Boehler's is that it will enable the children to develop and deepen their relationship with him and to benefit from that relationship. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence, whether they live in the United Kingdom or Australia, that Ms Boehler will facilitate and encourage the children's relationship with Mr Ibrohimova more than simply complying with Court orders. The Single Expert opined that Ms Boehler would not support the children's time with Mr Ibrohimova in either location. I am not satisfied that Ms Boehler identifies that the children's relationship with their father is important to them. To some extent that is understandable, given her own experiences with Mr Ibrohimova. In cross examination by counsel for the ICL and in the face of what I infer she knew to be the ICL's concerns about her "breakdown" while giving evidence, she adopted a more conciliatory, future-focused approach, but I am not satisfied that she will genuinely be able to adopt that approach - particularly if she remains anxious, resentful and unsupported. If the children live in Australia they will, however, have more of their own experiences with Mr Ibrohimova, and so are more likely to develop and deepen their own relationships with him.
5. The Single Expert opined that:

There are insurmountable and significant disadvantages to a relocation. Normally, to form and maintain relationships with their parents, children of [X] and [Y]'s age need regular patterns of time in their parents' care across a range of childhood recreational and weekday routines. This cannot be achieved in [Ms Boehler]'s proposal.

Due to their relationship with [Mr Ibrohimova] being further distanced; [X] and [Y] are at risk of psychological developmental harm should they relocate to the UK and spend time with [Mr Ibrohimova] under [Ms Boehler]'s proposal. Any time spent with [Mr Ibrohimova] under [Ms Boehler]'s proposed regime would have lesser chance of being meaningful or supported by [Ms Boehler] than the current context; the children have no positive relationship foundation on which to build, and no longer under the gaze of the Court, it is unlikely to be supported by [Ms Boehler].

1. In the Family Report, the Single Expert opined that the impact of a relocation on the children's relationship with Mr Ibrohimova would likely be estrangement, and that the impacts of estrangement from a parent "are deep and include feelings of loss and abandonment which reemerge at critical developmental stages and impact of further mental health, personality structure, and relationships". The Single Expert opined that regular and unsupervised time would be required to "build on towards a relationship, rather than build on towards the children having an idea who this man is". She opined that the children's relationship with their father is not yet strong enough that it would "withstand" a move to the United Kingdom.
2. Ms Boehler herself has conceded that the children need more time with their father before any relocation. That time has already moved to unsupervised, such that the children will be having more and different experiences with their father. There is time before the proposed relocation in July to extend that time to include overnight time and time that involves collecting the children from school or pre-school. The children will have those memories, and at least some familiarity with spending overnight time with their father, such that overnight time in the United Kingdom will not be completely new for them. The Single Expert opined that, while a longer delay would be preferable, there is still benefit to a delay of six or 12 months. Further, she opined as to the disadvantages of waiting longer:

Single Expert: there is reason, because of the young ages now, that it would be a better time to relocate because of their schooling, their peer relationships and, you know, it's sort of delaying the inevitable, but it means that the relationships with [D] and the father at least have a chance to develop further and consolidate more.

1. I am satisfied, based on Mr Ibrohimova's evidence, that if the children move to the United Kingdom he is likely to spend time with them there twice a year. It is to his credit that he is willing to travel there to spend time with the children. He will be able to maintain communication with them by Facetime or similar. The relationship he will have the children and they with him will necessarily be qualitatively different from the relationship he would have if he was spending even just alternate weekend and some school holiday time with them and was able, for example, to attend school and other like events on a regular basis. That is a significant disadvantage of Ms Boehler's proposal.
2. The likely impact of a relocation on the children's relationship with their father is a very significant matter. It is not, however, the case, as counsel for the ICL suggested to the Single Expert, that "for any child relocating internationally ... the parent intending to relocate would have to be showing the court that they are quite capable of maintaining and supporting a very positive relationship between the children and the other parent at a distance". Such an approach elevates one (very important) factor above all others. It does not recognise the difficulties of any such requirement for a parent who has been subjected to family violence at the hands of another parent. An assessment of all the relevant factors must be engaged in, such that a decision is reached that is overall in the children's best interests. As the Single Expert responded to counsel for the ICL in relation to the ability to support a positive relationship across distance "it's a ... very important factor to take into account".
3. Also significant in this matter is the likely impact on the children's relationships with their sister D if they move to the United Kingdom. I accept the Single Expert's evidence that is a loving and important relationship for the children and that D is a "good role model in her character and emotional regulation, her approach to schoolwork and friendships". The children are likely to see more of D and have a deeper relationship with her if they all remain living in Sydney. However, D is now 16 and likely to be pursuing her own path. She is of an age when she can travel to the United Kingdom easily and even independently, and I am satisfied that if she does so, Ms Boehler will facilitate the children's time with her - as she did in 2022, 2023 and 2024. I am also satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova will take D with him to the United Kingdom on at least some of the occasions when he visits.
4. Ms Boehler's proposal has the advantage that the children will have more opportunities to develop relationships with their maternal and paternal extended families (almost all of those family members live in the United Kingdom), but they are relatively minor matters compared with the limiting impact of the relocation on the children's relationships with Mr Ibrohimova. That is particularly so when Ms Boehler's evidence is that her relationship with her father is strained, she has minimal contact with her brothers, and her sister lives in Country GG (although travels regularly to the United Kingdom).

Mr Ibrohimova's ability to travel to the United Kingdom

1. Mr Ibrohimova was born in the United Kingdom and lived there until 2001. His parents both live there. His brother lives in the United States of America. He is self-employed and can perform some work remotely. I am satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova has travelled regularly to the United Kingdom, and that there are no significant impediments to him travelling twice a year. He has travelled for blocks of up to four weeks in the last five years. He travelled to the United Kingdom to pursue his relationship with Ms Boehler before X was born. He gave evidence that he took D back to visit his parents late in 2024. He gave evidence that, from time to time, his mother needs help and that sometimes he has stayed with her, but that generally he stays in hotels. His evidence about his relationships with his parents was inconsistent. To the Single Expert, he is recorded as having said "his relationships are positive; he loves going back to the UK to see his mother but his father lives in a remote part of the United Kingdom in City HH and they generally do not talk much". In cross-examination by counsel for the ICL, Mr Ibrohimova described his relationship with his mother as "[s]trained", advised that he had not spoken to her "for about six months" , and indicated that it would not be a priority, whilst spending time with the children in the United Kingdom, to take them to visit his mother or his father.

1. Ms Boehler is without family in or near Sydney. She has an uncle in City W, and she and the children stayed with him to avoid homelessness in 2023 in the circumstances which I set out above. She is recorded as having reported to her counsellor Mr BB on 3 May 2023 that the stay was unsuccessful because of tensions with her uncle's partner. Her uncle was given as her emergency contact person on her mental health care plan in January 2024.
2. Mr Ibrohimova, in his own evidence, effectively acknowledged the limited support that Ms Boehler had in Australia during the time they were together:

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you accept that when you say that [Ms Boehler] could no longer cope as a single parent, that the reason for her not being able to cope was at least significantly in part that she had no family here in Australia?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I was her family.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: But apart from you as the family, there were no other families she had, was there?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Not - not blood relative family, but she certainly had support from myself.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: So you say she had support?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: From me, yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: From you?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes. But I'm putting to you that apart from yourself, you would concede that she didn't have any other support, did she?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. I disagree. She had support from quite a few people.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you know the names of those persons?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Well, she had support from my first wife, [Ms F].

...

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: She is one of the witnesses in your case?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: Yes.

...

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: She was willing to help with childcare.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: She will -   

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you concede that the relation between [Ms Boehler] and [Ms F], at least at the present time, is very strained?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: At this present time, yes, but it wasn't always.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: And who else do you say that [Ms Boehler] had support from?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think she has had some friends in the past that she has had support from.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Do you remember their names?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: No. She has also had support from her uncle in [City W].

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: These friends that she had, were these friends that she had when you say you took four months off work?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I think - yes. There was one. I just can't remember the name of that person.

Her Honour: I think you got the concession that he hadn't taken four months off work.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: Yes. Well - sorry. I withdraw that question. During the period when you say that you were effectively working from home ... are you saying that that was when [Ms Boehler] also had some friends, or you can't recall?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: She did have one friend. Yes. I'm pretty sure she went out with him.

Counsel for [Ms Boehler]: All right?

[Mr Ibrohimova]: I'm sorry. I can't recall specifically what it was.

1. Mr BB refers to the fact that appointments with him were arranged so that his secretary/PA was available part of the time to care for the children. Ms Boehler conceded that there were occasions where she had needed to take the children into counselling appointments with her because she simply had no one else to look after them. When asked by counsel for the ICL about the appropriateness of this, she responded "I agree it's inappropriate, but at the same time, I also couldn't - I can't see how else I could have gotten that support, so I'm in-between a rock and a hard place when I make that assessment". On one of the days of the final hearing, Y and X were sick and the only person Ms Boehler felt able to call on to care for them was Ms J's daughter - a person who she had never met. She gave evidence that she is unable to rely on her "mum friends" for more than occasional support.
2. Tendered in the ICL's case were a number of "character references" which Ms Boehler had obtained for the purposes of the proceedings which attested positively to her parenting. I conclude Ms Boehler has some friends who she has made through the children's school and pre-school. I accept her evidence that she could not call upon them for regular and reliable support in the care of the children and that she has no one else in Sydney who can provide such support.
3. I am satisfied that Ms Boehler will have good support from her mother in the United Kingdom. Ms K was present in Australia for part of the final hearing, and while Ms Boehler was at Court, assisted her in the care of the children.
4. A finding was sought that I could not be confident in that support in the United Kingdom because Ms Boehler was recorded as having previously told people about difficulties she had experienced with her mother and that her mother had not been of much assistance during two trips she made to Australia - first, at Christmas 2019 and then again in 2022. Tendered in Mr Ibrohimova's case was a General Practitioner's record from 16 April 2020 in relation to Ms Boehler, which records "patient's mum came over at [C]hristmas, patient feels she had to entertain her and she didn't really help much with looking after [X]". Ms Boehler is also recorded, however, as stating "she would have more support from family back at home". A record of a consultation with her therapist Mr BB on 26 October 2022 refers to an upcoming visit from Ms K and records "[d]oes not expect any real help from mother in caring for the children and seems to believe mother will be involved more with sightseeing. Spoke of an earlier visit where [Ms Boehler] was expected to provide economically for mother while she was here". With respect to a subsequent consultation on 31 January 2023, Mr BB records: "[t]he visit by [Ms Boehler]'s mother had been cut short because the children contracted Covid. [Ms Boehler] also believes that mother was overwhelmed by the activity of the children and spent much time away from the accommodation by herself walking around Sydney". Ms Boehler was also critical of her mother at an appointment with Mr BB on 1 November 2023. On that occasion, she had sought an emergency interview and was very distressed following the suicide of her mother's former partner. She denied that she had described her mother by reference to narcissism and said that had been a conclusion reached by Mr BB. She is recorded as having said she "no longer feels she can trust her mother or respect her as a supportive person in her life" and "[i]t has also made her review her thoughts about any value in returning to [the United Kingdom] as she believes both of her parents are unavailable to support her emotionally or to care about the children".
5. It is recorded that Ms Boehler told her counsellor in May 2023 that her mother had intervened with Ms Boehler's grandmother to try to secure financial support for Ms Boehler and the children so that they could return to Sydney after their stay in City W.
6. Family relationships almost inevitably have their ups and downs, and counselling can be an opportunity to express disappointments with family members, particularly at times of distress. On each of the occasions recorded above, Ms Boehler was in distress and on 1 November 2023 she is recorded as "very distressed". There is no record after November 2023 of any difficulties between Ms Boehler and her mother in evidence, and there is a positive record in May 2023.
7. I am satisfied from the evidence of Ms K and of Ms Boehler herself that Ms K will provide family support - including by making her home, where she currently lives alone, available to Ms Boehler and the children and by assisting Ms Boehler with childcare. I am satisfied, based on the evidence of Ms K, that the home has recently been extended and has four bedrooms.
8. The Single Expert opined, albeit with the caveat that "we can't crystal ball gaze", that "there would be an opportunity for a restart for [Ms Boehler] to be able to care for the children with the support she is seeking". The Single Expert was less confident than am I that the support would probably last beyond an initial phase - but I have had the opportunity of reviewing the relevant documents and seeing Ms Boehler and Ms K give evidence.

1. I reject the submission made by counsel for Mr Ibrohimova that Ms Boehler has deliberately avoided obtaining work and/or studying to advance her case in these proceedings. The evidence simply does not support such a finding. Ms Boehler abandoned her law studies in the United Kingdom to move to Australia so that she could live with Mr Ibrohimova and in circumstances where she was pregnant with X. She had only completed one year of that study. She has not engaged in paid work of any significance. She attempted an online real estate course, but discontinued it. She commenced a position as an assistant property manager, but that work required full-time hours, and she stopped that work after a few months. I accept her evidence that:

I often would not return to [Suburb O] until 5:30 p.m., by which time I was immediately stretched attending to the children - preparing dinner, washing clothes, general housework, unpacking bags, bathing them, reading to them and settling them to sleep. This schedule left me physically and emotionally depleted, unable to function at full capacity as a parent. Despite receiving a childcare subsidy and earning $30 per hour, my take-home income after covering childcare costs was approximately $50 per day.

1. It was reasonable for Ms Boehler not to persist with that work. X and Y are very young. Y is not yet in primary school and is attending pre-school. She may or may not commence formal schooling next year. Ms Boehler has no family to support her in Sydney. She has what she describes as "mum friends", but I accept her evidence that she cannot rely upon them to help her with the children on more than the occasional and ad hoc basis. She has been dealing with the aftermath of separation, recovery from the relationship and these proceedings. It is hard to see how she would have juggled return to work and study alongside those things. Rather, it is to her credit that she has prioritised caring for X and Y. Nonetheless, Mr Ibrohimova could not accept even that it would be difficult for Ms Boehler to work full-time given she has care of the children. I accept her evidence that:

I do not have recognised qualifications or employment history in Australia. My incomplete studies and minimal work experience are predominantly based in the UK. I am unable to study or retrain in Australia due to lack of childcare and support, and my ability to generate income is severely limited - especially within school hours. I rely on the diminishing proceeds of the property settlement to meet basic living costs, which are no longer sustainable. Relocation to the UK would allow me to recommence study and access secure work with family support, ensuring a financially stable environment for the children.

1. I am satisfied that a return to work and/or study would be difficult for Ms Boehler while she is living in Sydney, even when both children are in primary school. I accept that those things will be a lot easier for her in the United Kingdom - particularly while she is living with her mother. That will have obvious benefits for the children, including because their mother will be role modelling further education and workforce participation and because their mother will be more financially secure and happier. The Single Expert qualified her evidence under cross examination which had been "I've said if she's safe here, then stay; if she's not, go". When I asked whether that was an overly simplistic approach she agreed:

it is truly complicated and that's distilling this very complicated situation down to almost an irrelevant comment, I agree. The ideal, though, is Mum to feel - I mean it does boil down to Mum feeling she has got the finances and support here ... [and] feels safe.

1. It was troubling that Mr Ibrohimova agreed with the proposition put to him by counsel for Ms Boehler that it was his belief that the reason Ms Boehler is persevering with these proceedings is "all about her wanting to get more money from you". He is recorded as having told the Single Expert "[Ms Boehler]'s proposal is about getting money from him". He is recorded as having "reiterated numerous times that he thinks Ms Boehler may have raised the idea of relocating with the children as a strategy related to property proceedings ...". The property proceedings had well and truly settled by the time of the interviews, although presumably there may have been some negotiations about child support. Inevitably, Ms Boehler's decisions about where to live are affected in part by what is affordable, and what is affordable is affected by the cost of living (including housing) in the place where Mr Ibrohimova seeks that she lives, her ability to train for and obtain sufficiently remunerative work, the amount of child support that she receives, and the extent of her cash reserves.
2. Ms Boehler received a cash payment from the property settlement and her Financial Statement filed for the purposes of the final hearing disclosed that she has about $230,000 remaining of those settlement funds. However, with her only income being modest Centrelink benefits (which are presumably affected by the fact that she has cash) and child support, the financial needs of her and the children exceed her income by a substantial amount. She was challenged about whether she needed to live in the suburb where she currently lives and where she pays $750 a week for a two-bedroom apartment. She answered as follows:

[Ms Boehler]: It depends on what you're looking for. So where I am is a two bedroom apartment and it's 750 a week. This is actually standard across pretty much all suburbs in Sydney, except maybe the inner west. But from where I've done my research, if I look at areas like [Suburb T], even less desirable areas like where I was residing in [Suburb FF], like, I've looked at - like, I haven't looked at them, but online when I've seen their listings come up, they're charging a similar rate. So if I can put my children in a nicer neighbourhood for more or less the same cost, then I will

...

Counsel for [Mr Ibrohimova]: Do you accept you could have gotten a three bedroom apartment in a perhaps less desirable area, as you say, like [Suburb FF]?

[Ms Boehler]: When I looked at the apartments that I stayed in in [Suburb FF], they're now a similar rate to what I'm paying for where I am in [Suburb O]. So I think - and I don't know the exact cost of a three bedder in [Suburb FF], but I know that generally, if I'm looking at averages, it would be - it's over 1000 a week generally.

1. I accept Ms Boehler's evidence in relation to these matters. I take judicial notice of the fact that Sydney is the most expensive city in Australia and one of the more expensive cities in the world to live in.
2. I am satisfied that, rather than being motivated to obtain more money from Mr Ibrohimova as he claims, Ms Boehler is desperate to return to the United Kingdom and genuinely believes that such a move is in the children's best interests. One of the reasons that she is so desperate to move is that Sydney is such an expensive city to live in.

1. I am satisfied that it is in X's and Y's best interests that they live with their mother in the United Kingdom rather than in Sydney. I accept the Single Expert's opinion that "[Ms Boehler] has been the children's primary carer, a source of stability and fundamental to their psychological wellbeing. The children will benefit from arrangements that support their primary relationship with her", and that the impact on Ms Boehler of orders in accordance with Mr Ibrohimova's proposal:

would be financial and psychological and to [Ms Boehler]'s detriment without the security and support she seeks in the UK. The children's relationship with [Ms Boehler] would be affected by this. Anxiety transmits and the children would be at risk of developing anxiety intergenerationally.

As I have indicated, I accept that a move back to the United Kingdom will provide Ms Boehler with a better psychological foundation for her parenting.

1. I am satisfied that, if Ms Boehler is required to remain living in Sydney, she would continue to experience considerable anxiety, distress, resentment and unhappiness, and that these things will make her a less effective parent than she otherwise would be. She is unlikely to be able to afford to return to university study, given the costs of living in Sydney and the lack of unpaid childcare available to her. She would need to rely on her modest savings for accommodation and other living costs and those of the children which exceed what Mr Ibrohimova pays in child support. Given my concerns about Mr Ibrohimova's parenting capacity and the parties' non-existent co-parenting relationship, and in circumstances where I am very pessimistic about the likelihood of that relationship improving, I would not make orders for the children to spend more than every other weekend with Mr Ibrohimova during school terms after a period of adjustment, and so there would be limited respite for Ms Boehler. If Ms Boehler is living in the United Kingdom, those negative emotions are likely to alleviate. She will have the support of her mother, a secure place to live, and will be in a better position to return to university study and/or obtain paid employment. I am satisfied she will access the appropriate support for her mental health and that the prospects of her mental health improving are greater on her proposal.
2. I have carefully weighed against these factors the negative impact of a relocation on the children's relationships with Mr Ibrohimova and D and on the benefits which the children can get from those relationships. The children will be able to see Mr Ibrohimova and D during school holidays - realistically, that is likely to be only twice a year. The children will be able to communicate with Mr Ibrohimova and D, and Mr Ibrohimova will be at liberty to send them letters and parcels and the like. The relationship X and Y will have with their father and D will be significantly diminished from what it would otherwise be, but that negative impact for the children is outweighed by the benefit of the parent who will be their primary carer no matter where they live being in a better state and better supported to parent them well. The children will also be spared what I find would be the likely ongoing conflict between the parents and anxiety in their mother which would arise in circumstances where they were spending each alternate weekend and holiday time with their father.
3. I have also taken into account my findings about Mr Ibrohimova's parenting capacity; while the loss of every other weekend and school holiday time with Mr Ibrohimova is a significant one for the children, it is not as great a loss as it would have been if I was satisfied that Mr Ibrohimova had good parenting capacity, that the children would benefit from spending much more significant time with him and that Ms Boehler and Mr Ibrohimova would eventually develop an appropriate co-parenting relationship.
4. There is likely benefit to the children's relationship with their father and D that the relocation be delayed until July 2026. That will give the children the opportunity to spend unsupervised and more extended time than they have so far with their father and D prior to that relocation. Ms Boehler has accepted that a delay until July 2026 is appropriate. That will also have the benefit that X (and Y, if she has started formal schooling), will be able to complete two school terms and commence the new school year in the United Kingdom in September. Mr Ibrohimova will have the opportunity to share in their schooling during the next two school terms.
5. To her credit, Ms Boehler consented to an order that, if the children are to live with her in the United Kingdom, the orders of this Court should be registered there. Ms Boehler will be required to register these orders in the United Kingdom prior to her departure, to pay for that registration, and to provide Mr Ibrohimova with evidence of that registration. This will ensure that the orders are able to be enforced in the United Kingdom. While I am confident that Ms Boehler will comply with orders of this Court, registration will provide an additional safeguard and reassurance for Mr Ibrohimova. I am satisfied that putting the entire responsibility on Ms Boehler is in the children's best interests because it will avoid the need for interactions between her and Mr Ibrohimova in relation to contribution towards the costs of registration and likely associated disputes. I am also conscious that Mr Ibrohimova will bear the sole cost of travel to the United Kingdom to spend time with the children.
6. The children's time with Mr Ibrohimova has now been unsupervised and on each Saturday since September. It should be immediately extended to give the children a full day (9.00 am to 5.00 pm) with him. The Single Expert recommended in the Family Report that overnight time not start until Y is six and no one asked her about the ICL's subsequent proposal that overnight time start immediately. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that, given the relocation is permitted from July 2026, overnight time should start in mid-January 2026 (when Y is nearly five), so that the children will have the benefit of overnight time with their father to consolidate their relationship with him and build some memories prior to their relocation. This overnight time should start before the commencement of the new school year, and be at one overnight a fortnight, with additional time after school on Thursday in the "off week" and move to two overnights a fortnight at the conclusion of Term 1 2026. The children will also benefit from experiencing a Christmas with Mr Ibrohimova and D, and the orders provide for that to occur this year from 3.00 pm on Christmas Day until 3.00 pm on Boxing Day - which will be their first overnight with their father and is likely to be a very positive and memory-creating experience for everyone. The Single Expert opined in cross-examination that there is a case for making any such delay very much longer - even until the children are in middle primary school, but I am not satisfied that such a long delay is in the children's best interests in part because I agree with the Single Expert that there are disadvantages to waiting so long.
7. I have not made the progression of the children's time with Mr Ibrohimova contingent upon him completing a Men's Behavioural Change program, as Ms Boehler sought. While I accept the Single Expert's evidence that such a program is likely to be of benefit to Mr Ibrohimova, I am satisfied that the children are safe in his care and that there is no unacceptable risk to be ameliorated by attendance at such a program. Final orders which are made contingent upon completion of a program can lead to significant difficulties because entry into the program may not be within the control of the relevant parent. Further, it is impossible to be satisfied that a parent will have learnt anything of relevance, much less changed their behaviour, without the opportunity of hearing their subsequent evidence.
8. I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests that they have time with Mr Ibrohimova in the United Kingdom as he proposes - initially in three-night blocks and then (when Y is 10) in six-night blocks. His proposal is sensible, child focused and to his credit. Mr Ibrohimova seeks that time in Australia commence when Y is 10. It is difficult to predict so far ahead whether Y will be ready for international travel and significant time away from her mother at that time. I am confident, however, that, if Ms Boehler believes that X and/or Y will not cope without her, she will travel with the children to Australia. In that event, the children's time with their father should be broken up on the first occasion. On future occasions, he should be able to take them away for a two-week holiday. It is also important that the children have good familiarity with spending time with their father in the United Kingdom before they travel to Australia to spend time with him here. For that reason, rather than a prior three visits being a requirement for such travel (which was Mr Ibrohimova's proposal), I have ordered that there must have been five. It is reasonable that, once time starts in Australia, Ms Boehler contributes to the costs of travel which, until then, Mr Ibrohimova will bear alone.
9. The children should have the benefit of regular electronic communication with Mr Ibrohimova and D, and the orders provide for that, and for Ms Boehler to keep Mr Ibrohimova updated with a telephone number on which he can contact the children.
10. The ICL sought an order that the parents communicate through a parenting App, but I have no evidence about the benefits of the use of such an App, and am not prepared to assume such benefits. It will assist Ms Boehler in her communication with Mr Ibrohimova if she is able to nominate the (electronic) means by which they should communicate, and I have made that order.
11. The ICL and Mr Ibrohimova also sought an order that Ms Boehler provide her residential address in the United Kingdom to Mr Ibrohimova prior to the relocation. Both Ms Boehler and Ms K (with whom Ms Boehler and the children will live at least at first), gave evidence that they did not want their addresses disclosed. I am not satisfied that children's best interests require that those details be provided. Under the orders which I am making in respect of parental responsibility, Mr Ibrohimova will be kept informed by Ms Boehler of the school the children attend, and so will know the general area in which they are. Ms Boehler will be required to nominate a changeover location which is within 30 minutes' drive of the children's home. Ms Boehler will also be required to provide a postal address to which Mr Ibrohimova may send parcels and letters for the children.
12. I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests that, as both parents seek, Ms Boehler has sole parental responsibility for them. She will be required, however, to keep Mr Ibrohimova informed about decisions in relation to major long-term issues for them and to consider his input if he gives it in a timely fashion. That will ensure that he has visibility into the children's lives, which will help him to have conversations with them. It will also ensure that he has the opportunity to express a view about major decisions. I expect that Ms Boehler will find this kind of communication with Mr Ibrohimova easier when she is at a distance from him. She will be required to authorise the children's schools and any medical practitioners upon whom the children attend to provide information to, and discuss issues pertaining to the children with, Mr Ibrohimova directly.
13. To his credit, Mr Ibrohimova consented to X's name being changed so that it includes both parents' surnames - as Y's does. I have made orders to enable that to occur at Ms Boehler's cost.
14. I have decided not to require the parents to contribute to the ICL's costs. I did not receive any substantive submissions as to why I should do so - but was merely told that ICL is bound to make a costs application. While legal aid resources are finite public resources, and parents who privately fund their own legal expenses should usually contribute to the recovery of those resources, the parents in this matter are facing the great expense of international travel and, for Ms Boehler, an international relocation. Ms Boehler has no income apart from social security and she will also have the costs of registering the orders overseas, as well as costs associated with changing X's name. There is a real prospect that relieving Mr Ibrohimova from an obligation to contribute to the ICL's costs will enable him and D to travel to the United Kingdom sooner, and more often. That will be in the children's best interests, and is a matter I consider pursuant to s 114UB(3)(g) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and four (204) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens.