Kerimowa & Chong [2025] FedCFamC1F 277 (1 May 2025)

1. The Respondent mother ("the mother") shall deliver up the children to the father at the Court Children's Service located at the Parramatta Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division One) by 9.45am on 1 May 2025 and for this purpose, a Court Child Expert as nominated by the Senior Court Child Expert shall be in attendance.
2. In the event that the mother fails to comply with the terms of Order 3 herein, then pursuant to s 67U of the Act a Recovery Order issue authorising and directing the Marshal, Deputy Marshal, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police Forces of all of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia to find and recover the children X born 2014 and Z born 2017 and deliver the children to the father forthwith, he being the person entitled to have the said children live with him pursuant to Orders made on 1 May 2025 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division One).
3. On the delivery up of the children pursuant to the terms of Order 3 herein and delivery of this Judgment:

(a) The mother is to be escorted by Court security out of the Parramatta Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division One) forthwith and thereafter, the mother is restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining her from remaining within two hundred (200) metres of the Parramatta Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division One) such injunction to be discharged at 4.00pm on 1 May 2025; and

(b) The Independent Children's Lawyer is requested to explain to the children in the presence of the Family Consultant the Orders made by the Court.

1. On the delivery up of the children pursuant to the terms of Order 3 herein or the recovery of the children pursuant to the terms of Order 4 herein (whichever is the earlier), the children live with the father.
2. For a period of six months from the date of these Orders ("the moratorium period"), the mother be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining the mother, her servants and/or agents from spending time with the children or communicating with the children by any means whatsoever including by email communication, telephone, SMS text message or any form of social media.
3. On completion of the moratorium period:

(a) The children do spend time with the mother on one occasion in December 2025; and

(b) Thereafter, the children spend time with the mother on four (4) occasions each calendar year.

(a) such time not exceed three hours on any occasion;

(b) such time be supervised by a supervision agency nominated by the mother and at such times as may be agreed between the parties in writing or failing agreement, on a date and time on the last week of the months March, June, September and December in each calendar year;

(c) such time occur in the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

(a) The mother shall within fourteen (14) days of this Order nominate the supervision service to be utilised by the parties and within 28 days of this Order, the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents as may be necessary for the purposes of undertaking any intake procedures;

(b) The mother shall meet the costs of the supervision agency nominated by her pursuant to the terms of Order 9 herein.

1. Each parent shall communicate with the other in relation to the care, welfare and development of the children and/or the operation of these Orders by:

(a) The "AppClose" parenting application; or

(b) SMS Text Message or telephone call in the event of an emergency;

(c) Such other method as agreed between the parties in writing.

1. The father shall keep the mother advised of any serious illness or injury suffered by the children (or either of them) requiring medical attention.
2. On one occasion per calendar month, the father shall provide the mother with a brief written update in relation to the children's schooling, health and wellbeing.

Provision of Information to the children's school, treating medical practitioners and allied health professionals

1. The father shall be at liberty to provide copies of the following documents to any educational institution attended by the children (or either of them) or any medical practitioner, psychologist, psychiatrist or allied health professional attended on by the children (or either of them):

(a) The report of Dr B, clinical and forensic psychologist, dated 12 November 2024;

(b) The Orders made this day;

(c) My Reasons for Judgment.

1. Pursuant to s 68B of the Act, the mother be restrained, and an injunction is hereby granted restraining her from:

(a) Attending at, or being within, 200 metres of the residential address of the father, or any premises at which the children are living or temporarily residing; and

(b) Attending at, or being within 200 metres of the children's school, or any venue where the children are undertaking extracurricular activities or attending medical and allied health appointments.

Application by the mother to adduce further evidence

1. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the mother on 24 April 2025 be dismissed.

1. Within 28 days, the mother do pay to Legal Aid New South Wales her share of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer fixed in a sum of $8,037.22 including GST.
2. Within 28 days, father do pay to Legal Aid New South Wales his share of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer fixed in a sum of $8,037.22 including GST.

1. On compliance with the terms of Order 5(b) herein, the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

1. Pursuant to s 62B of the Act, information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto.
2. Pursuant to s 65DA(2) of the Act, the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in the Fact Sheet, attached hereto and these particulars are included in these Orders.
3. All other applications pursuant to Part VII of the Act 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 Kerimowa & Chong has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These proceedings, brought pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), concern two children, namely, a male child aged ten years and a female child aged seven years.
2. The applicant father commenced these proceedings on 30 May 2023. The father did so in circumstances where in October 2022, the mother made allegations that the father had drugged and sexually assaulted the female child.[1] Thereafter, and between October 2022 and July 2023, the Department of Communities and Justice received fifty reports in relation to the children. The primary child protection concerns which were reported included sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, psychological harm, physical abuse, dangerous behaviour and excessive discipline.[2]
3. The children have not spent any time with the father since late 2022 at which time he farewelled the children and travelled to the United States of America for a short time for his employment.[3]
4. These proceedings involve a dispute about whether:

(a) The father represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children such that the children ought to never spend any time with their father;

(b) The mother represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children such that the children's primary living arrangements ought to be altered so that the children live with the father;

(c) As a corollary of the preceding paragraph, the children's wellbeing will be compromised if the Court makes an Order to the effect that the children live with the father; and

(d) If the Court determines that the children ought to live with father, whether time between the children and their mother might be facilitated in a manner, which does not cause them psychological harm.

1. Given the opposed positions adopted by the parties, it will not surprise a reader of this judgment to learn that the parties do not agree, which of them ought to be allocated parental responsibility.
2. Shortcomings in the mother's capacity to provide for the children's needs, and in particular the children's emotional need to have a relationship with their father free from psychological harm is a salient consideration in these proceedings. For these reasons, I have determined that it is in the children's best interests to live with the father and spend limited time with the mother on a supervised basis.

1. The father is aged 34 years.[4] Three years after the father completed his secondary education, the father joined the Australian Defence Forces. He has been employed by the Australian Defence Forces ever since although he now works in an specialised role.[5]
2. The mother is aged 38 years.[6] She is employed by a government department as an information professional. In order to fulfil that role, the mother has held a specific level of security clearance since 2019.[7]
3. The parties commenced cohabitation in mid-2013, married a short time later, and separated on a final basis in September 2022.[8]
4. As discussed, there are two children of the marriage, namely, a male child aged ten years and a female child aged seven years. The male child has been diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[9] The father concedes that the male child has these disorders. The single expert engaged by the parties to prepare a Family Report has recommended that the parties facilitate the female child's attendance on a paediatrician so that she be assessed for an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[10].
5. The father says that the parties separated under one roof in September 2022. The mother says the parties separated a month earlier but whatever the scenario, the parties' separation necessitated a change of residence for the mother and the children on account of the parties becoming ineligible for defence housing.[11]
6. At separation, the father says that the parties agreed that the children would spend two nights per week with the father.[12] The mother agrees that the parties arrived at arrangements amicably and that the children spent overnight time with the father on the weekend of 24 and 25 September 2022 and the weekend of 30 September 2022 and 1 October 2022.[13] The father gave oral evidence to the effect that the parties sought to document their arrangement with Services Australia for the purposes of the assessment of child support.
7. In late 2022, the father travelled to the United States in his role with the Australian Defence Forces. He deposes to communicating with the children by electronic means a few days later.[14] At that time, the father says that the children presented as "happy", and the female child said that she missed her father.[15]
8. A short time later, the mother sent the father no less than forty text messages. The messages refer to:

(a) the father's use of dating applications;

(b) a female friend staying at the former matrimonial home subsequent to separation together with the father;

(c) the mother's belief that during the relationship the father was too busy pursuing sexual relationships with third parties to care for her or the children;

(d) the mother's opinion that the father is a sociopath, psychopathic, a manipulator and a liar; and

(e) financial arrangements between the parties.[16]

1. The tone of the messages is exemplified by the following extracts:

You choose getting your dick wet over your children, fuck you are you disgusting vial [sic] sycophantic utterly shit of a person...

...

Stop lying, drop the pretence that you give a single solitary fuck about me ok, we are not friends

...

My kids deserve so much better than you

...

You have [...] now [reference to potential partners of the father]. Whichever one you were fucking when you were too busy to see your kids? That's your life.

1. The precipitating event to the sending of the messages referred to above and the fracture of post-separation détente between the parties appears to have been the mother's discovery after foraging through the father's personal items at the former matrimonial home that the father had subscribed to a dating application.[17]
2. In late 2022, and two days after sending the messages referred to above, the mother attended at the Suburb C Police Station to report a sexual assault by the father in the second half of early 2022. The police records suggest that the mother made an allegation in the following terms:

The [mother] disclosed during the second half of [early] 2022, the [father] asked to have sex with the victim although she said no. The [father] offered to massage her back and the victim agreed. After 10 minutes of massage, the [father] removed the victim's pants and...[18]

1. Subsequent to the sending of the messages referred to above, and the mother's attendance at the Suburb C Police Station, the father was unable to secure any time with the children. Particularly, and in late 2022, the mother asserted by text message directed to the father that the male child was afraid of him and suggested that the male child would need to attend on his psychologist before the mother would grant permission for the father to communicate with him.[19]
2. On the following day, the father says that he sent the mother a text message requesting "access to [the male child's] specialists and school". The father says that his request was denied and at the same time, the mother accused the father of "dating and exposing her to STDs".[20]
3. The agreement for the children to spend overnight time with the father subsequent to separation must be seen against the background of several allegations made by the mother relating to alleged acts of family violence perpetrated by the father between January 2022 and May2022. I will discuss these alleged acts below. The agreement must also be seen against a background where the mother says that the father sexually assaulted her on two occasions in May 2022 and August 2022.[21]
4. The disclosures of sexual abuse as they relate to the children unfolded as follows:

(a) On 19 October 2022, the mother alleges that the female child disclosed that the father had touched her on the vulva;[22]

(b) On 20 October 2022, the mother alleges that the female child made further disclosures of sexual abuse asserting to her mother that she was abused "lots of times";[23]

(c) On 27 October 2022, the mother sent the father a text message in the following terms:

I know you drugged her with melatonin, held your hand over her mouth to stop her screaming forced your fingers inside her. What the hell is wrong with you? For once, be a father, an actual father, and turn yourself in. Now.

And obviously, until court, no, it is unsafe for the kids to see you. It is their decision and they both are absolutely terrified of you. Goodbye [name of father].[24]

1. As a consequence of these alleged disclosures, the mother arranged for the female child to be forensically examined and tested for sexually transmitted diseases.[25] On examination, there was no evidence of any trauma to the female child's vagina or for that matter, her anus.[26]
2. The mother says that the female child has continued to make disclosures in the following terms:

(a) That the father "put his fingers in my bottom hole and when I do a poo I remember that feeling";

(b) That the father "punched me here and here (pointing to her stomach, nose and left eye"). She alleges that the female child asserted that the father "punches me all the time when you are not looking";

(c) That the father calls her "dumb";

(d) That the father put her head in the toilet;

(e) That the father punched the family cat;

(f) That the father bit her on the toe and on the knee;

(g) That the father cut her with a knife;

(h) That the father threw a fan at her;

(i) That the father "twisted the inside part of my vulva";

(j) That the father punched the family dog;

(k) That the father put his "hands in her panties"; and

(l) That the father put his penis in her mouth.[27]

1. With respect to the male child, the mother alleges that:

(a) During the Christmas school holidays in 2022, the male child said as follows:

Dad tried to suffocate me but you interrupted and he said that he would stab me in the neck if I told you.[28]

(b) On a date not known, the father told him to search for a video on Google, which depicted a man "who pulled down his pants in front of some girls and shook his penis at them";[29]

(c) In January 2023, the male child in the presence of the mother and the female child said the following:

Mum, I remembered the worst torture, even worse than when he tried to suffocate me. He got out a knife, woke me up and he chased me around with the knife in his hands. That was so terrifying".[30]

1. In addition to these allegations, the mother makes grave allegations against the father to the effect that he has produced child pornography, watched child pornography and collected the same on a hard drive. The allegation is introduced by the mother's affidavit filed on 31 January 2025 as follows:

In around [early] 2015, I found sexually explicit photographs on [the father's] computer. The photos appeared to be amateur in nature, and taken by someone else and included images of completely naked girls sitting on beds, some with their hands covering their genital area. None of the girls were smiling in the images. The girls appeared to be quite young. They looked to be prepubescent.[31]

1. The mother says that her concerns were investigated by a senior officer in the Australian Defence Forces and that she printed the images and gave them to police. On her evidence, no action was taken.[32]
2. The mother also makes complaint about the father leaving used prophylactics and sex toys around the family home such that the children were exposed to the same. The father admits that on occasion he did so.
3. The father has been interviewed by an officer of the Australian Defence Forces, New South Wales Police and the Department of Communities and Justice. Despite this, the father has never been charged with any offence nor has the Department sought to intervene either prior to or subsequent to the commencement of these proceedings.
4. It is against this background that the father commenced proceedings on 30 May 2023.
5. On 1 August 2023, and with the consent of the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer, a Senior Judicial Registrar made an Order that the children spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre for a minimum of two hours per fortnight.[33] Time pursuant to that Order never occurred and it is my assessment for the reasons discussed below that the mother used her best endeavours to ensure that time never occurred.

1. By his Amended Initiating Application filed on 3 December 2024, the father sought orders that:

(a) The father have sole parental responsibility for the children;

(b) The children live with father and for a period of six months, the children not communicate or spend any time with the mother; and

(c) On the conclusion of the six-month moratorium period, the children recommence time with the mother for a period of four hours on each alternate Saturday increasing to four nights per fortnight after a period of eighteen months. At that juncture, the father also promoted 'week about' time during school holiday period.[34]

1. By her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 17 January 2025, the mother sought Orders that the children live with her and "spend time and communicate with the father subject to their wishes".
2. On the first day of the final hearing, however, the mother sought leave to file a Further Amended Response to Initiating Application. I granted that application. By her amended document, the mother sought Orders in the following terms:

(a) For a period of three months from the date of final orders, the children spend time with the father by electronic means only for a period of up to one hour in each alternate week such time to be facilitated by the male child's psychologist or such other psychologist or mental health professional as the parties may agree upon in writing;

(b) That on the expiry of three months, and for a further period of six months, the children spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre for two hours in each alternate week;

(c) That on the expiry of six months, and for a further period of three months, the children spend two hours with the father per fortnight. It is this juncture that the mother promoted the commencement of unsupervised time;

(d) That on the expiry of three months and for a further period of three months, the children spend six hours per fortnight with the father;

(e) That on the expiry of three months and for a further period of three months, the children spend time with the father in each alternate week from 10.00 am on Saturday to 4.00 pm on Sunday;

(f) That on the expiry of three months, the children spend time with the father in each alternate week from 3.00 pm on Friday to 4.00 pm on Sunday.

1. The time spending arrangements promoted at sub-paragraphs (b) to (f) above were expressed to be "subject to the views and recommendations of [the male child's psychologist] or such other psychologist or mental health professional as the parties may agree upon in writing".
2. On receiving the Further Amended Response to Initiating Application, I expressed a view that necessarily, the mother must have abandoned her grave allegations against the father. That is, I expressed a view that the mother must have withdrawn her allegations in circumstances where she was promoting unsupervised time as a final order. The Independent Children's Lawyer shared my concern and, having ventilated the issue, the mother's counsel said that he and his instructing solicitor required time to speak with the mother. I gave the mother and her legal representatives almost ninety minutes to consider their position at which time, the mother's counsel advised me that the mother was "not in a position to make a concession about any allegations". Neither the mother nor her legal representatives explained how the revised orders promoted by her were consistent with the maintenance of the serious allegations against the father. Similarly, the mother's counsel did not address my expressed concern that the orders sought by the mother's revised application were drafted in a manner, which granted the male child's psychologist, or such other psychologist as agreed between the parties with the ability to usurp the Court's jurisdiction. The evidence, however, did provide me with clarity. That is, whatever the terms of the mother's formal application, she will never, despite her assertions to the contrary, facilitate time between the children and their father. My view is consistent with the mother's own advice to the single expert to the effect that "ideally, [the father] would have no contact in any form with the children going forward".[35]
3. For her part, and at the commencement of the trial, the Independent Children's Lawyer reserved her position with respect to final orders. By the conclusion of trial, however, the Independent Children's Lawyer sought final orders in the following terms:

(a) That the father have sole parental responsibility for the children;

(b) That the children live with the father;

(c) That the children spend time and communicate with the mother as agreed between the parents in writing and failing agreement for a period of not less than three hours in the last week of the months March, June, September and December.

1. At the commencement of the father's closing submissions, the father's counsel orally amended his application to support the orders promoted by the Independent Children's Lawyer. However, the father declined to support an order promoted by the Independent Children's Lawyer to the effect that he be obliged to provide to the mother copies of any medical reports prepared by any treating specialist for the children.

WITHDRAWAL OF THE MOTHER'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE MOTHER SUBSEQUENT TO JUDGMENT BEING RESERVED

1. On the morning of the third day of trial, the mother's solicitor and counsel sought to withdraw as the mother's legal representatives on the basis of a conflict between them. I granted the application save that on making enquiry of the mother's counsel, he and his solicitor agreed to remain at the Bar Table until the conclusion of the mother's cross-examination. This was in circumstances where cross-examination of the mother commenced at about 2.48pm the previous afternoon. When granting the application, I made it clear to the mother and her legal representatives that:

(a) The trial would continue until its completion;

(b) The mother would either need to arrange legal representation or understand that she would be obliged to cross-examine the single expert and make closing submissions as a self-represented litigant;

(c) They ought to obtain a copy of the transcript for the first and second days of trial for the mother's consideration;

(d) The mother's solicitor and counsel ought to provide the mother with notes, which they took during the trial.

1. The mother cross-examined the single expert on Friday 14 March 2025. Although she initially declined to do so on the basis that she did not have the relevant qualifications, I asked her to draft a list of questions, which were then put to the single expert by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer on behalf of the mother. The mother also put several propositions to the single expert herself. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, I adjourned the hearing until Friday 21 March 2024 for the purpose of closing submissions. On 20 March 2024, and by email communication directed to my Chambers, the mother sought an adjournment of the date for closing submissions in circumstances where she said:

(a) Her former solicitors had not received the transcript of the hearing with respect to the first two days of trial; and

(b) She was seeking assistance from "the Intellectual Disability Rights Service Inc and/or the Law Society" in circumstances where she asserted that she has a "recognised cognitive disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992". The mother did not refer to the existence of any cognitive disability in her affidavit filed on 31 January 2025.

1. I ultimately granted the mother's application on the basis that she had not received the transcript, and I adjourned closing submissions to Thursday 27 March 2025. At 9.18 pm on the evening prior, a solicitor based in Sydney emailed to the Parramatta Registry an Application in a Proceeding together with an Affidavit in support.[36] The application sought the re-opening of the evidence on the following basis:

(a) That following the father's cross-examination on Monday 10 March 2025, she returned home and retrieved the hard drive, which she says contained child pornography (supra);

(b) That having run an "algorithm" on the hard drive for eight hours, she discovered a large number of deleted files "that contained child exploitation material";

(c) On Wednesday 12 March 2025, she delivered the hard drive to the Suburb C Police Station. This action occurred on the same day as the mother's solicitors sought to withdraw as the mother's legal representatives.

1. For reasons, which I delivered on 27 March 2025, I dismissed the mother's application.
2. On 24 April 2025, the mother sent a further suite of documents by way of email to my Associate, stating that she would file the same with the Parramatta Registry. The documents included the following:

(a) An Application in a Proceeding executed by the mother on 23 April 2025;

(b) An Affidavit in the name of the mother sworn on 23 April 2025;

(c) A Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk executed by the mother on 23 April 2025; and

(d) A Financial Statement executed by the mother on 8 April 2025.

1. At a hearing on 29 April 2025, the mother explained to me that she prepared the financial statement as a consequence of orders made by me on 27 March 2025 to the effect that each party have liberty to file submissions in relation to the Application for Costs made by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. By her affidavit sworn on 23 April 2025, the mother says that:

(a) Subsequent to the conclusion of evidence, she "attempted multiple times to have the hard drive re-examined by police, without success";

(b) On 27 March 2025 being the day of closing submissions, the mother received an email communication from a detective to the effect that "[a] case had been generated" in relation to the mother's attendance at the Suburb C police station with the hard drive referred to above;[37]

(c) At the time of swearing her affidavit on 23 April 2025 she had not heard anything further from police.[38] This being so, the mother made a report to the Department of Communities and Justice.

1. Simply, I am not satisfied that any further investigation will uncover any wrongdoing by the father. As discussed below, the allegation with respect to the creation of, viewing and dissemination of child pornography has been explored by several agencies since 2022.[39] No agency has found any merit to the mother's allegation. For the same reasons, I dismiss the Application in a Proceeding filed by the mother on 24 April 2025.

1. The father relied upon the following documents:

(a) Amended Initiating Application filed on 3 December 2024;

(b) An affidavit in the father's name filed on 20 December 2024; and

(c) Tendered documents.[40]

1. The mother relied upon the following documents:

(a) Further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 10 March 2025;

(b) An affidavit in the mother's name filed on 31 January 2025; and

(c) Tendered documents.[41]

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer relied upon the following documents:

(a) A Family Report dated 12 November 2024; and

(b) A Magellan Report prepared by the Department dated 16 October 2023;[42] and

(c) Tendered documents.[43]

1. The Court excluded all annexures to the affidavits having regard to r 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. Orders in respect of children are made under Part VII of the Act, where the meaning of a 'parenting order' is defined (s 64B). The Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper (s 65D), within the context of the objects of the legislation and the principles which underpin those objects (s 60B).

1. Parental responsibility for children is vested in their parents (s 61C(1)) but that situation only applies whilst ever no order is made to change it (s 61C(3) and s 61D). Parental responsibility is defined to encompass all duties, powers, responsibilities and authority conferred by law upon parents (s 61B).
2. When an order is made allocating parental responsibility for a child or children in relation to "major long-term issues" to more than one person, the order may prescribe whether those persons have joint or sole decision-making authority in relation to all or only specified issues (s 61D(3)). The Act defines "major long-term issues" to include those such as the child's education, religion, culture, health, name, and changed living arrangements (s 4(1)) and defines what "joint decision-making" requires in respect of such issues (s 61DAA). A person allocated with parental responsibility for a child need not be consulted by another person in respect of minor decisions made for the child which fall outside "major long-term issues" (s 61DAB).

1. When making parenting orders, the Court is mandated to regard the child's best interests as the paramount consideration (ss 60CA and 65AA). The Act specifies the criteria which must be considered in arriving at a conclusion as to what is in the child's best interests (s 60CC). The six considerations referred to in s 60CC(2) are non-hierarchical. The Court is obliged to consider:

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

(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 will have parental responsibility to provide for the child's 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; and

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

1. When considering the arrangements, which would promote the safety of the child and each person who has the care of the child, the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
2. Section 60CG imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the Court to include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
3. Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act and means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of such behaviour include assault, sexually abusive behaviour, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, intentional damage or destruction of property, unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet reasonable living expenses of the family member or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support, preventing the family member from making or keeping connection with his or her family or friends, or unlawfully depriving the family member from his or her liberty.
4. Section 4AB(3) and (4) makes it clear that children are to be regarded as exposed to family violence either through direct sensory perception of violent action or such perception of consequences of violent action.
5. As the facts referred to above make plain, this is a case about risk and the arrangements, which might promote the safety of the children.
6. Where ultimately the Court's focus is on formulating orders which attend to the child's best interests, the Court is required to make findings of fact. The standard of proof is one of "on the balance of probabilities" consistent with s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) which provides:

(1) In a civil proceeding, the Court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.[44]

(2) Without limiting the matters that the Court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:

(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and

(b) the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and

(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.

1. A party making an assertion of fact has an onus to prove that fact on the balance of probabilities although the task for the Court ultimately remains as one of weighing and balancing the probity of evidence towards a determination of the child's best interests.
2. The mother in this case invites me to make findings that the father has physically and sexually abused the children. For her part, the father's counsel invites me to find that the children have been subjected to psychological abuse by the mother.
3. When considering the submissions of the parties, I am mindful of the Full Court's decision in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 ("Isles"), which summarised the authorities on unacceptable risk since M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 ("M v M"). The Full Court said that while conjecture about the future is based on historical facts and circumstances, it is only the relevant historical facts which need be proven on the balance of probabilities.
4. The Court in Isles also said of the decision in N and S and the Separate Representative [1995] FamCA 139; (1996) FLC 92-655 as follows:
   1. Fogarty J stated it is necessary for a trial judge to give real and substantial consideration to the facts of the case and to decide whether or not, and why or why not, those facts could be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and, furthermore, the qualitative analysis of the evidence must be directed not just to the existence of the risk of harm but also the magnitude of the possible harm...

1. In Isles, the Court at [35] went on to quote Tree J in Bant v Clayton [2015] FamCAFC 222; (2015) 53 Fam LR 621:
   1. Risk assessment involves determining firstly, the degree of the likelihood of the postulated event, and secondly, the prospect and magnitude of harm that may flow if the event occurs**.** The weighing of those two considerations - even accepting they may be imprecisely expressed within parameters - will inform whether the risk is adjudged to be acceptable or not. However that conclusion cannot be made in the abstract.
2. The Court agreed with and adopted Austin J's judgment in Fitzwater & Fitzwater [2019] FamCAFC 251; (2019) 60 Fam LR 212 as being the correct statement of the law. Justice Austin's judgment includes the following:
   1. The assessment of risk is a predictive exercise and while it is, naturally enough, liable to be influenced by factual findings about past events, the contemplation of risk entails the foresight of possible harm. It is an oddity to expect that the mere possibility of future harm can or should be proven as a probability, as has been implied before (Potter and Potter [2007] FamCA 350; (2007) FLC 93-326 at [110], [129]). Risks of harm must be heeded even if they are improbable eventualities.
   2. Speaking of the risk of some future occurrence is just another way of expressing the chance of it happening. The concept of chance lies along a continuum, encompassing all outcomes which lie in the range between highly probable and remotely possible, assuming the polar extremes of certainty are ignored. In the current context, the higher the chance of the children's sexual abuse, the greater the risk of their physical or psychological harm. At some point on the continuum the risk of such harm becomes so potent it cannot be tolerated: it is unacceptable.
3. In Hickson & Matthew [2022] FedCFamC1A 161, Deputy Chief Justice McClelland said this of Justice Austin's analysis at [39]:
   1. Additionally and relevantly for the purpose of this appeal, I would expand upon that insightful analysis by Austin J with the following guidance that emerges from authorities:

(1) It is now well established that "unacceptable risk" includes not merely physical harm but also includes an assessment of the risk of emotional harm.

(2) Such an unacceptable risk can include any or all matters that compromise the safety, welfare and well-being of a child, and is examined in light of an accumulation of factors proved.

(3) The components which lead to a conclusion that an unacceptable risk exists need not each be established on the balance of probabilities. The Court may reach a conclusion of "unacceptable risk" from the accumulation of factors, none or only some of which are proved to that standard, endorsing and applying the principles set out in a paper prepared by the Hon John Fogarty AM, "Unacceptable Risk: A Return to Basics" (2006) 20 Australian Journal of Family Law 249.

(4) While each factor establishing risk need not be proved to the standard of s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), insofar as determining whether an unacceptable risk exists involves a prediction of the future, based on findings of fact: "the confidence one will have in the prediction will be, in part, a reflection of the confidence one has in the factual findings that base the prediction".

(citations omitted)

1. I have read the parties material and listened to their submissions. I am not however required to address every fact or submission made.[45] Nor have I done so. However, every piece of evidence relied upon by the parties has been read and carefully considered by me.

1. Before considering the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles, I make the following observations of the parties.
2. The father appeared cool and calm. He was well dressed and groomed. When cross-examined, the father appeared to be coy with his answers, often asking for more specifics or for the question to be restated/clarified. The father often responded "I do not recall" but then was able to provide understanding of the context for the question.
3. The father appeared to show no insight as to the effects of leaving used prophylactics and sexual toys around the family home. This concerned me given that the mother had given evidence about the children finding such objects on multiple occasions. When asked how he might avoid such an occurrence in the future, the father replied that he would "do better". Having regard to this answer, it could be that the father does not care about the exposure of his children to such items. The father also showed no sign of opposition when it was suggested to him that during the prioritised video games and the application, Twitch, over spending time with his children.
4. When questioned about future parenting arrangements for the children, the father expressed confidence in his ability to facilitate time between the children and the mother if the Court made orders in the terms promoted by him. The father expressed such confidence notwithstanding the many and grave allegations made by the mother against him. The father's responses were concise and methodical. It was clear to me that the father had carefully considered how he might manage any transition of the children into his care particularly with respect to schooling and his work commitments. The father was also alive to distress, which the children might suffer in the event that his application was successful, and he gave well considered answers about how he might manage the same.
5. For her part, and during the trial, the mother attended with her mother and/or sister. She was well dressed. At all times, the mother appeared stressed and upset. This was particularly apparent when the father was cross-examined about his infidelity.
6. Under cross-examination, the mother answered questions in a calm manner. It was a curiosity to me that the mother did not display emotion when questions about her allegedly been "gang raped" and her daughter witnessing such an event were put to her. She would pause and look somewhat confused when asked to clarify her knowledge of certain alleged events. The mother's evidence about the serious allegations against the father were largely based on what the female child had told her. The allegations were not based on any credible medical evidence or otherwise objective evidence.

1. As discussed above, these proceedings involve a dispute about whether:

(a) The father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children; or

(b) The mother presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.

1. It will be necessary for me to answer these two questions before I can give any consideration to the final questions about whether the children's living arrangements ought to change in the manner sought by the father and/or whether time between the children and their mother might be facilitated in a manner, which does not cause them psychological harm.

Does the father represent an unacceptable risk of harm to the children?

Did the father sexually abuse or physically assault the female child?

1. In October 2022, when the female child was five years of age, the mother alleges that the child disclosed that the father had touched her on the vulva.[46] On the mother's written evidence, the conversation between the mother and the female child giving rise to the alleged disclosure occurred as follows:

Female child: I am thinking he (the father) is my favourite, but he is not my favourite, but he says that he is my favourite.

Mother: Hey, has Dad ever asked you to keep any secrets?

(Female child nodded).

Mother: Like what?

(Female child shook her head)

Mother: Hey, do you remember when we talked about secrets and surprises? Surprises are good things, like when we surprise somebody with a cake for their birthday. But we don't keep secrets okay? Because secrets can be really scary sometimes.

Female child: Yes I remember mamma.

Mother: Bubby, has Daddy ever touched you here (I pointed to her vulva) or on bottom, and asked you to keep it a secret?

(Female child nodded).

Mother: Okay, which part? And how did that make you feel?

Female child: Uncomfortable. It made me feel uncomfortable when he touched my vulva.[47]

1. The mother called police on the evening of the alleged disclosure and police attended at the mother's residence at 1.00am. At that stage, police undertook a "welfare check" and said that they would speak with the father.
2. It is clear on the mother's own version of events, that the female child's disclosure was extracted by the mother as a consequence of a leading question put to the child by the mother together with the mother's gesticulation towards the female child's genitalia. For this reason, I agree with the submission made by the Independent Children's Lawyer to the effect that there is good reason to view the female child's alleged disclosure with suspicion.
3. The next day, the mother says that she had a further conversation with the female child. On the mother's evidence, she commenced the conversation by asking the following question:

Honey, I'm so proud of you for telling me about what Daddy did, last night. That's super brave, because I know it's hard telling on someone you love, especially when they do the wrong thing. Is there anything else you want to tell me about?[48]

1. Thereafter, the mother alleges that the female child disclosed that she was touched on her vulva by the father after the father took the mother to a train station on an undisclosed date. The mother initially advised investigators that this abuse occurred in August 2022 but then said that using data from a "Google timeline" the abuse occurred when she left the children alone with the father for a period of about five and a half hours in April 2022.[49] The mother by an email dated October 2022 addressed to the male child's psychologist and child protection workers said that she had "absolutely gotten my "A" months switched around at some point to someone".[50]
2. The mother conceded under cross-examination that an astute parent would have detected that his/her child was emotionally or physically distressed following a sexual assault. This might be so. However, even if this is wrong, I accept the submission made by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer that the mother has simply made effort to:

(a) Pinpoint a date when she left the children alone with the father. That effort presupposes that the alleged sexual assault could not have occurred when the mother was present at the former matrimonial home; and

(b) Constructed a timeline to suit her own narrative.

1. The mother also asserts that in October 2022 the female child disclosed that she had been sexually abused on several occasions. The conversation in part occurred as follows:

Mother: Bubby, did this happen more than once?

Female child: Yes, lots of times. And I told Daddy it was nappropriate (the female child's word for inappropriate), but he kept doing it. And he said he would give me a unicorn but then said the shop was closed so I couldn't have a unicorn.

Mother: He said he would give you a unicorn after he touched your vulva?

Female child: Yes, and I kept telling him it's nappropriate. But he never listened.[51]

1. Police again attended at the mother's residence late in the evening in October 2022 after the mother made a report.[52] Apart from interviewing the mother, police took no action on that occasion.
2. The mother facilitated the female child's attendance at a Women's Health Clinic in October 2022 at which time the female child was subjected to a physical examination and a test for sexually transmitted diseases. On the mother's evidence, the examining practitioner was unable to detect any evidence of trauma to the female child's vagina or anus although the absence of a hymen was noted.[53] The results of this investigation were provided to the Joint Child Protection Response Program.
3. Two days later, the mother reported to police that the female child made a further disclosure to the effect that the father "had put his penis on her arm and in her hand". Records generated by police with respect to this interaction with the mother indicate that:

(a) Police tried to speak with the female child, but she did not disclose anything;[54]

(b) The mother expressed dissatisfaction with action police had taken with respect to her initial report and said that "she required an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for the protection of her children".[55]

1. The mother conceded under cross-examination that as at October 2023 her mind was focused on obtaining an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order to protect her and the children.
2. It concerns me that on the mother's own evidence, she sought to engage with the female child in the presence of the male child. Particularly, the mother says that after the female child made the disclosure about the father putting "his penis on her arm and in her hand", the following occurred:

[The female child] then began to cry, and [the male child] came over to us, with tears running down his face, and [the female child] pulled him into a cuddle with us. The three of us held each other and cried and cried for about half an hour.[56]

1. The female child later told a worker from the Joint Child Protection Response Program that she had "made up" the "stuff about the penis on the arm and hand and touching her vulva".[57]
2. By reference to an email authored by the mother dated October 2022 and sent to the male child's treating psychologist and child protection workers, it appears that during the episode described above or shortly thereafter, the mother:

(a) Asserted that she ought never have left the children alone with their father;

(b) Apologised to the children by saying "I am so sorry [the father] put you through this";

(c) In response to the female child saying that she hates herself and is angry with herself asserted that "the only person who we should be angry with is Daddy. He is the only person here who has done anything wrong". Further, the mother records that she said as follows:

The only person who has caused our anger and sadness and fear is Daddy, not you, not anything you have done or said, and that includes you (referring to the male child).[58]

1. The same email also records that the mother herself undertook an examination of the female child's genitalia with the mother advising child protection workers as follows:

I asked [the female child] if she would feel comfortable with me checking her vulva, and she said "Yes Mumma, I'm okay with you looking because you ask permission". I asked her if she was okay with me pulling one of her labia aside to check her vulva properly, and she said "Yes mumma, I'm ok with you touching". So I gently pressed her left labia aside and used the light on my phone to check, and there are no signs of tearing, scarring, bruising around the vestibule area".[59]

1. I am very concerned about the mother's decision to undertake her own examination of the female child's genitalia when she already knew as a consequence of the physical examination conducted at the Women's Health Clinic three days earlier in 2022 that there was no evidence of trauma to the female child's vagina or anus (supra).
2. The email communication dated October 2024 also records that when the female child was interviewed by a police officer the day before, the mother sought the assistance of the male child to verify the evidence of his sister. By doing so, I find that the mother was seeking to inculcate in the male child a narrative that his father represents a risk to him, his sister and the mother. The mother's efforts to some extent have been successful because in November 2022, the male child disclosed to the Department that "he hates his dad because he touched his sister's vulva, and he is now in jail [sic]".[60] The latter assertion, of course, was never true.
3. The police officer interviewing the female child in October 2022 asked the female child how many occasions she had been abused. The female child said ten times and on hearing her answer, the mother asked, "were you counting or did it feel like ten times?". The child responded by saying "feels like ten times".[61] It defies belief that a serving police officer considered it appropriate to interview the female child in the presence of the mother and apparently, not alive to the risk of parental influence.
4. I agree with the concern expressed by the Independent Children's Lawyer that the interview was characterised by intercession on the part of the mother and efforts by the mother to involve the male child. My assessment of the mother's email communication summarising the interview process is that the mother was firstly an active participant and secondly, a person who seemed desirous of extracting disclosures from each of the children. It was following the interview that the mother asserts that the female child also disclosed that the father "touched my butthole...[a]nd he put his penis in my vulva".[62] For the first time then, the mother's allegations escalated to an assertion that the father had raped the female child.
5. The mother's behaviour occurred in circumstances where on her own evidence, she made representations to the children that the father "will be getting lots of serious consequences for everything he put you guys through" and promises made by the mother to the children to the effect that they will "never have to be alone with [the father] ever again, not even for a second".[63]
6. In October 2022, and despite the findings of the Women's Health Clinic ten days earlier, the mother facilitated the female child's attendance on a general practitioner due to the child's alleged abdominal pain and rectal pain. A referral letter from the general practitioner to the Emergency Department of the D Hospital records that the general practitioner also examined the female child's genitalia at the mother's request because the female child complained of "itching at times".[64] The mother by her affidavit filed on 31 January 2025 asserted that the general practitioner identified "tearing around [the female child's] anus".[65] She also advised the Department of Communities and Justice that the general practitioner had detected a "large abnormal fissure in the anus".[66] However, the observations of the general practitioner were as follows:

Nil any discharge / abnormality noted on genitalia

Anal inspection -

Visualised - ? tear at 6 - 7 clock at the anal sphincter.[67]

1. It appears then that the mother sought to misrepresent the general practitioner's findings to the Department and to this Court. Further, a plain reading of the mother's affidavit would cause a reader to conclude that the female child had a "tear" around her anus when in fact, the general practitioner's notes, which the mother annexed to her own affidavit identify that the observations of the general practitioner were equivocal.
2. Further, and although the mother refers in her affidavit to the observations of the female child's treating general practitioner in October 2022, she does not refer to the child's attendance at hospital in November 2022. On that occasion, and following a "[video medical examination]", the mother was advised that the female child's "hymen was identified and appeared intact and there were no signs of acute injury".[68] When challenged about why the mother did not include this important information in her affidavit filed on 31 January 2025, the mother said that she was "relying" on the earlier findings, which were inconclusive. The mother's response was not persuasive, and I consider that the mother was making efforts to mislead the Court.
3. I am also concerned that the mother made at least four recordings of discussions between herself and the female child with respect to the alleged abuse. In November 2022, the mother said as follows by way of a text message directed to a worker at the Joint Child Protection Response Program:

In one of the recordings, I try and get her to repeat what she'd [sic] said about [the father] putting his penis in her vagina, so I try and prompt her to repeat it after a few minutes but this was the most traumatic experience for her, so she didn't want to repeat it. Telling you for context.[69]

1. In November 2022, the mother directed another message to a worker at the Joint Child Protection Response Program in the following terms:

Sent through tonight's voice recording. Was a new disclosure. What she's describing sounds like while I was still living there, he would sneak into her room and rub his semen into her mouth.

He thought she was asleep.

1. The mother's efforts to obtain video recordings of disclosures by the female child and the mother's admission to a worker at the Joint Child Protection Response program to the effect that she tried to get the female child to repeat various disclosures for the purposes of a recording raises significant doubt in my mind about the veracity of the alleged disclosures. The mother's decision to have the female child repeat alleged disclosures for the purposes of recording and the mother's efforts to involve the male child in the relevant discussions also cause me to question the mother's insight and her ability to protect the children from psychological harm.
2. The female child was again interviewed by police in March 2023.[70] Thereafter, and as discussed above, the mother says that the female child made disclosures in the following terms:

(a) That the father "put his fingers in my bottom hole and when I do a poo I remember that feeling";

(b) That the father "punched me here and here (pointing to her stomach, nose and left eye)". She alleges that the female child asserted that the father "punches me all the time when you are not looking";

(c) That the father calls her "dumb";

(d) That the father put her head in the toilet;

(e) That the father punched the family cat;

(f) That the father bit her on the toe and on the knee;

(g) That the father cut her with a knife;

(h) That the father threw a fan at her;

(i) That the father "twisted the inside part of my vulva";

(j) That the father punched the family dog;

(k) That the father put his "hands in her panties"; and

(l) That the father put his penis in her mouth.[71]

1. Despite the disclosures, the mother on her own case does not assert that school teachers, childcare providers or any third party at any stage has expressed concern or documented that the female child presented with cuts, bruises or abrasions. In fact, when workers from the Department spoke with the principal of the children's school, she said that she had "not noticed any injuries to the children ever that would suggest immediate concern to safety".[72] Further, staff at the school had never raised any concerns in relation to the children's physical care.[73]
2. By March 2023, New South Wales Police had formed a view that:

(a) Due to "fanciful disclosures" of each child, any investigation would be suspended;

(b) There was insufficient plausible evidence to "even apply for an ADVO".[74]

1. By March 2023, case workers from the Joint Child Protection Response program attended on the mother. It appears that they did so in circumstances where the Department held several concerns in relation to the mother's conduct. Those concerns were recorded in a "Safety Assessment Template". In response to a question about whether a parent's "current emotional, psychological or cognitive functioning" seriously impairs a parent's ability to care for the children, workers at the Department said as follows:

NSW Health holds concerns for the psychological harm perpetrated by [the mother]. [The mother] has continued to have ongoing conversations with the children in great details specific to sexual and physical abuse, has continued to expose [the female child] to multiple physical examinations and has requested for the children to be interviewed more than once.[75]

1. It is apparent that the Department's concerns about the mother's conduct were elevated after the mother maintained allegations against the father despite some of the female child's alleged disclosures having become fantastical. For example, the mother acknowledged that some of the alleged disclosures made by the female child could simply not be true. She acknowledged that there was no medical evidence to support any conclusion that the female child's hands had been "cut off", or that the female child's spine had been broken or that she had been put through a "washing machine".[76] Similarly, there was no evidence to the effect that a friend of the father "banged [the female child's] head with a hammer" or that the father put a burning candle on the female child's face or that the father put the female child's head through a wall.[77] If these acts had occurred then it is surprising that the children were never the subject of any notification by staff at their school.
2. On the balance of probabilities, I cannot find that the father sexually assaulted the female child in the manner alleged or at all. Similarly, I cannot find that the father physically assaulted the female child in the manner alleged or at all. When arriving at this conclusion, I bring to account the following:

(a) The manner in which the first alleged disclosure made by the female child came to be made - namely, in response to a leading question put by the mother and the mother's gesticulation to the female child's genitalia;

(b) The decision by the Department of Communities and Justice not to intervene at any stage prior to or subsequent to the commencement of proceedings;

(c) The failure by New South Wales Police not to charge the father with any offence despite regular and florid reports being made to members of the police force by the mother and despite an interview of the father having been undertaken;[78]

(d) The decision of The Joint Defence Forces Police Force not to take any action against the father despite the mother's entreaties on the grounds of "insufficient evidence";[79]

(e) The finding of a practitioner at the Women's Health Clinic in October 2022 that there was no evidence of trauma to the female child's vagina or anus;

(f) The finding of a medical practitioner at the D Hospital in November 2022 to the effect that the female child's "hymen was identified and appeared intact and there were no signs of acute injury";[80]

(g) The advice of the principal of the children's school to the effect that she had "not noticed any injuries to the children ever that would suggest immediate concern to safety";[81]

(h) The absence of any objective evidence, which supports a conclusion that the children have been sexually or physically abused in any manner whatsoever.

1. I also bring to account the single expert's concern on interview of the mother that in response to questions put to her, the mother would:

(i) Often give extended recall of discussions long after a conversation between the mother and the children was reported to have taken place; and

(j) Often include long descriptions of how she responded to disclosures made by the children "many of which had a 'text book' flavour of what should be said to children and how".[82]

1. On balance, these observations support a conclusion that the mother has an absolute belief in the children's disclosures if in fact they have been made and secondly, the mother believes that the children will be positively impacted from an ongoing separation from their father. When asked about the same by the single expert, the mother denied that the children would be adversely impacted and in support of such a proposition said that "the children ask her regularly whether their father has yet been arrested and incarcerated".[83] Such evidence directly undermines the mother's assertion to the single expert that she does not talk about the father in front of the children and by doing so, I find that the mother is causing the children significant psychological harm. I also find that the mother has caused the female child psychological harm by subjecting her to the three medical examinations referred to above and the mother's own examination of the female child's genitalia.

Was the father a member of a paedophile ring and/or did the father traffic the children to sexual predators and/or did the father abuse the male child in any way?

1. In January 2023, and on two dates in February 2023, the Department received a report stating that "[the female child] disclosed her dad drove with her at night time and on one occasion her daddy's friend got into the car and he put his nose on her vulva". The female child also allegedly disclosed that:

(a) "she fell asleep in a stranger's bed and when she woke up she had pain her bottom";[84]

(b) her father's friend "put his nose in my vulva and had a gun pointed at me and told me to take my clothes off".[85]

1. When reporting the alleged disclosures, the mother said that she was "aware that both of her children have been trafficked by their father to a known paedophile ring".[86] She did not provide any evidentiary basis for such an assertion.
2. The mother's allegations with respect to the father's involvement in a paedophile ring also encompass an allegation that in January 2023, the male child disclosed that his father gave him a "weird pill" and two minutes later, he was unconscious.[87] Thereafter, and by email communication dated February 2023, the mother reported to a worker at the Department of Communities and Justice and to the male child's psychologist that the male child had made a disclosure to the effect that his father injected him with a substance in a needle and that the substance stopped him from moving his body. In the same email communication, the mother said as follows:

[The male child] is extremely clear about what he experienced that night. He knows what he was wearing, he knows what room he was in, and based on what the kids have said, they were both sold to paedophiles on the night of [...], 2022. [The father] was present for [the male child's] abuse and participated. [The female child] was taken elsewhere. [The father] took her there, so his google timeline...should show where he took her.[88]

1. Insofar as the mother says that the male child was drugged by way of a substance contained in a needle or a tablet, a six centimetre sample of his hair was taken in February 2023 at which time, the mother signed a Chain of Custody form.[89] The analysis was completed in March 2023 and no drugs whatsoever were detected despite the fact that the analysis was able to test for the presence of drugs for the period August 2022 to February 2023.[90] Although I appreciate that the mother says the abuse occurred in April 2022, the mother does not say how she arrived at such a conclusion. Further, the fact that drugs were not detected in the male child's hair for a period of about two months prior to separation suggests to me that there is no merit to any assertion that he was drugged at any time by his father.
2. The female child was also tested by way of the provision of a thirteen-centimetre length of hair and again, no drugs whatsoever were detected.[91]
3. The mother's allegations are undermined in any event by the mother's concession under cross-examination that she did not know whether the children had been "trafficked" in the manner allegedly disclosed by them.
4. On balance, I cannot find that the children have been trafficked by their father to a "paedophile ring" or drugged or abused in the manner described by the mother. With respect to the female child, I rely on my findings as set out above. With respect to the male child, I note the mother's advice to the single expert that the male child is "quite vulnerable to the influence of others".[92] In my mind, and as I discuss below, such influence includes the influence of the mother.
5. It is also clear that the male child is aware of the female child's alleged disclosures and the attention paid by the mother to the female child on account of the same. Particularly, the mother described the male child as "being jealous of the attention that [the female child] receives due to her 'trauma'".[93] The fact that the male child is so aware necessarily highlights my concern that the mother has been discussing the allegations in the presence of the children and at worst, creating a narrative for repetition by the children.
6. I am also concerned about the influence, which the mother has brought to bear on the male child. On interview by the single expert, the male child said that he knew that his father drugged him so that he could "attack" the female child "and he claimed to know this because [the mother] told him about what happened to [the female child] after [the female child] made a disclosure to her".[94] Again, the male child's advice to the single expert is direct evidence that in the period subsequent to separation, the mother has made effort to persuade the male child that both he and his sister have been abused by the father. By doing so, the mother has caused the male child psychological harm. I am fortified in this view by the advice of the male child's psychologist to the single expert. When she was interviewed by the single expert in May 2024, the male child's psychologist said that:

(a) She had been attending on the male child since January 2022;[95]

(b) The male child has only made disclosures since his parents separated;

(c) The male child did not demonstrate any evidence of trauma prior to his parents' separation; and

(d) She never had any concern about the children's welfare or for the potential for the children to be abused.[96]

1. Again, the evidence of the male child's psychologist when considered with the balance of the evidence before me, causes me to conclude that the father never "trafficked" the male child nor has he exposed him to any abuse whatsoever. In fact, and on interview by a caseworker from the Joint Child Protection Response program, the male child did not disclose any sexual abuse.[97]

Inappropriate behaviour on the part of the father

1. The mother advised the single expert that the father would leave "soiled condoms about the house" and the female child found these items on three occasions. The father acknowledged on enquiry by the single expert that the children did find some sex toys, which he says the parties used as a couple. However, he says that they were "innocently found" in the sense that the father said he was "always discrete [sic] and careful in where he stored these objects".[98] Under cross-examination, the father conceded that the male child found a sex toy but said that the event was "embarrassing". I consider the father's expression of embarrassment to be genuine and he was awkward when giving this evidence.
2. Under cross-examination, the father also acknowledged that an open condom was found in his clothing. When asked what he might do to prevent the children from being exposed to sex toys, condoms and the like, the father said that he would "do better". My impression is that the father was embarrassed by this line of cross-examination and presented as regretful that the children had found the items in the manner asserted by the mother. Whilst it might be a matter of regret, I do not consider that the father's conduct represents a significant risk to the children's safety or emotional wellbeing.

1. In late 2022, the mother attended at the Suburb C Police Station to report a sexual assault by the father in the second half of April 2022. The police records suggest that the mother made an allegation in the following terms:

The [mother] disclosed during the second half of April 2022, the [father] asked to have sex with the victim although she said no. The [father] offered to massage her back and the victim agreed. After 10 minutes of massage, the [father] removed the victim's pants and...[99]

1. Despite this, and by her affidavit filed on 31 January 2025, the mother asserts that she was forced to have sexual intercourse with the father absent her consent in May 2022[100] and again in August 2022. The mother says as follows with respect to this event:

In August 2022, after we had separated, I was in bed and he came into our room, lay on the bed, and started kissing my shoulder. He forced himself upon me and had sex with me.[101]

1. In terms of chronology, the timing of the first alleged sexual assault as referred to in the mother's affidavit is inconsistent with the mother's report to police (supra). I do not consider this to be of any significance given the difference is nominal. It is of interest to me, however, that the mother does not report the second sexual assault in August 2022 to police. It is not entirely clear, but it seems that the mother also failed to report to police an alleged event, which she brings to the attention of the Single Expert - namely, that in 2022 the father "raped her anally when he forced himself on her aggressively despite her apparent resistance".[102]
2. The mother's allegations as set out in her affidavit and as reported to the single expert in April 2024 are also, on their face, inconsistent with reports made by the mother to the Department. Particularly, and when asked questions referred to in a "Safety Assessment Template", the mother advised the Department as follows:

[The mother] disclosed her own domestic violence from [the father]. [The mother] stated that it was never physical but he would kick doors, slam his hands on the computer desk and swear loudly.[103]

1. On cross-examination by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the mother conceded that sexual assault is a form of physical violence. This being so, it is curious that the mother failed to advise the Department about the sexual assaults allegedly perpetrated by the father.
2. The mother did report to the Department, however, that the children in turn disclosed to her that the father had drugged her and raped her in front of them.[104] The alleged disclosure occurred in August 2023, namely, eight months after the children spent any time with the father. The allegation as it finds form in the notes of the Department of Communities and Justice is brief:

[The mother] disclosed to reporter today [...]/2023 at around 12.00pm "the rape of the children by [the father] which has happened over the course of their life and the children disclosed the extent of the abuse in October of 2022 to her, [the father] also drug [sic] and raped her in front of the children.[105]

1. The alleged disclosure, however, must be seen in the context of notes prepared by the female child's psychologist and referred to by the single expert. Particularly, the notes of the psychologist suggest that the mother had a conversation with a representative of the Joint Child Protection Response program "about being drugged and raped" in the presence of the children.[106] Although the mother was not asked about the notes of the female child's psychologist, I am on balance prepared to find that the notes are more likely than not to be accurate given the other findings I have made about the mother's preparedness to inculcate the children to her view. This being so, I am not prepared to accept the mother's assertion that the children disclosed to her the fact that she was raped in their presence. Even if they did so, I cannot rule out the possibility that it was in fact the mother who created such a narrative for repetition by the children.
2. The mother did not address the topic of being drugged and raped in the presence of the children in her trial affidavit. In any event, the father in his written evidence denied ever assaulting the mother sexually and "he also denied being aggressive or 'pushy' sexually".[107] He maintained this position under cross-examination.
3. I cannot find on the balance of probabilities that the father sexually assaulted the mother on the occasions alleged or at all.

Has the father produced child pornography, viewed child pornography or disseminated child pornography?

1. The father says that in 2013, and whilst he was away for training with the defence force, the mother found pornography on his computer. He says that having done so, the mother overreacted and contacted the Family Defence Liaison Officer.[108]
2. Under cross-examination by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the father denied having any child pornography on his computer. Given my impression of the father as a truthful witness, I accept the father's denial. However, I have better evidence which enables me to find that there is no merit to the mother's allegation. Particularly:

(a) The mother says that her concerns were investigated by a senior officer in the Australian Defence Forces and that she printed the images and gave them to police. On her evidence, no action was taken;[109]

(b) The father has been interviewed by an officer of the Australian Defence Forces, New South Wales Police and the Department of Communities and Justice. Despite this, the father has never been charged with any offence nor has the Department sought to intervene either prior to or subsequent to the commencement of these proceedings.

(a) In October 2022, she submitted the father's hard drive to the Joint Child Protection Response program to investigate her concern that the hard drive contained child pornography. The agency advised the mother that it "did not find any questionable materials";[110]

(b) In 2023, the mother reported her concerns to the Sex Crime Squad, which in turn asked the mother to take the hard drive to the Suburb C Police Station. Police on that occasion refused to accept the hard drive on the basis that "specific software and alogarithms [sic] that look for pornography and child sex material...had been used prior"[111] and there was no evidence of any child pornography.

1. For these reasons, and in circumstances where the mother's allegations have been investigated and dismissed by the Joint Child Protection Response program and New South Wales Police, I cannot find that the father has produced, viewed or otherwise disseminated child pornography.

Conclusion as to the risk presented by the father

1. Where ultimately the Court's focus is on formulating orders which attend to the child's best interests, the Court is required to make findings of fact. The standard of proof is one of "on the balance of probabilities" consistent with s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
2. For the reasons discussed above, I cannot on the balance of probabilities find that the father has physically or sexually abused the children (or either of them) in the manner alleged by the mother or at all. Further, I cannot find that the father has abused the mother in the manner alleged or at all. When arriving at these conclusions, I bring to account the following:

(a) The first allegation was made following a leading question by the mother;

(b) The allegations have most consistently been made to the mother by the children, with agencies tasked with the protection of the children having extracted very little information;

(c) The mother's allegations have become more florid with the effluxion of time;

(d) There is no evidence that prior to the parties' separation, the children exhibited distress or any traumatic disturbance;

(e) If the children were abused by the father as infants as alleged, it was the single expert's opinion that there would have been "some obvious manifestation of trauma for the children much earlier in life".[112] There is no evidence of such trauma;

(f) The single expert's opinion that the father "does not present with features common to abuse perpetrators"[113]; and

(g) The single expert's opinion that many of the mother's allegations are "fanciful and implausible and unrealistic".[114] I agree.

Does the mother represent an unacceptable risk of harm to the children?

1. In circumstances where I have found that the father does not present a risk to the children, I turn my mind to whether the mother represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the children as asserted by counsel for the father and counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. I have found for the reasons set out above that the mother has psychologically harmed each of the children.
3. As an example of the harm, which the mother has caused the children, the mother advised the single expert that "the children ask her regularly whether their father has yet been arrested and incarcerated".[115] In my view, this is evidence enough of the mother's preparedness to inculcate the children to her point of view and the mother's preparedness to cause the children psychological harm by permitting them to form a view that their father presents a risk to them and/or a risk to the mother. I also note that despite detailed information having been provided by the mother to various agencies, the children when prompted for further information about the alleged abuse by representatives of the Department or the Joint Child Protection Response program would often say that "they did not know".[116] As examples:

(a) When the female child was interviewed by a Detective in October 2022, and asked to provide more details about her assertion that the father "touched my vulva and put his penis on my arm and lips", she said, "I don't know" and "passed on the questions and was not able to provide more context";[117]

(b) When the male child was interviewed by a caseworker from the Joint Child Protection Response program in November 2022, he was not able to provide any context or further information in relation to his assertion that the female child had been "sexually assaulted twice by [the father] ...a man who works in the [...]".[118]

1. The inability of the children to provide context or further information suggests to me that the children have been the subject of significant influence by their mother.
2. The male child's psychologist also advised the single expert that on occasion, the mother has become distressed and cried in the presence of the male child and this in turn has caused the male child to become "very distressed".[119] The male child's psychologist is not alone in expressing concern about the mother's behaviour. On interview by the single expert, the principal at the children's school advised that the mother would often make "extreme disclosures", which were so distressing for staff that they required a "formal debriefing". She went on to say that school management "had to be very firm with [the mother] to have her stop talking about such matters in front of [the male child] and school staff".[120] The principal went on to express concern about "the mother's boundaries and disclosures" and the "impact on [the male child] of the comments" made by the mother.[121]
3. The principal's concerns about the mother's "boundaries" are reflected by the concerns expressed by the single expert. Particularly, it was her assessment that the mother "overly identifies with her children, her boundaries with them are poor and enmeshed and she conflates their needs with her own".[122]
4. In terms of the effect of the mother's behaviour on the children, the single expert has expressed a view that the mother has "subtly reinforced and encouraged the children to make disclosures by paying them attention and praising them for their disclosures". She also expressed the following opinion:

...both [the male child and the female child] feel a strong sense of responsibility for their mother's emotional wellbeing and they feel a pressure to align with her, such that have behave in ways to reinforce her and encourage her overt love, praise and attention...whilst at the same time expressing overt hatred for their father.[123]

1. In my view, this concern is exemplified by the male child advising a teacher at his school that his father is a murderer when plainly, this is not the case.[124]
2. The risk presented by the mother is not only parental influence. The risk has also manifested itself in:

(a) Multiple police interviews of the children in respect of abuse to which they have never been subjected;

(b) Multiple interviews by caseworkers at the Department of Communities and Justice in respect of abuse to which they have never been subjected;

(c) In the case of the female child, three physical examinations by medical practitioners and a "[video medical examination]";

(d) In the case of the female child, a physical examination by the mother (supra);

(e) In the case of each child, drug testing;

(f) The recording of conversations between the children and the mother and requests made of the female child by the mother to repeat certain disclosures for the purposes of recording the same; and

(g) Efforts by the mother to include the male child in discussions about alleged abuse and efforts by the mother to have the male child corroborate alleged disclosures by the female child;

(h) Exposure of the children to graphic and inappropriate conversations in the presence of school staff. As discussed above, some discussions contained information, which was so graphic that school staff required a "debriefing".

1. I find that these interventions were unnecessary and that such interventions were damaging to the children's view of their father and their relationship with him.
2. The children are displaying behaviours, which cause me significant concern and indeed, caused the single expert significant concern. Particularly:

(a) On observation of interaction, the female child was "very dysregulated, loud and restless" and the mother did not react to that behaviour "as being anything other than her normal presentation". The single expert also identified that the female child engaged in a range of behaviours that caused concern for her safety albeit the mother did not intervene or respond in any way;[125]

(b) On the day following observations of interaction at the office of the single expert, the mother says that she had to call an ambulance for the female child in circumstances where she says the female child experienced a "dissociative episode". The mother says that the female child "flipped a switch" and began throwing things at her and screaming at her. By the time the ambulance arrived, the mother says that the female child was still dysregulated although there is no evidence that the child was taken to hospital.[126] That episode followed a recent occasion at a public venue at which time the mother again had to call an ambulance to address the female child's dysregulated behaviour;[127]

(c) The male child has had significant difficulties in the school environment in the period subsequent to separation. For example, the mother advised the single expert that the male child's school had to be "locked down" because he threatened to kill a class peer with a weapon.[128] Documents from the male child's school indicate that he has absconded from his classroom on several occasions, "used his hand across his neck as if to slit [his teacher's] throat", refused to complete tasks, responded in a disrespectful and aggressive way to his teachers, threatened to burn down a building at his school and generally been disruptive and dysregulated. On one occasion, the male child also held his penis through his pants and shook it at three boys.[129]

1. As discussed above, these behaviours have manifested themselves subsequent to their parents' separation. The single expert says as follows with respect to the children's behaviours:

I understand the children's behavioural and emotional concerns, which I note again have been reported post-separation and which in my view are significant and suggestive of severe decompensation...This includes separation form their father, their mother's distress and the repeated forensic procedures they have been subject to in the last two years.[130]

1. She went on to say that the behavioural and emotional concerns the children have demonstrated since their parents' separation "is largely a function of the disturbed relationship between the mother and children".[131]
2. During her oral evidence, the single expert expressed the following opinions:

(a) The children present with "severe disorganisation";

(b) Although the mother has been the children's primary attachment figure, it is not in the best interests of the children to remain in the mother's care. If the children do so and the court makes an order for time between the children and their father, it is the single expert's opinion that the mother will continue to make allegations against the father including allegations of an escalating nature. I infer from the use of the word "escalating" that the single expert was referring to allegations of an increasingly extreme and fanciful nature;

(c) An order leaving the children in the care of the mother will subject the children to increasing decompensation in their mental health, sadistic expressions and severely disorganised mental health, which will compromise their ability to enter adulthood. Her oral opinion was similar to her written opinion to the effect that the mother has exposed the children to psychological abuse through her behaviour;[132]

(d) In order to protect the children, the court ought to give serious consideration to an order, which prohibits any contact or communication between the children and their mother.

1. I agree with the opinions expressed by the single expert.
2. I am also concerned that if I were to make an order leaving the children in the care of the mother but afford the father time with the children, the mother will simply continue to make allegations against him thus perpetuating a negative narrative of the father to the children. In this regard I note that:

(a) By March 2024, the school was so concerned by the "escalating number of reports [against the father] and their nature" that they requested that the father attend a meeting at the children's school. It appears that the school was concerned not only for the father's welfare but for the welfare of the male child. Particularly, the father says that the male child would when asked about him give an answer that the father "sexually abused [the female child]" and having made a disclosure would say "You need to write this down so [the father's] lawyers don't get him off".[133] This uncontested evidence simply highlights my concern that the mother is prepared to influence the children to achieve her desired outcome; and

(b) In March 2024, and faced with an order for supervised time at a contact service, the mother reported to police that the father had been stalking her. There is no proof whatsoever that the father had been doing so and after speaking to police, no action was taken against the father.[134]

1. For these reasons, I find that the mother has caused the children psychological harm and that the risk posed by the mother is unacceptable. Accordingly, I am compelled to take steps to ensure the safety of the children.

Should the children's parenting arrangements change in the manner proposed by the father?

1. As referred to above, the father seeks a final order that the children live in his primary care. That application is supported by the single expert and the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. For the reasons discussed above, I am concerned that to accede to the mother's application would be to countenance an outcome whereby the children continue to be exposed to psychological harm perpetrated by their mother. Further, the consequence of acceding to the mother's application would be to deny the children the benefit of any relationship with their father. When expressing such a conclusion, I am also mindful that after the Court made orders with the consent of the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer for the children to spend supervised time with the father at a contact centre, the mother took active steps to undermine the possibility of such time commencing. Particularly, the mother insisted that the children's psychologist intervene prior to any time commencing thereby thwarting the order.[135]
3. The single expert's written evidence with respect to a change of the children's primary living arrangements was in the following terms:

I imagine it would be highly distressing for the children to be separated from their mother and to be placed in the care of their father whom they believe has abused them. Moreover, I expect that a change in the children's circumstances would initially be highly distressing and destabilising for all concerned.[136]

1. I have no doubt that a change of primary residence would be distressing for the children and their mother. However, and when considering the merit of such a proposal, I take into account the following:

(a) The single expert did not have any concerns about the father's ability to meet the children's needs "in any domain".[137] I also bring to account the fact that the father is obliged to undergo regular psychological checks to maintain his position with the Defence Force.[138] I infer that those checks have been satisfactory in circumstances where the father has maintained his employment for over a decade (supra);

(b) It was the single expert's opinion that the father recognised the "importance of [the mother's] role in the children's lives as their mother, as well as the belief that the children would benefit from having both of their parents involved in their lives".[139] This clearly was an untenable position for the mother and as such, I cannot have the same degree of confidence in the mother;

(c) In a manner similar to the mother, the single expert found that the father is a loving and dedicated parent who has a "sophisticated understanding of the role and responsibilities of parenthood, with a sound appreciation of the children's needs across various domains";[140]

(d) The single expert identified that the father's history was "more suggestive of stability"[141] when compared to the mother's history noting that the mother reported that across her life, she has been diagnosed with mental health disorders, generalised anxiety disorder [and] traits of a disturbance in personality.[142] For his part, the father says and the mother accepts that she has made attempts to self-harm;[143]

(e) The single expert concluded that the father:

(i) Has a good understanding of Autism Spectrum Disorder and how this impacts on the male child;[144]

(ii) Had recognised the need for professional supports for the children and researched "support services that would be useful for the male child";[145]

(iii) Had to his credit, recognised the need for the children to have stability in terms of their schooling but also their need to have "quality time with their mother";[146]

(iv) Had demonstrated an understanding of what routine might look like in his household and had considered the logistical issues associated with having the children in his care (albeit at the time of interview, the father was promoting orders for equal shared care);[147] and

(v) On a Personality Assessment Inventory, gave answers which were consistent with a conclusion that the father was a well-adjusted and psychologically stable individual.[148]

1. The conclusions of the single expert were to an extent in line with impressions formed by staff at the female child's school who advised the single expert that the father was "nothing but calm, cooperative and thoughtful".[149]
2. I have given careful attention to the father's written evidence and the father's oral evidence. I note the following:

(a) The father has across the course of the litigation been anxious to receive information relating to the children's medical needs despite the mother's failure to respond to his reasonable requests;[150]

(b) The father has attended on the male child's psychologist.[151] He otherwise demonstrated an awareness of the male child's diagnoses and an understanding of the single expert's recommendation that the female child be assessed for an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;[152]

(c) Subsequent to the release of the Family Report and having considered the single expert's recommendations, the father in November 2024 signed a lease for larger accommodation so that the children can have their own bedrooms;

(d) The father gave careful consideration to where the children might attend at school. It is the father's preference that the children attend at a school in proximity to his leased property. He has made enquiries to ensure that the proposed school has a focus on inclusion and support for children with diverse needs.[153] His research identifies that the school has a dedicated special education unit including two Autism support classes[154] and an onsite counsellor;

(e) In anticipation of the trial, the father put in a request with the welfare officer at his employer for flexible working arrangements;[155]

(f) The father has calculated that as at December 2024, he had 33 days annual leave and over three months of long service leave available to him. The father says that he proposes to take this leave if his application is successful so that he might assist the children to transition into his primary care;[156]

(g) The father has been working with his own psychologist to "focus on how...[he] can best accommodate and support [the children]" should the Court make an order for them to live in his primary care. The father proposes to engage the psychologist for the foreseeable future and describes the psychologist as an "essential resource" for him;[157]

(h) The father has discussed with his psychologist the possibility of family therapy with the children to help all of them "adapt to our new situation";[158]

(i) The father has engaged with several organisations designed to assist parents generally but particularly, a parenting organisation, which aligns with the needs of the children;[159]

(j) The father has connected with the Autism Community Network and has expressed a desire to attend future meetings with regularity given its close proximity to his leased property;[160]

(k) The father has expressed a willingness to retain the children's treating psychologists and specialists to ensure the children's continuity of care despite his obvious concern that the mother may have influenced those practitioners against him;[161] and

(l) The father has made an enquiry of the paternal grandparents who are prepared to travel to the suburbs of Sydney from Brisbane to assist the father to transition the children into his care and to otherwise assist the father as he may require.[162]

1. The father was challenged about some of the matters referred to above by the mother's counsel. His evidence was not diminished in any way, and I considered the father to be a forthright and honest witness. When questioned about the possibility that the children might live with him, the father said as follows:

It will be hard. I have had two years to prepare for this and I have given it a lot of thought.

1. That reflection and consideration was evident in the form of the father's written and oral evidence.
2. Accordingly, and in circumstances where I find that the father has prepared for the task ahead of him and acknowledges the difficulties associated with a transition of the children into his primary care, I find that on balance, the children's best interests will be served by making an order that the children live primarily with him. I am concerned that to do otherwise will be to leave the children in the care of a parent who regrettably has caused and is causing them significant psychological harm.

Can time between the children and their mother be facilitated in a manner, which does not cause them psychological harm?

1. The single expert gave evidence that the court ought to give serious consideration to the cessation of all communication and time between the children and their mother. Such an outcome is not promoted by the father or the Independent Children's Lawyer. Instead, and after a moratorium of six months, each of the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer promoted an outcome whereby the children spend four supervised visits per year with the mother.
2. When considering the merit of the proposal made by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer, I note the oral evidence of the single expert in the following terms:

The greater the frequency the more difficulties it would cause [the children] and the mother.

1. The single expert also gave oral evidence that:

(a) The children are "highly attuned to the mother's wellbeing";

(b) The children's attunement to their mother has contributed to the making of disclosures;

(c) If the mother is distressed during time spending, such distress will necessarily place pressure on the children and the children's behavioural issues will either continue or increase in severity; and

(d) Prior to any award for unsupervised time, the mother would need to, with the assistance of a clinical psychologist, come to understand the impact of her behaviour on the children and learn how to protect the children from her behaviour.

1. In addition, and prior to unsupervised time between the children and their mother commencing, it was the opinion of the single expert as expressed during cross-examination by the father's counsel that the mother would need to satisfy several criteria. Those criteria are summarised as follows:

(a) The children would need to have settled into their father's care and experienced stability with respect to those arrangements;

(b) The mother would need to accept that the children have not been abused in the manner asserted by the father or at least "moved on from it"; and

(c) The mother would need to have acknowledged the consequences of her behaviours and acknowledged that those behaviours have contributed to the children's presentation.

1. Having regard to the above evidence, I am not persuaded that it is in the children's best interests for them to spend unsupervised time with the mother. The risk to their mental health and emotional functioning is unacceptable. The risk arises from the mother's inability to shield the children from her negative views about the father and her influence upon the children which causes the children to form a negative view about the father in relation to allegations, which have no foundation. As discussed above, and if the mother is permitted to spend unsupervised time with the children and accordingly expose the children to her negative views of the father, it is likely that the children will experience an increasing decompensation in their mental health. In my opinion, this harm can only be mitigated by supervision of the children's time with the mother.
2. With respect to the frequency of any supervised time, I am troubled that a frequent time spending arrangement will cause the children difficulties of the nature described by the single expert. This is because on the evidence available to me, the mother does not have the ability to manage her emotions or to shield the children from her own view of the father. Further:

(a) I place weight on the opinion expressed by the single expert to the effect that if the mother is distressed during time spending, such distress will necessarily place pressure on the children and the children's behavioural issues will either continue or increase in severity; and

(b) It is my opinion, which was shared by the single expert, that frequent time between the children and their mother may compromise the ability of the children to feel secure and stable within the father's household. The single expert shared that opinion.

1. For these reasons, I am persuaded that it is in the children's best interests to accede to the application made by the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father. That is, I agree that it is in the children's best interests to spend time with their mother on four occasions each year. I will also make an order that the supervised service be located in the Sydney metropolitan area to avoid the possibility that the mother may disingenuously nominate a supervision service designed to cause the father inconvenience.
2. When making an order for supervised time between the children and their mother, I am concerned about the practicality of long-term supervised time together with the impact on the children and the parties. Tree J at first instance in Norton & Landell (Consent Final Parenting Orders) [2015] FamCA 96[163] considered a proposal for ongoing supervision and observed as follows:
   1. I am conscious that the proposed orders potentially would see long, and perhaps even indefinite, supervision of the father's time. Counsel for the independent children's lawyer helpfully referred me to the Full Court decision of Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4, where the Full Court expressed, it may be fairly said, considerable disapproval of regimes of orders which see protracted, or indefinite, supervision. However, whilst I accept that I am bound by statements of law or general principle in _Slater & Ligh_t, that does not mean that each case is not to be decided on its own facts.

...

1. Although I am mindful of the criticism of protracted supervision orders, weighing all of the relevant considerations, I am satisfied that, nonetheless, such orders are in the best interests of the child in these circumstances.

1. In circumstances where the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer promote an order for the children to spend supervised time with the mother on an ad infinitum basis, I am mindful of the cautions espoused in Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573.[164] Particularly, I am mindful of the following principles developed by the Full Court:

(a) While the protection of the child from harm may be secured by the requirement of supervision, the court should not ignore the effect of spending time with a parent in such an environment may itself have an effect on the child's well-being;

(b) It is both legitimate and necessary that the court give consideration to:

(i) any recommendations of a family report writer;

(ii) the practical difficulties; and

(iii) the long term effects;

of long-term supervision upon a child (i.e. their best interests).

1. As discussed above, I have found that an order for supervision is warranted. Similarly, the single expert does not conclude that the children spending time with the mother under supervision in the future will cause them any harm. Her evidence is to the contrary.

1. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer promote an order that supervised time occur at such supervision service as nominated by the mother and that the mother pay for the costs of the supervision. I consider that it is appropriate to make an order in these terms so that the mother can identify a service, which is prepared to provide supervision of her time with the children on a long-term basis.
2. With respect to payment of a supervised service, the mother filed a Financial Statement on 9 April 2025 in response to the oral application made by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, which sought payment of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer. That document identified that after expenses, the mother has a residual income of $692 per month. That amount will reduce by a sum of about $350 being the amount, which the mother currently receives from the father on a weekly basis on account of child support. Nonetheless, the mother at Part N of her Financial Statement indicates that her weekly costs in relation to the children are in the order of $593 per week. This being so, and by reason of the orders I will make, the mother will continue to enjoy a significant surplus of income over expenditure per week. For this reason and given that pursuant to my orders the father will bear the overwhelming financial burden for the care of the children, I consider that it is appropriate to make an order for the mother to pay for the costs of the supervision service.

Section 60CC(2)(a) - The arrangements that would promote the safety of the children and each person who has care of the children

1. I have set out above my findings. I have concluded that:

(a) There is no evidence that the father has physically abused or sexually abused the children in the manner alleged by the mother or at all;

(b) The children have been subjected to psychological abuse by the mother including in the form of:

(i) Parental influence;

(ii) A preparedness to create a negative narrative of the father and the exposure of the children to that narrative;

(iii) An inability to shield the children from her negative view of the father;

(iv) A preparedness to subject the female child to invasive and unnecessary examinations of her genitalia;

(v) A preparedness to subject the children to drug testing;

(vi) A preparedness to subject the children to unnecessary interviews with respect to alleged abuse by several agencies including the Department of Communities and Justice and New South Wales Police;

(c) An order leaving the children in the care of the mother will subject the children to increasing decompensation in their mental health; and

(d) In order to protect the children, the Court ought to make an order that the children live with the father.

1. Simply, the evidence summarised during this Judgment causes me to conclude that the risks presented by the mother cannot be tolerated absent supervision of her time with the children.

Section 60CC(2)(b) - any views expressed by the children

1. The single expert was "unable to gauge any clear wishes or views in relation to [the female child], as she was highly dysregulated and...nonsensical" when the expert spoke to her.[165] For his part, the male child "expressed very clear wishes to have no contact or communication with his father" and in fact, told the single expert that "he would like to hurt his father".[166]
2. I place no weight upon the views of either child. As discussed above, the risk presented by the mother arises from her inability to shield the children from her negative views about the father and her influence upon the children which causes the children to form a negative view about the father in relation to matters that have no foundation in reality. The views of the children as expressed to the single expert must be seen in the context of "the children's need and want to reinforce and appease their mother".[167]

Section 60CC(2)(c) - The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the children

1. The male child has been diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[168] The father concedes that the male child has these disorders. The single expert has recommended that the parties facilitate the female child's attendance on a paediatrician so that she be assessed for an Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[169].
2. The single expert concluded that the father:

(a) Has a good understanding of Autism Spectrum Disorder and how this impacts on the male child;[170]

(b) Had recognised the need for professional supports for the children and researched "support services that would be useful for the male child";[171]

(c) Had demonstrated an understanding of what routine might look like in his household and had considered the logistical issues associated with having the children in his care (albeit at the time of interview, the father was promoting orders for equal shared care).[172]

1. For these reasons, I find that the father will be able to competently assist the male child with his disabilities and similarly, be able to assist the female child if she receives a diagnosis in the terms suggested by the single expert.
2. Further, the evidence supports a finding that the mother has caused the children psychological harm and that the risk posed by her is unacceptable. Accordingly, I am compelled to make orders in the terms, which I have described above.
3. I was not addressed with respect to the cultural needs of the children. Absent any particular cultural issue being brought to my attention, I find that the father will adequately address the cultural needs of the children. Even if this finding is erroneous, the children will by reason of orders I make, maintain a connection with their mother and accordingly, any culture of significance to her.

Section 60CC(2)(d) - The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the children to provide for the children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. I have concluded that the mother does not have the capacity to provide for the needs of the children, including their emotional and intellectual needs. I have also found that the mother has exposed the children to psychological abuse.
2. In contrast, it was the opinion of the single expert that she did "not have concerns about [the father's] capacity to meet the children's needs in any domain".[173] Having carefully considered the written and oral evidence of the father, I find myself sharing the opinion expressed by the single expert. As discussed above, and in circumstances where I find that the father has prepared for the task ahead of him and acknowledges the difficulties associated with a transition of the children into his primary care, I find that on balance, the children's best interests will be served by making an order that the children live primarily with him. I am concerned that to do otherwise will be to leave the children in the care of a parent who regrettably has caused and is causing them significant psychological harm.

Section 60CC(2)(e) - The benefit to the children of being able to have a relationship with the children's parents, and other people who are significant to the children, where it is safe to do so

1. The orders, which I will make will allow the children the benefit of maintaining a relationship with each parent. With respect to the father, the orders will allow the children the benefit of a relationship in a safe and structured environment.
2. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the children are at risk in the care of the mother and that the risk is unacceptable. I find that the children would obtain no benefit from the unsupervised time with their mother and in fact, if unsupervised time were to commence, I would be very concerned about the deleterious effect on the children.
3. As discussed above, I find that it is in the children's best interests to spend time with their mother on four occasions each year. I am concerned that more frequent time will:

(a) place pressure on the children. I share the concern expressed by the single expert that this being so, the children's behavioural issues will either continue or increase in severity; and

(b) compromise the ability of the children to feel secure and stable within the father's household.

Section 60CC(1)(b) and s 60CC(3) - Right to enjoy Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture

1. These sections do not fall for consideration given the factual background of these proceedings because the children are not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children.

Section 60CC(2)(f) - Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the children

1. No other consideration was addressed by the mother, the father or the Independent Children's Lawyer.

1. On interview by the single expert, the mother said that "she does not have any contact with [the father] now nor does she want for any".[174] For his part, the father said that he "has no contact with [the mother] at the present time".[175] In the period subsequent to separation, the father conceded that he had no involvement in making decisions for the children nor has he received any information about the children or their activities.[176]
2. By dint of the orders I will make, the father will become the children's primary carer. Further, and in circumstances where I have considered it necessary to limit the children's time with their mother to four occasions per annum, it will be the father who shall be responsible for making relevant decisions for the children.
3. The evidence supports a finding that it is in the children's best interests for the father to hold parental responsibility.

Moratorium with respect to time between the children and the mother

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer promotes an order that for a period of six months, the mother be prohibited from communicating with the children by any means whatsoever or from spending time with them. That proposed order is supported by the father.
2. By her report, the single expert says that a change of the children's primary living arrangements will be "highly distressing and difficult for all concerned and likely for some time". She also expresses concern that the mother "will not cope well with this situation".[177] I share that concern. For these reasons, I also agree that it is appropriate to place a moratorium of six months with respect to any time between the children and their mother. In my view, this will enable the children to settle into their father's care and avoid the prospect that the children will be exposed to the mother's distress.

Continued engagement of the children's treating therapists

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer and the father seek an order that the father continue to engage with the children's treating therapists so that the children might have the benefit of an ongoing relationship with those professionals who have assisted the children to date. It is to the father's credit that he agrees to such an order in circumstances where a reasonably minded person might be concerned that the views held by those professionals of the father have been compromised by the narrative given to them by the mother. In order to ameliorate this possibility, I will make an order in the terms sought by each of the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer to the effect that the father be permitted to provide a copy of my orders and reasons for judgment to the children's treating medical practitioners and allied health professionals. I will also make an order to the effect that the father be permitted to provide a copy of the single expert's report to the children's treating medical practitioners and allied health professionals.
2. In any event, and given the father's persuasive evidence that he will continue to facilitate the children's attendance on their current therapists, I am disinclined to make an order compelling him to do so. Further, and given that I have made an order for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the children, I do not wish to make an order, which may cause him difficulty in the future. For example, the children's ongoing attendance on their current therapists might cause the father as yet unknown logistical difficulties. Further, it might be that the children's current therapists become unhelpful to the father and/or the children in light of allegations, which the mother may have made about the father to them to date.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer and the father each seek an order that the father be obliged to keep the mother informed of any serious illness or injury suffered by the children or either of them. The father also promotes an order that he provide the mother with details of all medication prescribed for the children. I was not addressed as to the necessity for such an order and it seems unnecessary given the orders, which I will make with respect to the children's living arrangements.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer promotes an order that the father shall provide to the mother copies of any medical reports prepared by any treating specialist for the children within 48 hours of receipt of any such report. Such an order is opposed by the father who says that the mother may seek to cause mischief if provided with medical information in relation to the children.
3. When considering this issue, I am mindful of concerns expressed by staff at the children's school with respect to the mother's behaviour. As discussed, the mother's disclosure of certain information to staff at the children's school was so distressing that some of them had to be "debriefed".
4. I am desirous of avoiding the mother's interference in the children's therapy and medical treatment. It is in the children's interests that any treatment occur in a calm and focussed manner. For these reasons, I decline to make the order sought by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
5. I will, however, make an order in the terms promoted by the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer to the effect that on one occasion per month, the father provide the mother with a brief written update about the children's progress at school as well as their health and wellbeing. With respect to the topic of schooling in particular, this will provide a mechanism for the mother to keep herself informed as to the children's progress and hopefully, provide topics for discussion between the children and their mother during supervised time.

1. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer promoted orders to the effect that the parties utilise the "AppClose" parenting application to communicate or otherwise by SMS text message or telephone in the event of any emergency. I agree that such an order is appropriate. In order to give effect to such an order, I will also make an order that each party keep the other advised of his/her mobile telephone number and advise the other party to any change to these details within seven days of such change occurring.

1. The father and the Independent Children's Lawyer seek orders that:

(a) The mother be restrained from contacting the children's school, psychologists, medical and allied health professionals;

(b) The mother be restrained from:

(i) Attending at, or being within, 200 metres of the residential address of the father, or any premises at which the children are living or temporarily staying; and

(ii) Attending at, or being within 200 metres of the children's school, or any venue where the children are undertaking extracurricular activities or attending medical and allied health appointments.

1. As discussed above, I am very concerned about the distress, which the mother will suffer as a consequence of the orders to be made by me. Further, and as will be obvious from my reasons:

(a) I do not have any confidence that the mother will act in a manner, which will shield the children from her distress;

(b) I do not have any confidence that the mother will act in a manner, which is respectful of those persons charged with the care of the children - for example, the children's school teachers;

(c) I do not have any confidence that the mother will act in a manner, which will not undermine the stability, which I anticipate the children will enjoy in the father's household.

1. The orders promoted by the Independent Children's Lawyer are orders, which can be made pursuant to s 68B of the Act.
2. An injunction is not, by definition, a "parenting order".[178] The Act provides separate powers for making injunctions, parentings orders, or other orders in relation to the welfare of a child.[179] Section 68B of the Act is not, therefore, technically subject to the paramountcy principle - the words of the section lack any express reference thereto. This issue has been addressed in many authorities and, as summarised in Attwood & Attwood [2022] FedCFamC1F 6, has to some extent been reconciled:
   1. ... Section 68B(1) of the Act states that the Court may make such order or grant such injunction as it considers appropriate for the welfare of the child. Section 68B(2) also states that the making of the order may occur in any case in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so.
   2. The Full Court in Bennett v Bennett (2001) FLC 93-088 determined that the power in s 68B was not subject to the express legislative requirement that the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration; and even if s 68B were subject to the "best interests" principle, it is doubtful that this would displace the established common law principles contained in the authorities such as In re Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21; Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis [1974] HCA 17; (1974) 131 CLR 311; Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring [1996] HCA 4; (1996) 135 ALR 29 and Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427. However, the Full Court in Flanagan and Handcock (2001) FLC 93-074 considered this and referred to CDJ v VAJ (No 1) (1998) 197 CLR 172 which decided that orders that are not a parenting order do not directly invoke the application of the paramountcy principle. Nevertheless the Court agreed with the Full Court that the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child are "powerful matters to be weighed up against a competing principle such as finality". The Full Court therefore held that in respect of the issue of an injunction under s 68B, it is incorrect to state that the "paramountcy principle" applies. However, the best interests principle needs to be given careful consideration, especially where the orders sought to be made intimately concern the welfare of the children.
   3. Thus, whilst the best interests of the child is not stated explicitly as the governing principle when making an injunction under s 68B, for all practical purposes the concept provides a useful framework within which to explore whether ... the injunction is appropriate for the welfare of the child, and is otherwise just or convenient.[180]

1. Given my concerns with respect to the mother's behaviour, I find that it is appropriate for me to make an order restraining the mother from coming within 200 metres of any place where the children reside or within 200 metres of any place where the children are attending at school, participating in extracurricular activities or attending medical and allied health appointments.

Application by the Independent Children's Lawyer for costs

1. At the conclusion of proceedings, the Independent Children's Lawyer made an application for costs. The costs are in the amount of $16,074.44 including GST. The father consents to an order that he meet payment of half of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer. The mother opposes the same on the basis of financial hardship.
2. Section 117(1) of the Act abolishes for the purposes of family law proceedings, the general rule that, in civil proceedings, costs follow the event. Section 117(2) of the Act provides that if, in proceedings under the Act, the Court is of the opinion that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so, the Court may subject to subsections (3A), (4), (4A), (5) and (6) and the applicable rules of court, make such order as to costs as the Court considers just.
3. Section 117(2A) is expressed in mandatory terms to require a Court when considering what order (if any) should be made under s 117(2) to have regard to seven matters. None of those seven matters is determinative. As was held in PBF & TRF (2004) 33 FamLR 123[181], it is not necessary for more than one factor to exist under s 117(2A) before it is competent for a judge to enliven s 117(2A) so as to make a costs order departing from the general principle set out in s 117(1) of each party bearing his or her own costs.
4. By the time that the trial commenced on 10 March 2025, the mother had paid to her solicitor a sum of $28,415.40 on account of costs and disbursements. She had provided her solicitor monies in the order of $69,346, which monies her solicitor held on trust to meet preparation for and attendances at final hearing.[182] Although the mother's solicitor had sought his fees for a five to six day trial, I granted the mother's solicitor and counsel leave to withdraw as the mother's legal representatives at the conclusion of her cross-examination on the fourth day of trial. It follows that the mother's legal representatives cannot expect to have the benefit of the entirety of the monies held in trust.
5. As discussed above, the mother filed a Financial Statement on 9 April 2025. That document leads to a conclusion that by reason of the orders I will make, the mother will continue to enjoy a significant surplus of income over expenditure per week.
6. For these reasons, I consider it is appropriate to make an order that each party meet the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer fixed in a sum of $8,037.22 including GST per party. I will make an order that such costs be paid within 28 days of the date of this Order.

1. The orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are those that most capably meet the children's best interests.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and fifteen (215) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Anderson.

[1] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 33.

[3] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 25.

[4] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 2.

[5] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 147.

[6] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 2.

[7] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraphs 6 and 7.

[8] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 7.

[9] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 51.

[10] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 332.

[11] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 20; Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 73.

[12] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 22.

[13] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraphs 82 and 84; Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 111.

[14] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraphs 25 and 26.

[15] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 26.

[17] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 27.

[19] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 28.

[20] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 29.

[21] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraphs 70, 71 and 74.

[22] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 97.

[23] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 100.

[25] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 104.

[26] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 105.

[27] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 118.

[28] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 96(a).

[29] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 96(b).

[30] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 96(c).

[31] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 15.

[32] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 18.

[33] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 67.

[34] Father's (Amended) Application for Final Orders filed 3 December 2024, pages 12 and 13.

[35] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 117.

[37] Mother's affidavit filed 30 April 2025, paragraph 10 and Annexure A.

[38] Mother's affidavit filed 30 April 2025, paragraph 4.

[39] Refer to discussion below under the heading "Has the father produced child pornography, viewed child pornography or disseminated child pornography?"

[44] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[45] Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447.

[46] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 97.

[47] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 97.

[48] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 100.

[51] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 100.

[53] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 105.

[60] Magellan Report dated 16 October 2023, page 6 of 11.

[65] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 106.

[70] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 117.

[71] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 118.

[78] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 38(a).

[79] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 53.

[82] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 18.

[83] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 118.

[87] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 109.

[92] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 100.

[93] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 103.

[94] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 214.

[95] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 292.

[96] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 295.

[98] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 173.

[100] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraphs 70 and 71.

[101] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 74.

[102] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraphs 77 and 316.

[106] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 256.

[107] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 172.

[108] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 91(a).

[109] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 18.

[112] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 326.

[113] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 326.

[114] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 326.

[115] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 118.

[116] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 281.

[119] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 296.

[120] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 301.

[121] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 304.

[122] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 324.

[123] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 328.

[124] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 328.

[125] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 239.

[126] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 241.

[127] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 107.

[128] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 104.

[130] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 329.

[131] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 331.

[132] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 331.

[133] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 59.

[134] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 79.

[135] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraphs 78, 80 and 81.

[136] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 331.

[137] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 331.

[138] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 95.

[139] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 330.

[140] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 324.

[141] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 323.

[142] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 322.

[143] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 94; Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 58.

[144] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 185.

[145] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 189.

[146] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 198.

[147] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 200.

[148] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 205.

[149] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 309.

[150] For example, refer to the father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 66.

[151] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 70.

[152] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraphs 92 and 93.

[153] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 103.

[154] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 104.

[155] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 115.

[156] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 117.

[157] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 119.

[158] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 120.

[159] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 121.

[160] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 122.

[161] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 124.

[162] Father's affidavit filed 20 December 2024, paragraph 126.

[163] Norton & Landell (Consent Final Parenting Orders) [2015] FamCA 96.

[164] Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4; [2013] 48 Fam LR 573.

[165] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, page 95.

[166] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, page 95.

[167] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, page 95.

[168] Mother's affidavit filed 31 January 2025, paragraph 51.

[169] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 332.

[170] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 185.

[171] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 189.

[172] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 200.

[173] Family Report dated 12 November 202, page 94.

[174] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 81.

[175] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 170.

[176] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, paragraph 199.

[177] Family Report dated 12 November 2024, page 96.

[178] Hedlund v Hedlund [2021] FedCFamC1A 84 [118].

[179] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D(1), s 67ZC.

[180] Attwood & Attwood [2022] FedCFamC2F 6, [31]-[33].

[181] PBF & TRF [2005] FamCA 158; (2004) 33 FamLR 123.

[182] Costs Notice filed by the mother on 10 March 2025.