Lagenberg & Proudfoot [2025] FedCFamC2F 1803 (25 November 2025)

(a) The children's residence;

(b) Any educational institution the children attend upon; and

(c) Any extracurricular activities the children participate in.

1. The matter remains listed for a Second Return date before Judicial Registrar Aitken on 10 December 2025 at 11:30am.
2. An order for the appointment of an ICL has been made in this matter, however no ICL has yet been appointed. The Court will make inquiries into when an appointment can be expected.

1. Section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), provides that if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the father has breached the injunction as set out in Orders herein by causing or threating to cause bodily harm to the protected person or by harassing, molesting or stalking the protected person, such Police Officer may arrest the father without warrant.

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

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

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

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

1. On 28 May 2025, the mother made an application to this Court for final parenting orders regarding the children that she shares with the father. Those children are X, who was born in 2018 and is currently seven years of age; Y, who was born in 2020 who is five years of age, and Z who is a twin born in 2020 and is also five years of age.
2. The mother, in her affidavit filed at the same time, gives evidence that she fled the premises, in which she was residing in with the father, because she said that she felt that he was escalating the risk he presented. She said that there has been an application for a domestic violence order (but I have no evidence of the result of that application).
3. She said that she was concerned as to the domestic violence that she was experiencing at the hands of the father and the history of drug use of the father. The mother sought orders that the father have no contact with the children, and the children live with her.
4. The father filed his notice of address on 27 June 2025, and he has since filed (on 12 August) a response to final orders, a genuine step certificate, a notice of child abuse, family violence or risk, as well as an affidavit from a solicitor which annexes one hair follicle test result and two urine analysis test results. He has not filed an affidavit himself.
5. The most serious aspect raised by the mother is a matter where she says that she received information by looking at the father's phone. She said she saw a Snapchat history of his interactions with a person called Mr C. What the mother said is that there were two photos that were in this chat between the father and this person Mr C. The photos were of the father's other daughter who was aged 16. One of the photos showed her at age eight and the other shows a photo of her at the age of 16.
6. The person Mr C appears to comment:

Your daughter's nipple poking through her shirt is hot too.

1. The father and Mr C then engaged in virtual mutual masturbation over this chat; that is, they were both looking at the photos of the father's other daughter and both looking at the other person masturbating themselves.
2. The father, when spoken to by Ms E in the Child Impact Report, said - and I will use the direct words:

(The father) denied these concerns and contextualised this as an innocuous interaction with a couple who had a daughter of the same age. He considered (the mother) to be purposely framing this interaction in an attempt to interfere in his relationships and this had impacted his relationship with his 16-year-old daughter.

1. This shows an appalling lack of insight on the part of the father. To have two grown men masturbate over a photo of the 16-year-old daughter of the father, where it is that the other man has spoken about the child's nipple being "hot" is far from being "an innocuous interaction".
2. It is an obvious risk to the three children that are the subject children of this application.
3. There have been valiant attempts by Ms Steinberg, for the father, to try and dress this up as something that is not a criminal offence "because the police didn't charge the father with anything". The thrust of her argument is that if it isn't a criminal offence, there can be no reason for concern.
4. Ms Steinburg also submitted that there is something strange in the way in which the matter was videotaped, or transferred, by the mother, and, because of that, the photograph produced by the mother today is something that the Court would not, in any way shape or form, find of any interest, let alone consider as being a risk factor.
5. But this is an exceptionally serious risk factor, and there is nothing I could see that could ameliorate this risk.
6. Whilst there are other risk factors such as domestic violence and drug use, I do not take those matters into account at all, because the father has denied the domestic violence, notwithstanding that there may very well be some issues that will go to trial in regard to that. I am disinclined to be able to make any sort of finding there.
7. With regard to the drug use, the father has shown that there are no opioids or amphetamines in the test results, though there is something for cannabis. The father says, through his lawyer, that he has a prescription for medical marijuana. However, he has not chosen to put an affidavit on to say that this has happened, and there is nothing before the Court to say that he has such a prescription.
8. But, in any event, this is not that great an issue, and it is well and truly outweighed by the very grave risk to the children. I cannot envisage how I could keep these children safe if they are with the father in circumstances where he has provided access to a photograph of his own daughter, to a stranger, for the sole purpose of allowing that stranger to use the photograph as a means of providing a sexual fantasy to aid to a masturbatory exhibition.
9. The father has displayed such a perverted sense of sexual mores that I cannot see, even in a supervised environment, that it is in the best interests of the children to spend time with him.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Vasta.