Krall [2026] FedCFamC1F 163 (18 March 2026)

1. That the applicant is at liberty to apply for the matter to be relisted by email to chambers copying in the Co-Located Officers.
2. That without going into evidence, the Co-Located Officers are at liberty to email chambers copying in the applicant and other Co-Located Officer if they are of the view the matter ought be brought back on.
3. That the matter be listed on a date to be fixed.

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

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

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

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

1. These Reasons relate to the Orders made at the first return of this matter on Monday, 16 March 2026. Due to the urgent nature of the listing, the basis for which is explained below, the Court was not in a position to give oral reasons at the time but is now providing these written Reasons, a copy of which will be provided to the applicant and the co-located officers.
2. X is 15 years old, having been born in 2010.
3. In early 2026, X, her mother and other family members were involved in an horrific motor vehicle accident.
4. X's mother, Ms C, an older step-sibling and that sibling's partner died.
5. X survived.
6. She is presently sedated in intensive care. She has sustained multiple serious injuries and her medical team suspect she has suffered brain damage. It also may be that she suffered a stroke in the aftermath of the accident.
7. In March 2026, X underwent surgery to stabilise her pelvis as the medical team considered that necessary prior to any neurological interventions or further surgery.
8. She is likely to be airlifted to a Sydney hospital for further medical interventions and treatments.
9. X's father is involved in her care and her life more generally, but by dint of 2020 Orders as between the mother and father, X's now deceased mother had sole parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions for X.
10. Whilst the hospital is presently conferring with X's father, there will likely come a time that X's medical team will need an adult or surviving parent with major long-term decision making responsibility to consent to treatment and make allied health decisions.

1. After the accident, Children, Youth and Families (ACT) contacted the father to the following effect:[1]
   1. I have been made aware that there are existing final orders in place from 2020 that relate to the care of [X] that provide for her mother to have sole decision making and sole care of [X]. I was not aware of these Orders. Annexed hereto and marked "A" is a copy of those Orders.
   2. I have been notified by [Child, Youth and Families (ACT)] that my decision‑making capacity for [X] may be compromised due to the current Orders and that I should make this application to the Court immediately. I have been receiving assistance from [...] a social worker within the hospital in navigating these complexities. She has also been providing me with daily emotional support.

1. As to parental responsibility, the effect of the 2020 Orders was to take away the father's decision making for major long-term decisions for X; see s 61D(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)("the Act").
2. Accordingly, on Friday 13 March 2026, the father filed an Initiating Application seeking, inter alia:

(a) An urgent listing;

(b) The 2020 Orders be discharged;

(c) He have parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions; and

(d) X live with him.

1. The Initiating Application was accompanied by an affidavit of the father of the same date and an affidavit from the father's brother, i.e., X's paternal uncle, who is supportive of the father, had assisted the mother during a period of time when the father was absent (as set out later in these Reasons), and, maintains a relationship with X.
2. On Monday 16 March 2023, the matter was referred to Chambers to consider including it within the Critical Incident List and making an urgent listing.
3. Given X's dire medical circumstances and the reality that decisions may be urgently required for her, I listed it for 4.00 pm (AEST/Qld time) the same afternoon.
4. On Critical Incident List matters, I usually ask for reports from the relevant state or territory authorities pursuant to s 67ZBD of the Act. That is because Critical Incident List matters often do not have a natural contradictor. Hence, the information received from that information sharing regime helps me better understand if child protection and police authorities have been and/or are involved with the child, and in this case, the father. That information often gives me separate sets of eyes on the child and others in their orbit.
5. Because of the tight turn around in the listing, I did not burden the relevant co-located officers with the production of a report, but requested they attend the hearing by electronic means and give an oral report if relevant.
6. I thank the two co-located officers for their attendance and contributions on such short notice and will have a copy of these Reasons sent to them by Chambers.

1. With respect to the 2020 Orders, the father deposed as follows:[2]
   1. For context, as to how the final Orders came about, in 2020 I filed an application in the FCFCOA as a self-represented litigant. At the time [X] was living with her mother, and her mother and I were unable to agree to appropriate parenting arrangements for [X]. Our separation in 2020 was not amicable. At the time, I was involved in drug use and during the proceedings I experienced a period of poor mental health. I elected to abandon the Application.
   2. After I abandoned the Court Application in FCFCOA, I understand [Ms C] pursued final Orders. I did not involve myself in the later stages of the proceedings and I was not aware until recently that these Final Orders existed.
2. Plainly and sadly, the mother's death is a significant change of circumstance, and it is in X's best interest that I reconsider the 2020 Final Orders; see s 65DAAA of the Act.

1. The matter came on urgently and thus that order sought about an urgent hearing has been made.
2. The applicant also sought orders that X live with him and he have decision making responsibility in relation to all major long-term issues.
3. At this juncture, and after discussion with the applicant's legal representatives and co-located officers, I consider it is premature to make a live with order. I do hope though that that will come for consideration down the track as that would mean X is sufficiently recovered.
4. I will also not make a live with order now, by the terms of s 65K of the Act which provides:

65K What happens when parenting order that deals with whom a child lives with does not make provision in relation to death of parent with whom child lives

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a parenting order is in force that provides that a child is to live with one of the child's parents; and

(b) that parent dies; and

(c) the parenting order does not provide for what is to happen on that parent's death.

(2) The surviving parent cannot require the child to live with him or her.

(3) The surviving parent, or another person (subject to section 65C), may apply for a parenting order that deals with the person or persons with whom the child is to live.

(4) In an application under subsection (3) by a person who does not, at the time of the application, have any parental responsibility for the child, any person who, at that time, has any parental responsibility for the child is entitled to be a party to the proceedings.

1. The applicant deposed to his awareness of this provision and s 65K(3) being a basis for his application.
2. Section 65K is a manifestation of parenting orders being made in a child's best interests and not by some automatic residential reversion to the surviving parent.
3. Indeed, as s 60CA provides, X's best interests are the paramount consideration. However, whether it is in X's best interests that she live with her father at some unknown time down the track is attended by too many uncertainties as to what her future may look like, at least from a medical perspective.
4. I also do not consider it necessary at this point to confer parental responsibility upon the father for all major long-term issues as set out in s 4 of the Act, including but not limited to X's education, religion, relocation and name. I have no evidence before me about any of those matters and it is presently unknown what decision making will be in X's best interests as her treatment progresses and when the nature of her rehabilitation takes shape. No one cavilled with this during discussions between the bench and the bar table.
5. I will however make an Order that parental responsibility be conferred upon the applicant father for health decisions required for the child; s 61D(3) of the Act.
6. Self-evidently, there will come a time where the father's consent and decision making will be required for X's health matters. Hence, I consider this Order will promote X's safety and meet her pressing needs per s 60CC(2)(a) and (c) of the Act.
7. Neither of the co-located officers raised any child safety or protection concerns with respect to that limited and narrowly defined parental responsibility order I had proposed during discussions at the hearing.
8. I will also not fix a date for the next hearing/mention. It is too early in X's medical journey to be listing a fixed date. Further, the father does not need to fund an appearance just to come to Court for no apparent purpose. Instead, I will give the applicant liberty to approach chambers by email (copying the co-located officers) when he wishes to have the matter re-listed. I will also give the co-located officers liberty to approach chambers if either forms the view that something in X's life needs to come before the Court for determination.
9. For those reasons, I will make the Orders discussed with the applicant and co-located officers during the hearing.

I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Brasch.

[1] Affidavit of Mr Krall filed 13 March 2026, paragraphs 9 and 10.

[2] Affidavit of Mr Krall filed 13 March 2026, paragraphs 13 and 14.