Jones v Dunkel

(a) A fully completed financial statement; and

(b) Written submissions in relation to the questions of penalty and costs.

1. By 4:00pm 6 June the Mother will make, file, and serve a fully completed financial statement and any written submission in relation to the question of penalty and/or costs.

1. The Court has referred the Mother to, and will provide the Mother with a copy, of section 70NCA and section 70NBF of the Family law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. The Father's time is scheduled to occur as per the orders, on 16 May 2025 and 31 May 2025.

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

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

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

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

1. This is a Contravention Application filed by Mr Carrick ('the Father') on 8 November 2024 against Ms Lambert ('the Mother'). The application concerns X born in 2019 ('X').

1. The Contravention Application alleged breaches of Order 5(a) of parenting Orders made 30 July 2024 ('the Orders'), which are extracted below:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All extant parenting orders are discharged.

2. [Ms Lambert] ('the Mother') have sole parental responsibility for the child [X] born [in] 2019 ('the child').

3. In exercising sole parental responsibility in accordance with Order 2, the Mother shall:

(a) inform [Mr Carrick] ('the Father') of any of any long term decision regarding any major long term issues relating to the child that require a decision and invite the Father to provide her with any views he has in relation to such decision for the child within seven (7) days of receiving a written request from the Mother to do so; and

(b) consider the Father's views; and then

(c) inform the Father of any decision made by her within seven (7) days of such a decision being made.

4. The child live with the Mother.

5. Commencing 2 August 2024 (unless an alternative starting date is agreed in writing) the child spend time with the Father as follows:

(a) On a semi supervised basis on four (4) occasions each alternate Friday from 2:45 pm until 4:15 pm, with the first and last 15 minutes of each period to take place at the [B] Children's Contact Service;

(b) thereafter for four (4) occasions each alternate Saturday from 10:00 am until 4:30 pm;

(c) thereafter for four (4) occasions each alternate weekend from 10:00 am Saturday until 4:30 pm Sunday;

(d) thereafter, until the child commences full-time school, each alternate weekend from 4:30 pm Friday until 4:30 pm Sunday.

(e) From when the child commences full-time school, each alternate weekend from 4:30 pm Friday until the commencement of the school day on the following Monday, (extended to begin on Thursday at 4.30 pm or conclude on Tuesday at 9:00 am if the Friday or Monday is a public holiday or non-school day);

(f) upon the child commencing time pursuant to order 5(d), during each gazetted school holiday period, the Father's time as set out in order 5(d) is extended to conclude at 4:30 pm the following Wednesday; and

(g) upon the child commencing full-time school, for each of the child's gazetted school holidays as follows:

(i) for one week in the first, second and third term gazetted school holidays, with the time to commence on the Friday at 4:30 pm of the week the Father would otherwise spend with the child pursuant to Order 5(e), and conclude on the following Friday at 4:30 pm;

(ii) for one half of the gazetted summer school holidays, on a week on/week off basis (Friday 4:30 pm until the following Friday 4:30 pm), commencing on the Friday of the week the Father would otherwise spend with the child pursuant to Order 5(e).

6. Notwithstanding any other Order, the Mother and Father shall spend time with the child on special occasions as follows:

Christmas

(a) with the Mother from 3:00 pm on Christmas Eve until 3:00 pm on Christmas Day and with the Father from 3:00 pm Christmas Day until 3:00 pm Boxing Day, in each even calendar year; and

(b) with the Father from 3:00 pm on Christmas Eve until 3:00 pm on Christmas Day and with the Mother from 3:00 pm on Christmas Day until 3:00 pm on Boxing Day in each odd calendar year;

(c) with the Mother from 3:00 pm Easter Thursday until 3:00 pm Easter Sunday and with the Father from 3:00 pm Easter Sunday until 3:00 pm Easter Tuesday in each even calendar year and

(d) with the Father from 3:00 pm Easter Thursday until 3:00 pm Easter Sunday and with the Mother from 3:00 pm Easter Sunday until 3:00 pm Easter Tuesday in each odd calendar year;

(e) for Father's Day with the Father from 4:30 pm on the day preceding Father's Day to 4:30 pm on Father's day;

(f) for Mother's Day with the Mother from 4:30 pm on the day preceding Mother's Day to 4:30 pm on Mother's day;

(g) on the child's birthday the parent with whom she is not living with at the time shall spend time with her:

(i) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, if on a school day; or

(ii) from 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm if on non-school day.

7. The Father's time be suspended on [C] and [D]'s birthdays from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm if such birthdays fall on a weekend that the child is in the Father's care.

8. All changeovers be conducted at the [B] Children's Contact Service (unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents).

9. Each of the parents enrol in and complete the [E Program] or similar program within six (6) months of the date of these Orders.

10. The Father complete the Circle of Security program or similar within 6 months of the date of these Orders.

11.Within 28 days of the date of this Order, unless another form of written communication is agreed between the parties, both parties must do all things to sign up to the Our Family Wizard App and, pay one half the cost of the annual subscription each, as and when it falls due.

12. The Mother and Father exchange all communication relating to the child via the 'Our Family Wizard App' or such other parenting communication method as may be agreed between the parties in writing, save for in the circumstances of an emergency.

13. For the purpose of communicating information between the parties, the parties shall communicate with each other in a respectful and courteous manner.

14. Each party refrain from:

(a) making critical and derogatory remarks in relation to the other party in the presence of/or hearing of the child and that each party shall do all things necessary to ensure that no third party makes any such critical or derogatory remarks about the other parties in the presence of/or hearing of the child; and

(b) Discussing the proceedings, or any issues arising out of these proceedings, with the child or permitting any third party to do so.

(a) Exposing the child to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the child, the Mother, the Father or any other member of either party's household; and

(b) Physically disciplining the child.

16. All extant applications are dismissed.[1]

(Emphasis added)

1. Prior to the hearing, the Father had not spent time with X since 30 August 2024.

1. The Father relied upon his Application for Contravention filed 8 November 2024, a supporting affidavit filed the same day, and documents received on subpoenaed from S Service, exhibited as 'F1'.
2. The Father was not cross-examined as both parties were precluded from personally doing so by virtue of a section 102NA order made on 22 November 2024.

1. The Mother, representing herself, relied upon an affidavit filed 5 March 2025 and an extract of notes from a file subpoenaed from S Service, exhibited as 'M1'. The Mother was cross-examined by the Father's Counsel, Mr Petersen, giving her evidence, as with her submissions, in a calm and articulate way. The Mother accepted that she failed to comply with the Orders on all the alleged occasions, but maintained, for each, that she had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the Orders.

1. The Application is to be determined by reference to Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth),. The meaning of 'contravene' is set out in section 70NAC of the Act as follows:

(1) A person contravenes a child - related order only if:

(a) the person is a person (other than a child) to whom the order applies and:

(i) the person intentionally fails to comply with the order; or

(ii) the person makes no reasonable attempt to comply with the order; or

(b) the person is not a person to whom the order applies, and the person is not a child, but:

(i) the person intentionally prevents compliance with the order by a person to whom the order applies; or

(ii) the person aids or abets a contravention of the order by a person to whom the order applies.

1. The table accompanying this section refers to circumstances where a person contravenes a child-related order including a person who 'hinders or prevents another person from spending time with the child in accordance with the order'.
2. Judge Riethmuller (as he then was), in In TVT & TLM,[2] considered the principles that have arisen from the case law in relation to the question of what it means to comply with an order:

Whether the steps taken are a 'reasonable attempt to comply' with a children's contact Order will ultimately depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, it is accepted that the residence parent has a duty to ensure that the child not only attends, but does so in a positive manner. The way that the obligation has been expressed in different cases throws further light on the extent of the obligation:

(a) The residence parent must actively encourage the child to attend contact as ordered;

(b) 'The courts have been careful to consider whether in reality, not just on the face of things, the person has taken reasonable steps to deliver the child: O'Brien & O'Brien [1992] FamCA 52; (1993) FLC 92-396 at [13];

(c) It is not open to the custodial parent to do no more than bring the child to the front entrance and invite it to walk of its own accord to the access parent at the garden gate, and to argue that if the child refuses, all her obligations are satisfied by merely standing, as I put it, with folded arms behind the child, doing nothing either to encourage the child to walk to the father or to discourage the child from remaining on the doorstep ... Stevenson v Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; (1993) FLC 92-363;

(d) Similarly, a mere request that the child telephone, or come to the telephone, is insufficient; Once an Order for contact has been made, it is 'no longer a case of saying to the child: you go if you want to, if you wish to go you go, or you make up your own mind': see O'Brien & O'Brien (supra);

(f) A residence parent ought to make 'a child understand that it was the [residence] attitude that the child had to go [on contact]': see O'Brien & O'Brien (supra);

(g) The residence parent is expected to bring to bear all the authority that they have over a child, just as they would to ensure the child attends school: See P & P [2002] FMCAfam 315 (Unrep) at [14].

(h) It must be noted that 'an invitation can be designed to persuade the child that this is something which the mother encourages or approves of, or it can be stated in a tone or a manner which of its own suggests that this is your obligation under the Order but mummy really does not mind if you say no.' Such an invitation is insufficient: see Stevenson v Hughes (supra);

(i) It is not sufficient to make a token effort that compliance by the utterance of a few phrases which, in the main, are designed to impart to the child not positive encouragement to go on access, but to convey the burden on both the child and the custodian of compliance with the obligation': see Stevenson v Hughes (supra) at [6];

(j) 'It is not sufficient discharge of a custodian's obligations, express or implied, to point to words and actions and to say, in effect: 'You see, I tried. But the child does not want to go.' And thereafter to figuratively fold their arms as if that were an end of the matter': Stevenson v Hughes (supra) at [6]; and

(k) The residence parent is 'not entitled to treat the other party as an enemy who are to be thwarted wherever possible either by active steps or positive resistance': Stevenson v Hughes (supra) at [8].

1. If I am satisfied that the Mother contravened an order, either intentionally or by making no reasonable attempt to comply, I must then consider whether she has a reasonable excuse for the contravention. The Mother bears the burden of establishing she has a reasonable excuse.
2. Pursuant to s 70NAD(1) and (2) of the Act a respondent to a Contravention Application will be taken to have a reasonable excuse if they did not understand the obligations imposed by the order, and if the Court is otherwise satisfied the respondent ought to be excused. Here, the Mother accepted that she did understand the obligations set out in the Orders.
3. Subsection 70NAD(3) of the Act provides that in relation to an order for a child to spend time with the other parent that has been contravened, a respondent will have a reasonable excuse if:

(a) the person contravened the order because the person reasonably believed that the person's actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, a child or any other person; and

(b) the period of the contravention was not longer than necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, child or other person.

This section does not limit the circumstances in which a person may have a reasonable excuse for contravening a child - related order.

1. Carter J helpfully further explained the approach in Fermikis & Fermikis [2024] FedCFamC1F 879:

Accordingly, it is not a question of whether the respondent was of the view that the carrying out of the order was not in the child's best interests. Rather, the Court must be satisfied that the respondent believed it was necessary to protect the health or safety of someone, and that belief must be reasonable. Otherwise, the Mother must establish some other basis upon which she ought to be excused.

There will, of course, be cases where a child is so distressed that it would not be unreasonable for time to not occur. As observed by Riethmuller J in Stamp at [24] the distress of a child, "May give rise to a claim of reasonable excuse, if it results in risk of harm to the child's emotional wellbeing." I agree with his Honour's observations in that case and in TVT & TLM [2006] FMCAfam 20 at [40], that the circumstances in which a child's distress might amount to a reasonable excuse are likely to be rare unless there has been something untoward that has occurred between the making of the orders for time and the non-compliance with those orders. If otherwise, per Stamp at [24] non-compliance;

...would simply be a flagrant challenge to the findings of the Court when making the contact orders as the original orders must have been found by the Court to be appropriate parenting orders at the time they were made;[3]

(Emphasis added)

1. The authorities also confirm that contravention proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature,[4] that a contravention must be precisely stated and proved,[5] and that procedural requirements should be strictly complied with and not lightly departed from,[6] and prejudice to the respondent must be avoided.[7]

1. The Father alleged four contraventions of the Orders made 30 June 2024.

Date, time, and location of the allege act or omission

The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, prevented the child X from spending time with the Applicant

Order 5(a) made by Judge Turnbull in LNC57 of 2021 made 30 July 2024

13 September 2024 at 2.45pm; Region GG Children's Contact Service, S Service, HH Street, City JJ, TAS

1. Count one related to the Mother's admitted breach of Order 5(a) on 13 September 2024. This was the visit that was supposed to occur after the visit on 30 August 2024. By any measure, the August visit was highly successful as confirmed by the notes from the B Children's Contact Service,[8] which a loving engaging and highly appropriate interaction between X and her father was described.
2. The Mother complained that X told her, after the visit, that she had a 'secret' - inferring that the Father had told her to keep a secret:

8.[X] saw [Mr Carrick] on 30 August 2024. After the visit I noticed that [X] was again angry and aggressive, and she was later clingy to me and to my husband**. After the visit I asked how the time was, and [X]** said, "it's a secret". We were driving back from the contact centre at the time with my husband. I was worried about this comment, but I thought I would wait and see if [X] told me more later that day. I did not want to put her under pressure.

9. That night there were storms, and [X] came and got into bed with me because she was frightened. My husband was at work on night shift. [X] seemed stressed and I asked what was going on. She said it was a secret. I said, "secrets are not safe". She said she didn't know what to tell me because she didn't want to get [Mr Carrick] in trouble. She said, "[Mr Carrick] told me it is a secret and that if I kept the secret next time, he would buy me any lolly or toy I wanted".

10. We do not keep secrets in our family, and I have always said to my kids that "safe adults do not ask kids to keep secrets". I have further enrolled the children in workshops ran by [O Centre] facilitated through their school in order to educate them around help seeking behaviour and safety. Additionally, I contacted [KK Centre] to make them aware of the situation, and the three children, namely, [C], [D] and [X] are on the waiting list to be seen by [O Centre].

11 . [X] was due to spend time again with [Mr Carrick] on 13 September 2024. [X] was sick and I took her to the doctor, and I communicated this to the Contact Centre, and they communicated it to [Mr Carrick].

...

13. I understand that [Mr Carrick] is saying that he did tell [X] to keep a secret but that the secret was that they were going to McDonalds. I do not accept that. I do not understand why [Mr Carrick] would keep McDonald's a secret. [X] eats McDonalds, including with [Mr Carrick]. When he was seeing her at the Contact Centre he was taking her McDonalds. It is not something that he would need to be secretive about nor have I ever expressed any concerns about her having fast food.

14. Priming a child to keep secrets from another parent has disastrous longitudinal outcomes to a child's mental, emotional and developmental wellbeing. It constitutes coercive control and family and domestic violence. It further constitutes parental alienation and inhibits a child's ability to seek help. It can additionally create feelings of isolation, anxiety, and forces a child to betray one parent over another which can result in feeling of guilt. I am concerned that this behaviour has caused damage to [X]'s relationship with her father and caused her to feel scared to be in his care.

15. My daughter, [C], has progressively declined since contact resumed. Her night terrors have escalated, and she is unable to sleep in her own bed. She has been diagnosed with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by [Ms LL] from [MM Clinic] as a result of the child abuse [Mr Carrick] inflicted against her. She has also since been attending the Paediatric clinic through the hospital and has further expressed suicidal ideation. This is concerning to me as a parent, and I fear that contact being reinstated will further contribute to her decline.[9]

(Emphasis added)

1. The Contact Centre notes of that visit made it made it clear that the so-called 'secret' was X asking the Father not to tell the Mother that she had eaten McDonald's on that day. This was a request from X and not orchestrated by the Father. Further, it was not hidden as the eating of the food purchased from McDonald's occurred at the Contact Centre in plain sight. There was absolutely no evidence supporting the Mother's allegation that the Father told or even intimated that X should keep 'secrets'. There was no concern raised by staff at the Centre. As such, the Mother had no justification for breaching the Order for one week, let alone continuously.
2. The Mother also raised as a defence, that on 13 September 2024 X was too ill to attend the Centre for time with the Father. The notes from the Contact Centre on that day confirm that she did contact the Centre on the Thursday prior to the visit and again on the Monday, indicating that X was ill, and claiming that she possessed a medical certificate.
3. The Mother did not, however, produce any objective evidence to support her claim that X was too unwell to attend. Given the serious consequences for not complying with a court order, the Mother needed to provide proof that the child as too unwell to attend.
4. The Mother had every opportunity to bring evidence confirming X's illness before the Court, hinting during exchanges at the hearing, that X was taken to a doctor at that time. I infer that the medical evidence, if it existed, would not have assisted the Mother's case.[10] I find that it is more likely than not that the motivation for X's non-attendance was not illness, but rather the Mother's misplaced concern regarding the 'secret'.
5. I am not satisfied that the Mother made a reasonable attempt to comply with the Orders, nor were the excuses proffered by the Mother necessary to protect the health or safety of X. As such, I do not accept that the Mother had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the Order 5(a) of the Orders on 13 September 2024. Count one is proved.

Date, time, and location of the allege act or omission

The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, prevented the child X from spending time with the Applicant

Order 5(a) made by Judge Turnbull in LNC57 of 2021 made 30 July 2024

27 September 2024 at 2.45pm; Region GG Children's Contact Service, S Service, HH Street, City JJ, TAS

1. Count 2 related to an accepted breach of Order 5(a) on 27 September 2024.
2. The Mother stated that her reasonable excuse for breaching the order was because X refused to go. The Mother stated in her affidavit:

12. [X] was next due to spend time with [Mr Carrick] on 27 September 2024, but she refused to go. She told me that her dad would be angry and that she would be in trouble**. I tried my best to encourage and support her. I said she would have fun and that her dad wouldn't be mad. I was liaising with staff at the contact centre at the time. I told them what had been happening and that [X] was refusing to go. They suggested encouraging her and telling her that it was safe, and she would have a good time. I adopted those recommendations, and I worked hard to encourage her to go. It did not work.[11]**

(Emphasis added)

1. The Contact Centre notes from 27 September 2024, confirmed that the Mother did contact the Contact Centre and initially advised that X was too unwell to attend, claiming she would take X to the doctor. In a subsequent call, the Mother said that in addition to having a 'tummy bug' X was too 'scared' to see the Father. Curiously the note goes onto to state - [Ms Lambert] went on to inform sup that after [X]'s last visit [X] was talking about secrets she had [Ms Lambert] stated "[X] been questioned by police about this and doesn't know why [Mr Carrick] would be asking [X] to keep secrets."
2. The notes did not corroborate the Mother's claim that the staff at the Centre advised her as to how she could encourage X to attend. Further, the Mother did not take X to the Centre and ask for assistance from the staff to transition X into the Father's care. If that had occurred, the Mother would have had objective evidence of the efforts she had made to comply with the Orders. The Mother needed to do more than simply call the Centre and claim that she was refusing to go. The Mother's actions were not reasonable and not necessary to protect X's health and safety. In fact, it is the Mother that was more likely to have caused X psychological harm if, as she claimed, she did have her interviewed by police.
3. Further, as with the alleged breach on 13 September 2024, the Mother did not provide any evidence to confirm that X was sick on the day - even though she claimed the child was to be taken to a doctor. The Mother was obliged to do more than simply claim that X was sick and breach the Orders. I do not accept that the Mother's excuse of X being too sick to attend for the ordered time was reasonable in those circumstances. I am not satisfied that her actions were necessary to protect the health or safety of X.
4. I am not satisfied that the Mother made a reasonable attempt to comply with, nor had a reasonable excuse for breaching, Order 5(a) on 27 September 2024. Count 2 is proved.

Date, time, and location of the allege act or omission

The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, prevented the child X from spending time with the Applicant

Order 5(a) made by Judge Turnbull in LNC57 of 2021 made 30 July 2024

11 October 2024 at 2.45pm; Region GG Children's Contact Service, S Service, HH Street, City JJ, TAS

1. Count 3 related to an accepted breach of Order 5(a) on 11 October 2024. The Mother did not refer to this breach in her affidavit material and did not produce any evidence as to why it was that X did not present for contact on that day. During the hearing the Mother again claimed that the Father's alleged actions in requiring X to keep a secret was a legitimate reason for her to contravene the Orders, referring to her lay opinion as to the impact of this upon X, as set out in her affidavit:

14. Priming a child to keep secrets from another parent has disastrous longitudinal outcomes to a child's mental, emotional and developmental wellbeing. It constitutes coercive control and family and domestic violence. It further constitutes parental alienation and inhibits a child's ability to seek help. It can additionally create feelings of isolation, anxiety, and forces a child to betray one parent over another which can result in feeling of guilt. I am concerned that this behaviour has caused damage to [X]'s relationship with her father and caused her to feel scared to be in his care.[12]

1. The Mother did not adduce any evidence of her qualifications nor expertise enabling her opinion to be given any weight.[13] Further, the Contact Centre notes made it clear that the Father did not, at any time, require X to keep a secret. I am not satisfied that the Mother's excuse was reasonable nor were her actions necessary to protect the health or safety of X.
2. I am not satisfied that the Mother made a reasonable attempt to comply with, nor had a reasonable excuse for breaching, Order 5(a) on 11 October 2024. Count 3 is proved.

Date, time, and location of the allege act or omission

The Respondent, without reasonable excuse, prevented the child X from spending time with the Applicant

Order 5(a) made by Judge Turnbull in LNC57 of 2021 made 30 July 2024

25 October 2024 at 2.45pm; Region GG Children's Contact Service, S Service, HH Street, City JJ, TAS

1. Count 4 relates to an accepted breach of Order 5(a) on 25 October 2024. The Mother, again, did not provide any evidence as to why it was that she breached the Order on this day. I can only infer that she again relied upon the so-called 'secret' as the reasonable excuse for breaching the Orders, and her lay opinion as to the impact of the 'secret' upon X.
2. For the reasons referred to under Count 3, I am not satisfied that the Mother's excuse was reasonable nor were her actions necessary to protect the health or safety of X.
3. I am not satisfied that the Mother made a reasonable attempt to comply with, nor had a reasonable excuse for breaching, Order 5(a) on 25 October 2024. Count 4 is proved.

1. Each of the four counts of contravention, as particularised by the Father, have been proved. Even though there was a brief exchange during the hearing around the question of penalty, I intend to adjourn the matter to hear further submissions, for the reasons stated by Austin J in Galvis & Galvis at [38]:[14]

In contempt proceedings, it is usual for the question of penalty to be separately addressed after the findings of contempt are made (Mead v Mead [2007] HCA 25; (2007) 235 ALR 197 at 198). The same procedure should apply in respect of contravention proceedings. That is because the evidence which is pertinent to the imposition of penalty is usually different from that which is relevant to the anterior question of fault.

1. I will provide the Mother with a copy of the section 70NBF to assist her with her submissions regarding penalty.

I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Turnbull.

[1] Order of Judge Turnbull in Carrick & Lambert (Federal Circuit and family Court of Australia (Division 2), LNC576/2021, 31 July 2024).

[2] TVT & TLM [2005] FMCAfam20 at [33].

[3] Fermikis & Fermikis [2024] FedCFamC1F 879, [39]-[40].

[4] Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112; (2014) FLC 93-596; Jackson & Fordham (1995) FLC 92-561; Dobbs & Dobbs (2021) FLC 91-021; Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55.

[5] Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59; (1976) FLC 90-086; Attreed & Attreed [1980] FamCA 81; (1980) FLC 90-907; Stevenson & Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; (1993) FLC 92-363.

[6] Sahari & Sahari [1976] FamCA 59; (1976) FLC 90-086; Nieuwstraten & Nieuwstraten [1987] FamCA 11; (1987) FLC 91-826; Stevenson & Hughes [1993] FamCA 14; (1993) FLC 92-363.

[7] Caballes & Tallant [2014] FamCAFC 112; (2014) FLC 93-596.

[8] Exhibit F1: Subpoena Notes from B Children's Contact Service, 3-6.

[9] Affidavit of Ms Lambert 5 March 2025 ('Mother's Affidavit') [8]-[11], [13]-[15].

[10] Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298.

[13] Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305.

[14] Galvis & Galvis [2024] FedCFamC1A 123.