Keane v Keane

1. All appointments with Dr C for the purposes of Order 1(a) shall be made by the parties no later than two months in advance.
2. In order to give effect to 1(b) all changeovers shall take place at a public venue agreed to by the parents in writing and in the absence of such agreement at the closest McDonald's to the Mother's residence.
3. Each of the parties have leave to provide a copy of these orders to the child's school.
4. Each of the parties have leave to provide a copy of the orders and Judgment of this Court in respect to the final hearing to Dr C.
5. Each of the parties authorise Dr C to speak with the parties' treating therapists about the progress of their respective engagement with the parties.
6. All communication between the parties shall be by way of the OurFamilyWizard parenting application unless in the case of an emergency of the type contemplated by Order 8 in which case the parties may communicate by telephone.
7. Each party shall notify the other of any medical emergency, illness or injury X suffers while in the party's care that the party considers serious enough to require treatment by a health professional, and shall authorise any treating health professionals to communicate with the other party about the condition and treatment of the child.
8. Both parties shall keep the other updated of their current phone numbers and residential addresses and each party shall inform the other of any change to his or her residential address and contact phone number within 24 hours of such change occurring.
9. Within 24 hours such an event, the Mother shall inform the Father of:

(a) Any appointment attended by X with her treating paediatrician or any other medical practitioner who treats X in relation to her autism spectrum disorder; and

(b) Medical treatment and medications being provided to X in relation to her autism spectrum disorder.

1. Between the date of these orders and 13 February 2028, the Mother may make requests for the Father to undertake hair follicle testing no more than three times each year, and thereafter no more than twice each year, and the Father shall undertake the testing within three days of a request being made by the Mother.
2. To facilitate Order 11 the following shall apply:

(a) The father shall make an appointment and attend for hair collection at an Australian Workplace Drug Testing Services ("AWDTS") Clinic or at another laboratory either directly accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities ("NATA") to conduct such testing in accordance with the current standard for the collection and detection of drugs of abuse (ISO/IEC 17025:2017 or ISO 15189:2012) ("NATA accredited laboratory") or, at a laboratory that sends hair samples to a NATA accredited laboratory for analysis ("approved laboratory").

(b) The required hair samples shall be collected at the approved laboratory by a qualified and certified collector.

(c) Either the head or body hair may be collected for testing and will be of a length specified by the approved laboratory.

(d) The father shall provide photographic identification to be recorded before each hair collection.

(e) Chain of custody procedures are to be applied to the hair samples collected.

(f) The hair follicle drug test shall screen for alcohol and drugs of abuse, including amphetamine-type substances (and metabolites), cannabis (and metabolites), cocaine (and metabolites), benzodiazepines and opioids (and metabolites).

1. The father shall meet the costs of their hair follicle drug tests.
2. Between the date of this order and the time for collection of hair the father is restrained from:

(a) cutting his head hair shorter than 3cm or any other length specified by the approved laboratory;

(b) cutting his body hair; and

(c) bleaching or dying his hair

1. Either party, their legal representatives, or the Independent Children's Lawyer is at liberty to provide the approved laboratory with a copy of these orders;
2. The approved laboratory and their nominees are hereby authorised and requested to provide the results of the hair follicle drug test to:

(a) The father;

(b) The father's legal representatives.

(c) the mother;

(d) the mother's legal representatives.

1. The father shall ensure that a copy of the hair follicle drug test results are promptly provided to the mother.

1. The Father's time with X shall be suspended in the event the Father:

(a) fails to undergo drug and alcohol testing in accordance with these Orders;

(b) fails to produce the results of the drug and alcohol testing that he is required to undergo in accordance with these Orders;

(c) produces a drug or alcohol test result which indicates any use of alcohol and drugs of abuse, including amphetamine-type substances (and metabolites), cannabis (and metabolites), cocaine (and metabolites), benzodiazepines and opioids (and metabolites).

(d) In the event the Father's time with X is suspended pursuant to Order 18 the Father' time with X shall resume upon production by the Father of a drug and alcohol test result indicating that he is three months clear of any use of alcohol and drugs of abuse, including amphetamine-type substances (and metabolites), cannabis (and metabolites), cocaine (and metabolites), benzodiazepines and opioids (and metabolites).

(e) In the event the suspension pursuant to Order 18 occurs during the period of time supervised by Dr C (in accordance with these Orders), the total period of supervised time shall also be suspended such that supervised time will not cease until the Father has completed a total of two years of supervised time.

1. The father shall provide the mother and Dr C, during the period of her engagement, with a letter from his treating General Practitioner should he be prescribed medication that may return a positive test setting out:

(a) The details of medication prescribed;

(b) The purpose of the prescription.

1. Should the father comply with 19 that will not be taken as a positive test for the purpose of these orders.
2. WITHOUT ADMISSION the mother and the Father be restrained from the following:

(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;

(b) Physically disciplining the child;

(c) Denigrating the other parent or members of the other parent's family in the presence or hearing of the child and each parent shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so;

(d) Conveying messages through the child to the other parent;

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

(f) Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings;

(g) Being under the influence of illicit drugs including prescription or prescribed, cannabis or alcohol in excess in the presence of the child or whilst the child is in his or her care; and

(h) Knowingly bringing the child into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess.

1. The ICL's application for costs is dismissed.
2. The order appointing the ICL shall be discharged.
3. All outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.

1. The following orders were made by consent between the parties on 10 November 2025 and have been replicated here for ease of reference:
   1. The mother have sole responsibility for decision-making as to all long-term issues in respect of X born in 2016 ("the child").
   2. The child live with the mother.
2. The following orders and notations were made by consent between the parties on 28 January 2026 and have been replicated here for ease of reference:
   1. The parties forthwith do all things necessary on their respective behalf's to ensure that the child X born in 2016, engage in ongoing developmental and educational psychological therapy with the developmental and educational psychologist, Dr C (the "treating psychologist").
   2. The treating psychologist be authorised to consult with both parties regarding the child's progress and provide guidance on parenting strategies.

1. The Court notes that the treating psychologist shall ensure that she holds sessions with each parent separately, as well as the child separately, but exercise her professional discretion in relation to any sessions relating to:
   1. The parents together, and/or
   2. The Father and the child together, and/or
   3. The Mother and the child together.
2. The Court further notes that any sessions with the treating psychologist involving the Child will be financially covered by a grant from NDIS.

1. By way of a Court Order, the parties shall be solely responsible for the costs of any session with the treating psychologist that only involves their respective attendances.
2. That the parties shall comply with all requests and recommendations made by the treating psychologist.
3. That the Mother shall ensure that the child attends all appointments set for her by the treating psychologist.
4. Both parties are permitted to liaise directly with the child's school, sporting bodies, tutoring services and any other extracurricular activity provider in order to obtain any information about the child's progress.
   1. A copy of these Orders shall be sufficient authority for either party to obtain school reports, newsletters, and photographs from any school, tutor or extracurricular activity provider that the child attends.
5. That the Mother shall provide the Father forthwith the names and addresses of all the child's current treating medical practitioners and therapists; and thereafter provide him within 7 days from the commencement of any treatment from a new medical practitioner or therapist, the name and address of that new medical practitioner or therapist.
6. Both parents are permitted to liaise directly with the child's medical practitioner, whereupon:
   1. A copy of these Orders shall be sufficient authority for either party to obtain information from or meet with any medical or dental practitioner that the child attends upon

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 in relation to the child of the parties, X aged nine.
2. X currently lives with the mother. Orders are for time between X and her father to occur supervised for three hours per week. It is common ground that is not currently occurring.
3. Consent orders of 10 November 2025 provide that X live with the mother, and she have sole decision-making responsibility for all long-term issues.
4. At the beginning of the hearing the parties resolved to continue to engage with Dr C, psychologist, for family therapy. Consent orders were made. The parties will each meet the costs of their individual sessions, and sessions with X will be under NDIS or funded by the father.
5. The father initially sought his time with X occur unsupervised two days per week, with gradual increases. The mother opposed this. Her case is that X is unlikely to ever cope with unsupervised time. She initially sought the father spend time with X at times agreed between the parties, and failing agreement for one hour every second month supervised by Dr C. On the final day of hearing, she provided a Minute of orders for time as agreed in writing between the parties. During submissions counsel for the mother suggested the final proposal of the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") may be adopted in some circumstances. This position was entirely unclear.
6. At the beginning of submissions, the ICL provided a Minute for supervised time through an agency, which was abandoned when I queried the mechanics of the orders when considered in the light of Dr C's evidence.
7. During submissions the ICL provided a further Minute of orders seeking two years of supervised time with Dr C, and thereafter six months of unsupervised time of shorter durations, leading to time each alternate Sunday from 10 am to 4 pm. The father joins in seeking those orders.
8. As I will explain in these reasons, I have found that it is in X's best interests to spend supervised time with her father for two years, followed by unsupervised time each alternate Sunday in a public place for three hours.

1. The mother is 46 years. The father is 42 years. They met at N Mental Health in 2008, where they were both receiving treatment. They had a brief relationship. In 2015 they were again in contact and commenced a relationship. They separated on a final basis in August 2017.
2. Both parties have a long history of mental health difficulties. The mother was sexually abused by her father during her childhood. In 2002 she was diagnosed with complex trauma and dissociative identity disorder, together with associated anxiety and depression. She developed an opeoid addiction, which has been treated.
3. The father has previously experienced substance abuse issues. He was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder in 2008, although more recent evaluations suggest he does not meet the criteria for the psychotic disorder. He suffers from anxiety and depression.
4. X was born in 2016. She has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, global developmental delay, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety. She requires significant support and treatment for these conditions. She was attending at O School, which caters for students with disabilities. She is enrolled to commence Year 3 in 2026 at the support class at P School. The class provides support within a mainstream school environment to assist students with disabilities.
5. The father commenced these proceedings on 11 August 2020. Interim orders were made on 21 May 2021 for X to live with the mother and spend time with the father at a contact centre for three hours each Saturday or Sunday.
6. The parties reached an interim consent position on 3 September 2021 for X to spend time with the father each alternate week for three hours on Saturday or Sunday at a contact centre. On the other week, the mother supervised time with the father on Sunday between 9 am and 12 pm at her home.
7. Further interim consent orders were made on 7 November 2022 for increases in the time the father was to spend time with X, and for that time to eventually be unsupervised. Those orders were suspended on 28 March 2024 by Carter J. It was ordered that X spend time with the father as agreed, but otherwise every Sunday from 9 am to 12 pm at the mother's home, with her present.
8. The father disputes that he consented to orders before Campton J on 10 November 2024. He was self-represented at that appearance. There is no appeal of those orders. No transcript has been provided. He does not dispute that X live with the mother. I accept the father consented to the orders in absent any other evidence.
9. The father has filed two contravention applications during these proceedings.
10. Time ceased occurring after 15 June 2025. Since then X has spent time with her father with Dr C on two occasions, the last being 10 December 2025.

1. The parties relied on the documents set out in their Case Outline Documents.
2. Four reports were before me:

(a) Child Dispute Conference Memorandum to Court by Ms H dated 11 March 2021;

(b) Family Report of Dr F dated 24 June 2022;

(c) Child Impact Report of Ms S dated 16 February 2024; and

(d) Joint Progress Report of Dr C dated 1 February 2025.

1. The parties were cross-examined, as were Ms S and Dr C.
2. A number of documents were tendered during the course of proceedings. I have had regard to that material, as well as the documents relied upon by the parties.

1. The issues narrowed during the hearing. By the time of submissions the significant issue was whether time between the father and X progresses from supervised to unsupervised, and the detail of that including timing and location. There is broad agreement with respect to testing of the father for substance use, although that matter was not entirely resolved as to frequency method of testing.

1. Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) deals with the making of parenting orders. Section 60CA of the Act provides that the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in making a parenting order. Section 60CC(2), (2A) and (3) of the Act set out a list of matters to be considered in determining what is in a child's best interest. It is not an exhaustive list.
2. In considering what orders would promote the safety of the children, the authorities of M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68 and Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-042 are relevant to the assessment of risk for children. The analysis requires consideration of past conduct of the parties to assess whether there is a risk to children in the care of either of their parents, and the magnitude of that risk. The assessment of risk is an "evidence-based conclusion" (Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-042 at [85]). The court must then consider whether that risk is capable of being mitigated by imposing restraints or conditions.
3. The issue of supervision requires consideration of risk to X, and how that may be mitigated.
4. I will have regard to relevant matters set out under s 60CC of the Act as they arise in these reasons.

1. The father is fixed and rigid in his views. This was his presentation when giving evidence. It is consistent with evidence from the Q Contact Service supervisors, from the Family Report and the most recent Child Impact Report. He regards the mother as the problem in his relationship with X. He found it difficult to acknowledge he may have contributed to difficulties in time occurring.
2. His manner, even within the confines of the witness box, was forceful. I accept he may not intend to be intimidating, but that is how the mother experiences him. I accept that her perception of him is reasonable, having had the opportunity to observe the father give evidence. I accept the mother finds dealing with him difficult and intimidating.
3. The father is aware that the mother has had a traumatic and abusive childhood. He agreed conflict was an issue for them, and that being exposed to conflict would have a negative impact on X.
4. There is no issue that the mother is the child's primary carer. This is acknowledged by the father. X has always been in her care. The father has spent limited time with her without the mother being present over the whole of X's life. He referred to a handful of times she has spent up to a few hours in his sole care.
5. Time has occurred at the mother's home because it was able to work for X. Unfamiliar environments add a degree of difficulty in arrangements for her due to her neurodivergence and other issues. The supervisor from Q Contact Service attended at the mother's home. The reports make clear that time at the home has been difficult for all parties to manage. X has at times referred to her father negatively, such as a "poo-poo head" and asked him to leave. The father has at times acquiesced with her request, even when the supervisor has observed he could have redirected her.
6. The extent of the parties' disagreement and conflict is exemplified by their use of the child's name. The father's evidence is he and the mother agreed she would be called Y. The mother then promoted X, which they agreed. The father refers to her as Y. The mother refers to her as X. The father regards this as not being problematic for the child, because primarily he calls her by the nickname "[B]". His evidence is that he has always called her that, rather than X or Y.
7. X has started at school. She is now in third class. She is engaged with a number of health professionals. I note the supervisors have referred to her as Y in the records. She is known to those engaged in her education and treatment as X. It is important that in referring to her both parents use the same name, as this may be confusing for her. It is likely to highlight, particularly as she gets older, the differences between her parents' approach to her, and that she is in the middle of their disagreement.
8. The father has been prescribed medicinal marijuana since December 2025. Although he has a treating general practitioner, Dr M, he did not consult with Dr M for that prescription. Instead, he had a telehealth appointment with a doctor in Town R. She had no medical history from his GP, she did not consult with Dr M, and she had no records of his previous psychiatric treatment nor treatment for substance abuse. He sought the prescription for difficulties with sleep in the lead up to the hearing. He was prescribed THC oil. His evidence is he does not propose continuing to use the oil after the hearing.
9. I accept that obtaining a prescription removes the illegality in using a cannabis product. It does not cure concerns arising from his previous problems with addiction and psychosis. There is no evidence from any doctor about the impact on his mental health of taking THC oil.

1. The mother agrees that she and X share a very close relationship. She rejected that being described as enmeshed by Dr C. She accepts that X looks to her for reassurance. She did not accept that X may adopt attitudes and anxieties she holds about the father.
2. The mother agreed it would be helpful for X for her father to communicate with the school teachers involved with X. When asked about him attending meetings at the school, separate from her, she appeared dumbfounded. She gave evidence she was not ready to have him on school grounds. She then referred to being unsure that X would cope seeing him at the school, and it could cause her to refuse to attend school. She said she had the father at her home on Sundays for years. The mother's evidence on this topic was confused. She appeared distressed. I accept the prospect of the father being at X's school was something she found extremely confronting. This appeared separate from any concern for X.
3. The mother has agreed to orders to see Dr C. Part of Dr C's role will involve advice in managing X's behaviour. The mother has ongoing psychological support from Ms J, psychologist. She has read a book by Dr L on parenting, which she found extremely useful for managing X. She has incorporated strategies from that book in her parenting of X. She has not shared the book details with the father. She agreed that it would be helpful if they had a common approach to parenting, however, she has not done anything to bring that about. I accept that both parties attending on Dr C will assist them develop a common approach.
4. I accept the mother is a devoted parent who is keen to provide the best parenting for X that she can. She does not factor the father into her thinking as another parent of X, who could bring different positive attributes to her care.
5. Dr C gave evidence that her preference is for appointments with the parties and X to be made fortnightly. That retains momentum in treatment for X, and time with her father. It allows time for her to debrief with the mother and father when required. She was concerned that the mother has been slow to make appointments, which does not assist X when there are long gaps between sessions.
6. Dr C's evidence was clear. She proposes time between X and her father take place supervised by her as part of family therapy. I accept that this the best model of embedding X's relationship with her father, which promotes her safety. It also promotes the psychological safety of her mother. Dr C regarded time through a supervised service as being unworkable during her engagement with the family. Her evidence is all parties and X need predictability in arrangements to feel safe. This would not be enhanced by different supervisors being involved, whom X would need to be familiar with before time would work in her best interests. Dr C gave this evidence with reference to the parents' backgrounds and psychological vulnerabilities, particularly the mother's history of childhood trauma. I accept her evidence.
7. The need for supervision is because X has a limited relationship with her father. X has a variety of special needs as outlined in the evidence of her paediatrician Dr D, and Dr E (Exhibits 3 & 5). The father is not experienced at meeting those needs, and requires assistance to be able to do so. I do not say this as a criticism of the father. Managing her needs is complex. The parties have no trust in each other. The parties each have their own psychological vulnerabilities. The involvement of Dr C will allow an opportunity for both parents to have support while X develops a relationship with her father.
8. X needs her mother to support the time arrangements. That is important for X's psychological wellbeing. Dr C envisages that as time progresses, she may move the location to outside her rooms, so the father and X can have different experiences.
9. The parties agree to Dr C being engaged with supervising time between X and her father over the next two years. The advantages of that are X will be close to the start of high school by that point. She will be a more mature child than she is now. The mother will have the opportunity to see the father-daughter relationship develop, and have feedback from Dr C on the progress of visits. Both parents will have direct parenting support and assistance.
10. The parties agreed that appointments should be made by them with Dr C two months in advance, so that all parties were clear about timing of sessions. This accords with Dr C's evidence that X needs consistent arrangements so she can build from one appointment to another.
11. The parties were not in agreement about what should happen at the conclusion of the two-year period. The parties have been in dispute for the majority of their daughter's life. The litigation commenced in 2020. The parties and X need finality.
12. The ICL, supported by the father, proposed that time move to alternate Sundays from 11 am to 2 pm for three months, then 11 am to 3 pm for three months, and thereafter 10 am to 4 pm. There is scope for the parties to agree to other times in writing. The mother's proposal makes no provision for ongoing time other than as the parties may agree. In submissions counsel for the mother raised the difficulty with there being no place nominated for unsupervised time, and no evidence of how the transition to unsupervised time will occur.
13. Dr C's evidence is X is beginning to express her own views, relevantly, about wanting to see her father. She has for example referred to missing her father. I accept in doing so she was referring to Mr Bradley, not a 'father figure' as the mother suggested. I accept that X does not have the capacity to understand what time arrangements may mean for her. I do not place weight on her views.
14. The goal of Dr C's involvement is unsupervised time between the father and X. For that to be successful X needs to perceive her father as "a safe enough person", on Dr C's evidence. This is anticipated by Dr C to be a very slow process. Dr C's evidence is transitions will come from X developing confidence in her father, and the mother observing time with her father working.
15. Dr C will also be engaging with the parties to give them common practices to parent X. X will benefit, and her safety will be enhanced, by the parents implementing a common approach.
16. There is no dispute between the parties that X will benefit from an ongoing relationship with her father. This is supported by the evidence of Ms S and Dr C.
17. Both parents have treating psychologists. The mother has been engaged with Ms J for 19 years, and will be supported around the sessions with Dr C. The father has a treating psychologist, Ms K. He has consulted with her over several years. He can obtain support from her, and debrief from sessions with Dr C. Dr C regarded a separate therapeutic space for both parents as important for them to in process their experiences after sessions with her.
18. The parties agreed to an order that Dr C be able to speak with their treating therapists. There will no doubt be challenges for both parents in assisting X develop a relationship with her father. The support available to both parents informs the confidence I have in making the orders, both for the agreed time and the progress to unsupervised time.
19. X will have unsupervised time with the father from 11 years of age from 11am to 2pm. I accept this is less time that sought by the father and ICL. The father has not spent any lengthy amount of time with X for years, including when supervised. Many of the supervised visits concluded earlier than the ordered 3 hours. Time with Dr C will not be for longer than 1 hour. I am concerned that the orders not overstretch the capacity of either of the parents to manage.
20. I propose ordering that time occurs in public places, unless there is agreement otherwise in writing between the parties. By that time X will have had two years of time supervised by Dr C. The mother will have the opportunity to develop confidence that X is safe with her father. The father has an opportunity to develop skills to meet X's particular needs.
21. The requirement for a public place is to address the mother's concerns about the people with whom the father resides. I do not by making these orders suggest that the father would deliberately bring X into contact with people who would harm her, nor that he shares a house with people who would do so. The mother has experienced childhood sexual abuse from her father in her home. She has had significant psychological disturbance throughout her life as a result, including dissociative identity disorder. It is imperative for X's care that her mother is psychologically well.
22. It is a requirement of s 60CC that I promote the safety of each person who has care of the child. I accept that the mother may not cope with X spending time with her father in his home. She may worry about X's safety to an excessive level. Authorities such as Keane v Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1 have affirmed the "Re Andrews principle" that the court may take into account the belief of a parent that the child may be at risk of harm so far as to discernibly impact that parent's caregiving ability.
23. I accept the requirement for time in a public place is a limitation to the father's time with his daughter. I make the order because, as acknowledged by all legal representatives, this is a difficult and unusual case. The parents' respective psychological issues have been significant for them both for most of their lives. It is critical for X's relationship with her father to minimise conflict between her parents. I accept making this order will assist in doing so. It will promote safety, and limit anxiety, for the mother.
24. The father sought an order for electronic communication. It was unclear whether the order was pressed. On the evidence it is predictable that X would currently say she does not wish to speak to her father, or not engage with him. There is no evidence electronic communication has occurred to date. No question was put to either Ms S or Dr C about whether X would benefit from such an order. If an order for electronic communication was made it would likely become another source of conflict between the parents. This outweighs the potential benefit of such an order. That does not preclude the parties from reaching an agreement about that in the future.
25. The father sought an order that the mother inform him of appointments attended by X with her paediatrician or a medical practitioner treating her in relation to her autism spectrum disorder, and any medications and treatment being provided to X in relation to her autism spectrum disorder. I propose making that order so that the father is kept appraised of X's treatment. This allows him to understand how she is going, which will assist their relationship.
26. The mother's Minute of order contains an order that all communication between the parties be by way of email, save for cases of emergency. During submissions counsel for the mother sought the use of a parenting application, OurFamilyWizard. Counsel for the father and the ICL made no submissions against use of the application. Given the parties' vulnerabilities it is important that communication be civil. Use of an App means that the parents can look at communication when they are ready to, rather than have messages or emails land in their inbox. It allows an easy method for the mother to keep the father informed about X's ongoing treatment. I will make an order that communication be via OurFamilyWizard. I will also make the mother's order that the parties keep each other updated as to their current phone numbers and residential addresses.
27. There is an issue about drug testing for the father. When the parties met the father abused alcohol, and other substances. He no longer abuses alcohol. On his evidence, supported by testing, he does not consume alcohol at all.
28. The father's affidavit referred to recent use of medicinal cannabis. I have previously referred to the circumstances of that prescription through a telehealth appointment. The prescriber had no history of the father's history of substance abuse, nor psychiatric issues.
29. Police records of June 2023 refer to him advising police he has been using weed. He did not provide evidence of that use to the Court, nor Dr C.
30. The father would consent to urinalysis testing over the next two years. Thereafter he agrees to hair follicle testing twice each year. In submissions he raised the costs of hair follicle testing being prohibitive to undertake every three months, as the mother sought. I have no evidence of the comparative costs of hair follicle or urinalysis testing. I am aware and take judicial notice that hair follicle testing is more expensive than urinalysis testing, and it covers a longer period of time. There is no evidence that would permit me to find further than that.
31. The aim of testing is to reassure the mother that the father is not abusing substances. There are good reasons for this given his past mental health history of substance abuse, and the mother's experience of him affected by substances. Hair follicle testing has the advantage of covering a longer period of about three months. I propose ordering the father undertake hair follicle testing within three days of a request being made by the mother. The mother may make such a request for the next two years not more than three times each year, and thereafter not more than twice each year. This is to continue until X is 18 years.
32. The father's evidence is he will cease use of that substance at the conclusion of the hearing. The orders are explicit that is required for time to occur. Should the father return a positive test his time will be suspended until he returns a negative test. A stand alone order, untethered from any particular parenting order, is not itself a parenting order under s 64B(2) of the Act (Oberlin & Infeld [2021] FamCAFC 66). As the orders are formulated by the mother there is no consequence to a positive test result. A positive result would likely involve the parties in further litigation. Further litigation is not in X's interests.

1. Both the mother and the ICL seek that when time moves from being supervised by Dr C, changeover occur at a location agreed to by the parties. To remove doubt, I will make the ICL's order that in the absence of such agreement, changeover will occur at the closest McDonald's to the mother's residence.
2. The ICL seeks an order that a copy of the final orders be provided by the parties to X's school. It is important for those involved with X to understand what is happening for her. This is particularly so because of her special needs. I will make the order sought. The ICL also seeks that a copy of the final orders and Judgment be provided to Dr C. This is important in assisting X so the parties and Dr C understand the orders, and reasons. I will make the order.
3. The parties seek orders with respect to restraints and non-denigration. It promotes X's best interest for both her parents to speak respectfully of the other. While such an order is unlikely to be enforceable, I regard it as useful to remind the parties of the importance of this for X. It is, of course, important that X not be exposed to violence or physical discipline. I will make the order as sought by the ICL, as it is broader than the mother's and father's.
4. The father seeks an additional order that in the event that either party does not comply with the orders for a period exceeding two months then the other party has leave to commence proceedings to reconsider the final parenting orders, including the order for residence of X. He seeks that s 65DAAA of the Act does not restrict such consideration. I do not propose making an order that assumes the requirements of section 65DAAA are satisfied. The Full Court said in Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 at [79]:

We therefore conclude, for the purposes of s 65DAAA(1) of the Act, and having regard to the principles espoused in Rice and Asplund and subsequent authority, ... The word "consider" in s 65DAAA should be construed to mean the Court is required to contemplate the evidence and to make findings of fact as to what changes in circumstances (if any) there have been since the making of the anterior parenting orders. If there is no positive finding of changed circumstances, that is the end of the matter. ...

1. The father's order conflates a breach of orders with a change of circumstances. If the father believes there to be a change in circumstances at a future point in time, he will be required to demonstrate that to the Court. Counsel for the father considered it could be a notation instead of an order. I do not see the utility in that.
2. Subject to any waiver by Legal Aid NSW, the ICL seeks an order that the parties each pay half of the costs of the ICL, who shall inform the Court within seven days of the orders of the precise amount of the costs. No submissions were specifically made in support of the order. The parties are required to meet the costs of Dr C for a period of two years, albeit assisted to some extent by the NDIS. The father is required to meet ongoing hair follicle testing. The mother is not in paid employment, is in receipt of Legal Aid, and is dependent upon commonwealth benefits and the NDIS to meet X's particular needs. For theses reason I do not propose making an order for the ICL's costs to be paid.

I certify that the preceding seventy-four (74) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Boyle.