Kristoffersen & Sticamas (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 719 (9 October 2025)

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

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

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

1. The parties were at odds as to the allocation of parental responsibility on an interim basis.
2. The mother sought that there be sole decision-making responsibility, while the father sought that there be joint decision-making for the child, X.
3. At present the situation is that the parents jointly hold parental responsibility, so each is entitled to make long-term decisions in respect of X. Practically, it is the mother who has been in the position to make decisions in respect of X as he lives primarily with her. As he lives primarily with her, and as he lives with her in Australia, while the father is located overseas, it is the mother who has had intimate knowledge of X's circumstances such as to be in a position to make those long-term decisions. Similarly, the mother is equipped with knowledge of the local environment in which X lives which equips her to make those decisions.
4. The mother identifies difficulties in cooperation with the father for decision making. She alleges significant family violence perpetrated upon her by the father and has also recited allegations of communications from the father that have been harassing in their intensity and manner.
5. However, looming large in the proceedings is the issue that the mother has now identified that she has falsified aspects of the evidence in respect of the father, including falsified allegations as to the father making particular threats of harm. Whilst it may be anticipated that there may be few long-term decisions that are required to be made pending the upcoming trial of this matter, there also looms large prospects of visa issues for the mother and X. Whether these result in the need to make long-term decisions about X's residence outside of Australia is not at present clear.
6. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case where there are significant issues arising as to risk that the mother may take decisions to undermine the relationship between X and the father, and despite the issues raised as to what must be very difficult communication between the parties on either account, it is appropriate that the decision making for X still be jointly exercised by the two parties as a protective mechanism to ensure that unilateral decisions are not able to be made that may be detrimental to X. While this may result in further court applications to matters unable to be resolved between the parties, the requirement for the parties to jointly make decisions is a necessary protection for X in the unusual circumstances of this case.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill.