Lazer & Dorte [2025] FedCFamC1F 562 (19 August 2025)

(a) recover the child X, born in 2014; and

(b) deliver the said child to the mother.

1. The persons authorised under Order 3 herein are permitted to enter and search any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft where they reasonably believe the child may be found, using such force as is reasonably necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.
2. The Marshal of the Court, all officers of the Australian Federal Police, and all officers of the Police force of each State and Territory are authorised to do all things necessary to give effect to these orders.
3. The children X born in 2014 and Y, born in 2017 live with the mother until further order.
4. The child X undertake a clinical assessment with either CAMS or Ms C of E Mental Health Services, whichever is available earlier or in the event that the ICL is able to obtain some other provider at an earlier time, then such psychologist as nominated by the ICL, and both the mother and father shall share equally in the costs of same.
5. The mother obtain a mental health care plan for X and X thereafter engage with Dr D, Clinical Psychologist, and if such psychologist is not available, then such other psychologist as nominated by the ICL.
6. This order be authority to the children's school, health care providers, sporting organisations and any other organisations the children engage with to not release the children X or Y into the care of anyone other than the mother or any other person as authorised by the mother in writing from time to time.
7. The father and second respondent be restrained by injunction from:

(a) removing the children from the mother's care, their school, or any other location that the children may be in attendance unless otherwise agreed in writing with the mother as communicated through the parties' respective legal representatives;

(b) attending or approaching within 100 metres, or attempting to approach the children in a public or private place, including but not limited to the children's school, sporting events, extracurricular activities, parks or shopping centres;

(c) contacting, communicating with, or attempting to communicate with the children by any means, including directly or indirectly in person, phone, SMS/text message, email, social media and online platforms through the agency of third parties; and

(d) authorising or participating in the unilateral enrolment or withdrawal of any activity relating to the children without the express consent of the mother in writing or otherwise by way of order of the Court.

1. The mother's costs arising from the Application in a Proceeding filed by her 4 August 2025 be reserved to trial.
2. Each of the mother and father file and serve a Financial Statement 14 days prior to the trial commencing 17 November 2025.
3. For the proper operation of these orders a copy of same can be provided by the mother's solicitors to the children's school, health care providers and to each and every organisation in which the children are engaged.

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 Lazer & Dorte has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This matter came on urgently and was heard via Webex video link.
2. Before the Court was an Application in a Proceeding as filed by the applicant mother ("the mother") on 4 August 2025 and a Response to an Application in a Proceeding as filed by the respondent father ("the father") on 14 August 2025. Each of the mother and father sought parenting orders in respect of one of the parties' two children, X, born in2014 ("X"). X is aged 11 years.
3. Essentially, the mother sought a return of the child to live with her and for the child to spend no time with the father. The father sought sole interim parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the father and spend time with the mother 'subject to her [the child's] wishes' from after school Friday until 5:00 pm Sunday in each alternate week and from afterschool Wednesday until the commencement of school the following Friday in each alternate week.
4. The second respondent, the maternal grandmother, participated in the proceeding but filed no material and sought no orders. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") also participated in the proceeding but made no application for orders and filed no material. The ICL submitted that orders should be made for X to return to the care of the mother, and for there to be alternate weekend, including overnight time, between X and her father pending the trial of the matter which is due to commence 17 November 2025 in the Darwin circuit sitting of the Court.
5. The application of the mother proceeded in a context where X and her brother, Y, born in 2017 and aged 8 years ("Y"), had resided with their mother since March 2023 (save for a period of approximately 10 weeks during which they resided with the maternal grandmother). The children had not seen their father nor had contact with him since March 2023.
6. In January 2025, the maternal grandmother became a party to the proceeding. She sought orders that she and the mother have equal shared decision making for the children and that the children live with the mother four consecutive days per week or as agreed by the parties, and live with the maternal grandmother three days per week or as agreed between the parties, and spend time with the father alternate weekends from after school on Friday to 6:00pm on Sunday.

(1) her Application in a Proceeding filed 4 August 2025;

(2) her affidavits and annexures filed 4 August 2025 and 14 February 2025;

(3) the documents as contained in a tender bundle which in their totality were tendered in evidence;

(4) the updated Family Report of Court Child Expert, Ms F, dated 12 May 2023.

(1) his Response to an Application in a Proceeding filed 13 August 2025;

(2) his affidavit and annexures filed 13 August 2025.

1. The ICL referred in her submissions to the earlier Family Report as prepared by Ms F dated 29 August 2023.

1. In October 2018, the mother and the father separated. The children remained living with the mother.
2. In November 2018, the mother and father agreed that the children would spend time with the father each Sunday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. Prior to this, the father spent time with the children for two hours per week.
3. In or around June 2019, spend time arrangements changed so that each alternate week, the father spend time with the children from midday Saturday to 5:00 pm Sunday, and from Sunday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm the alternate week.
4. In February 2022, litigation between the parties commenced. The father sought that the children live with each of the parents on an equal time basis and that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for them. In the mother's Response to Final Orders, she sought to have leave to particularise her orders sought following the release of a Family Report.
5. On 3 May 2022, the Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed.
6. On 27 October 2022, the following interim orders were made by consent, noting that the second respondent was not then a party to the proceeding:

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER THAT:

1. That all previous parenting orders be discharged.

2. Parental Responsibility That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born [in 2014] ('[X]') and [Y] born [in 2017] ('[Y]').

3. That in exercising parental responsibility, the parents shall make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision about all major long term issues, including but not limited to:

   1. the school the children will attend;
   2. The children's names;
   3. The children's religious and cultural upbringing;
   4. The children's health; and
   5. Any change to the children's living arrangements if such would impact upon one parent's ability to spend time with either of the children

4. In the event that the parents are unable to reach a joint decision about a major long term issue, then they shall attend family dispute resolution with a registered Practitioner before filing any family law application.

Living and spending time with arrangements

1. That the child [X] shall live with her father.
2. That the child [Y] shall live with his mother.
3. That except as otherwise provided for by these orders, the child [X] shall spend time with her mother on the following basis:
   1. from after school Friday until 5 PM Sunday in each alternate week, commencing 28 October 2022;
   2. from after school Wednesday until the commencement of school the following Friday in each alternate week, commencing 2 November 2022;
4. That except as otherwise provided for by these orders, the child [Y] shall spend time with his father on the following basis:

   1. From the conclusion of daycare on Monday until the commencement of daycare the following Wednesday in each alternate week commencing 31 October 2022;

   2. From after daycare Friday until 5pm Sunday commencing 4 November 2022, and in each alternate week thereafter

Changeovers

1. That changeovers shall occur at the children's school or daycare centre on all days which the children attend school or daycare.

2. Changeovers on days which are school holidays or public holidays shall occur at [G Family Services] NT, or if that is not available, then at McDonald's [City B].

3. That only the collecting parent is to attend school or day care at the changeover time, on days the children are to be exchanged at school or day care.

Special Days

1. That the children shall spend time with each of their parents on occasions of special significance ("special days") at times agreed between them, and in default of agreement as follows:

   1. On the children's birthday, the children shall spend the following time with the parent who is not otherwise due to have the children in their care:
      1. On a school day, from 3 PM to 7 PM; and
      2. On a non-school day from 2 PM to 7 PM.
   2. On Christmas Day:
      1. on even-numbered years the children shall spend from 5 PM Christmas Eve to 2 PM Christmas Day with the mother, and from 2 PM Christmas Day to 5 PM Boxing Day with the father.
      2. on odd years the children shall spend from 5 PM Christmas Eve to 2 PM Christmas Day with the father, and from 2 PM Christmas Day to 5 PM Boxing Day with the mother.
   3. On Mother's Day and Father's Day, from 8 AM to 5 PM with the relevant parent.

2. That should either party wish to take the children interstate, unless otherwise agreed they may do so during any period of time either or both children are in their care, and if the proposed travel is whilst the children are not in that parties care, the travelling party shall be permitted to travel with the children interstate for a maximum of 3 nights (except that the father may take [X] away for 7 nights and the mother may take [Y] away for 7 nights) as follows, provided the following is met, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing:

   1. After giving the non-travelling party at least 28 days written notice; and

   2. Providing the other party with travel itineraries, including details of flights; and

   3. Making sure the children are available to speak to the other party in accordance with order 15; and

   4. That the time referred to in these orders shall not include "special days"; and

   5. Make up time shall be offered to the non-travelling parent within 14 days of either the child's departure or the child's return; and further

   6. Such travel shall not take place on more than three occasions per calendar year.

Communication

1. The parents shall communicate with each other about matters involving the children via the communication App "Our Family Wizard (OFW)" and for that purpose, both parents shall ensure that they have a valid subscription and the App is downloaded and working. IT IS NOTED that the father will pay for both his and the mother's ongoing subscriptions, and further:

   1. should either party have any problems with their App they shall immediately notify the other party by email and liaise with the other party by email until the App is again in use;
   2. Retain and provide to the other party all correspondence with OFW relating to the breakdown and its rectification.

2. That the parties are at liberty to contact the children on each Tuesday and Thursday and on special days referred to in these orders between 5 PM and 6 PM, and for the purpose of the communication:

   1. the party who does not have the children shall telephone or face time (at the discretion of the calling parent) the mobile phone of the party who does have the children; and
   2. further should that telephone call not be answered, the other party shall return that call as soon as possible to facilitate the communication intended by this order.
   3. Should one party be unavailable to take the call, and they are obligated to return the call as provided for by these Orders, and further the party who is returning the call shall be obligated to provide evidence of their attempts to return the call within 24 hours of a written request by the other party.
   4. That both parties may record telephone calls and other communications made pursuant to these orders, but the parties shall make best efforts to ensure that the children are not aware that the calls are being recorded, and further both parties may use telephone calls and other communications as evidence in these proceedings.

3. That when the children are communicating with a parent pursuant to these orders, the other parent shall ensure that the children are not in front of a screen (TV, computer, Ipad or the like) and are not in possession of any electronic device.

4. That the parents may communicate with each other by phone if an emergency.

5. That the parents will communicate with each other at all times in a respectful manner and in a timely fashion.

6. That the children shall communicate with the other parent at any reasonable time requested by them, and the parent who they are living with at that time shall facilitate communication occurring and not refuse any reasonable request of the child to communicate with the other parent.

Injunctions

1. That the parents are restrained and injunctions are granted, restraining each of them from:

   1. Speaking negatively to the children or within the hearing of the children, about the other parent, the other parent's partner or any member of the other parent's family;

   2. Physically disciplining or manhandling the children;

   3. Exposing the children to any form of parental conflict;

   4. Discussing time spending arrangements with the children;

   5. Discussing adult matters concerning these proceedings with the children;

   6. Actively or passively discouraging the children from spending time with the other parent;

   7. Making plans to or offering inducements to the children to discourage time or communication, when the children are due to spend time with or communicate with the other parent; and

   8. Allowing the children to be left unsupervised in the care of the paternal grandfather unless and until such time as Territory Families and/or NT Police advise that no claims are substantiated, noting a complaint has been made to the police ref [...], noting that should either party receive correspondence, whether written or verbal, that the complaint has been investigated, or if there is any notification about the investigation, that party informs the Independent Children's Lawyer by the next working day.

Education and Health

1. That each parent is at liberty to attend at the child's school or daycare centre for events and activities routinely attended by parents.

2. That neither party shall enrol the children in any extracurricular activity without engaging in genuine consultation with the other party prior to making such an enrolment, and the parties are to notify the other once a child has been enrolled.

3. That both parties ensure that the children attend any extra-curricular activities that they are enrolled in, unless the parties agree that the child is not to attend on a particular occasion.

4. That should either of the children miss a day's school or child care, the relevant parent shall notify the other as soon as practicable and advise of the reason.

5. That each parent shall immediately notify the other of any serious illness or injury or any other emergency involving the children when the children are in their care.

6. That both parties shall keep the other informed of their residential address, email address and mobile telephone numbers and advise any change as soon as practicable but within 24-hours and preferably prior to any change if possible.

7. That both parties shall advise the other of:

   1. Any pending medical or like appointment and provide the other party with details of the outcome of that appointment.; and
   2. Any medication prescribed by any medical professional that they provide the children.

8. That the Father be at liberty to arrange for [Y] to be assessed by a paediatrician and/or child psychologist at the fathers sole expense and the father shall keep the mother informed as to whether he will undertake such assessment, and provide copies of any reports or assessments obtained.

9. For the purpose of Order 28 herein, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Father shall provide the mother with no less than 14 days' notice of any appointments arranged for [Y].

10. That each parent be entitled to obtain directly from any school attended by the children or from any health, welfare or other professional attended by the children, copies of any reports, notices or other relevant verbal or written advice affecting the education, health and welfare of the children.

11. That if the children are to attend counselling, with the exception of school counselling, any counsellor needs to be agreed between the parties in writing.

12. That each parent is at liberty to attend at the children's extra curricular activities.

13. That each parent shall notify the other promptly in the event that either of the children are unable to attend school or childcare due to illness, and each shall provide the other via the communication App, with a copy of the medical certificate provided by the child's treating Doctor (if any).

Further FDR

1. That the parents shall attend further FDR in December 2022 in an attempt to reach agreement about long term arrangements for the children, or if not school holiday arrangements.

Parenting Courses

1. That unless already completed, each parent shall make prompt arrangements to book into the next available "For the Kids" program.

2. That the mother shall complete the "Circles of Security" program she is enrolled in and shall provide a copy of her Certificate of completion to the other parties herein within 7 days from receipt of same.

3. That within 28 days, the mother shall enrol in family counselling at [H Family Services ] (noting that the father has already enrolled) and [H Family Services] are requested to provide a report on the counselling after 3 months, with any costs to be met by the father as long as those costs are minimal and are not charged on a commercial basis, and further the counsellor is authorised to receive a copy of the family report published on 19 August 2022, and the mother and/or father are at liberty to provide a copy of the report.

4. For the purpose of Order 39 herein, the Mother shall be permitted to take a support worker with her to any family counselling, provided [H Family Services] approve such request.

NOTATION:

A. That the parties need to resolve schooling for [Y] in 2023 and will enter discussions to resolve this matter.

1. The above consent orders provided for the separation of the children, with X to live with the father and Y to live with the mother.
2. At the time of the orders, X was aged 8 years, and Y was aged 5 years. The shared parenting arrangement as provided for in the orders continued to operate until the last week of March 2023, when the children refused to return to their father's care. From March 2023, both children continued to reside with the mother without communication or contact with their father.
3. From August 2023, the children spent regular time with the maternal grandmother until approximately November 2023, when the grandmother and mother disagreed following an interstate holiday with the children.
4. From approximately June 2024 to September 2024, X lived with the maternal grandmother, as she then wished to, by unilateral decision of the grandmother, contrary to any order of the Court, and contrary to the wishes of the mother. X was returned to her mother's care by the Northern Territory (NT) Police and Territory Families, following the making of a non-contact domestic violence order (DVO) against the maternal grandmother in early September 2024, protecting the mother and the children. The children have had no contact with the maternal grandmother since September 2024.
5. In November 2024, the Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities ("the Department") completed an Investigation and Safety Assessment in respect of the children. The email as received by the mother following the conclusion of the investigation was, relevantly, as follows:

Dear [Ms Dorte],

RE: Investigation and Safety Assessment Outcome

I am writing to you about the Investigation and Safety Assessment we completed [in November 2024]. We found that [Y] DOB: [2017] and [X] DOB: [2014] were harmed.

We have now recorded this outcome as 'substantiated'.

At this time [Ms Geisler] has been recorded as Person Believed Responsible (PBR) in relation to causing harm towards the children.

...

1. On 16 December 2024, Orders were made by Judge Liveris, joining Ms Geisler, the second respondent and maternal grandmother to the proceedings.
2. On 4 March 2025, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding in which he sought the following orders:
   1. That the Respondent, [Ms Dorte], comply with the court orders made on 27 October 2022, specifically:
      1. That the child [X] shall live with the Applicant, [Mr Lazer] as per the existing orders.
      2. That the child [Y] shall live with the Respondent, as per the existing order.
      3. That the Respondent facilitate [X's] time with her mother only as per the court orders,
      4. That the Applicant be allowed to spend time with [Y] as per the court orders.
   2. That the Respondent immediately return the child, [X], to live with the Applicant in accordance with the existing orders.
   3. That the Respondent immediately facilitate the Applicant's time with [Y] as per the existing orders.
   4. That any further breaches of the parenting orders by the Respondent result in enforcement actions, including but not limited to:
      1. Makeup time for the Applicant in a reasonable and practical manner to support the children's best interests and re-establish their relationship with the Applicant.
      2. Financial penalties for non-compliance.
      3. A change in parenting arrangements, including suspension or reduction of the Respondent's time with [X] and [Y], if further breaches occur.
   5. That the Respondent return the child, [X], to the Applicant within 48 hours of the order being made.
   6. That the Respondent immediately comply with the existing orders regarding [Y's] time with the Applicant.
   7. That the Australian federal Police (AFP) and/or Northern Territory Police be authorised to locate and recover the child if the Respondent fails to comply.
   8. That the Respondent be restrained from relocating [X] or [Y] outside the Northern Territory without the written consent of the Applicant or a further court order.
   9. That the Respondent provide written confirmation of [X's] and [Y's] current residential addresses within 24 hours of the order being made.
   10. That if the Court determines that the Respondent is unable or unwilling to comply with the existing orders, the Applicant seeks orders that:
       1. The child [X] live with the Applicant full-time.
       2. The child [Y] with the Applicant full-time
       3. The Respondent's time with the children be suspended or reduced to supervised visits, pending further compliance with court orders.
       4. That the Court consider a change in parental responsibility, granting sole parental responsibility for both children to the Applicant.
   11. The Applicant clarifies that these orders are only sought due to the Respondent's ongoing failure to respect and comply with existing orders. If the Court can provide assurance that the Respondent will comply, the Applicant is willing to maintain the current parenting arrangements until the final hearing. However, the Applicant notes that:
       1. The children have expressed in a Family Report that they do not wish to see the Applicant.
       2. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) has indicated that due to the length of time the children have been withheld, returning them to the Applicant's care may be difficult.
       3. That Applicant maintains that these circumstances are a direct result of the Respondent's ongoing non-compliance with court orders and the prolonged alienation of the children from their father.
   12. That this Application in a Proceeding be heard prior to, or in conjunction with, the Respondent's application listed at 2:15pm on 10 March 2025, as the issues raised in this application are relevant to and may materially affect the determination of the Respondent's application.
3. On 28 April 2025, the children were interviewed by the Court Child Expert ("CCE"), Ms F, for the preparation of a second Family Report by the CCE. The Family Report which followed, dated 12 May 2025, contained, relevantly the following in respect of the expression of X's views:

[X] reported that she went to live with the grandmother in June 2024 because she had been 'arguing' with her mother and [Y]; that they had been 'yelling' at one another, and she had wanted some time to herself. [X] said she had enjoyed living with her grandmother and missed her.

According to [X], her mother and grandmother 'don't get along' and 'swear and yell at each other'.

[X] reported that her favourite activity is playing [sport], which she participates in six days per week. When speaking about her sporting activities, [X's] posture became more upright, and her face beamed. It was apparent that she felt proud of her achievements and gained much enjoyment from these activities.

[X] reported that the 'saddest' aspect of her life 'is not seeing nan'.

...

[X] believed that her father wanted to see her, and in response to the writer querying whether she thought her father loved her, [X] said she believed that he did, yet would not agree to spending time with him.

If [X] were able to speak in Court, she said, 'I would tell the judge that I'm okay living with mum, but I miss nan and want to live with her. I don't want mum to talk to me about it, but I still wish it (to live with nan). Mum said she will read my (this) report but I still want it written in there'.

[X] resolutely refused to see her father or spend time with him in the children's room no matter how the writer presented the opportunity to her.

1. On 11 June 2025, orders were made by Justice Kari, including the following:
   1. BY CONSENT the Application in a Proceeding filed by the father on 4 March 2025 be dismissed NOTING the father has foreshadowed he intends to file a fresh Application in a Proceeding regarding his time spending.
2. On 31 July 2025, and despite the expression of her views to the CCE on 28 April 2025, X rang her father from her school and requested that he collect her from school so that she could commence to live with him. The father did so.
3. On 31 July 2025, the ICL, relevantly, sent the following email to the parties' practitioners:

Dear Colleagues,

I advise that I saw [X] today. She informed me of the following:

1. She rang her father from school and asked him to come and collect her;

2. She rang her father because she is frightened of her mother;

3. She informed that her mother has been particularly angry with her and has threatened to harm her on 2 recent occasions;

4. Her mother has recently threatened to lock [Y] outside the house because he had got into trouble at school;

5. She does not feel safe at her mother's house and does not want to return there;

6. She has previously tried to speak with her mother's partner about her mother's behaviour towards her, and received the response that "your mum loves you, she's just angry";

7. [X] wishes to stay with her father but is worried about her brother.

[X's] presentation appeared to be genuine.

I note however that allegations have been made by [X] in the past about both her parents at various times, and it is not yet known whether any have any foundation. I also note that the separation of [X] and [Y] is likely not in their interests.

Given [X] however has reached out to her father, it seems she has no difficulty with spending time with him, and I'd hope that both parents can seek to reach at least an interim agreement whereby both children spend time with each parent. Relevant injunctions can minimise any risk and I'd also support the children engaging with a school counsellor or similar.

...

1. On 6 and 7 August 2025, Ms J, a counsellor with whom both children have engaged since September 2024, had a counselling session with Y, being at a time following the removal of his sister from the school, and as by his father. The purpose of that counselling session was to ascertain how Y was coping with the changed family situation and to make some assessment of his emotional and psychological wellbeing in the context of the absence of his sister.
2. In August 2025, X was caught shop lifting before school at a service station at Suburb K. She was thereafter suspended (for such activity) by the school for a period of five days.
3. On 11 August 2025, Ms J, in a Child Mental Health Report as prepared by her in respect of Y's attendance upon her, stated that:

During therapeutic engagement, the child presented with a range of emotional and behavioural responses indicative of distress related to current family circumstances. He engaged in symbolic play, creating a clay sculpture of his father and subsequently removing the head of the figure, verbalising that this would then "it means dad would stop hurting everyone". Symbolic play is a developmentally appropriate form of expression in middle childhood, allowing children to externalize and process complex emotions that may be difficult to verbalize. The demonstrated play act in this situation may reflect underlying emotional conflict, fear, or a perceived loss of safety and control in the relationship with his father.

1. Relevant to this interim hearing as to where X should live, and time spent arrangements, I note that pursuant to s 60CA of the Act:

In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

1. To determine the best interests of the child, I must have regard to the considerations in the Act as set out in ss 60CC(1), 60CC(2) and 60CC(2A) of the Act. Those sections provide, relevantly:

How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

...

(1) ...in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2);

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for 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 is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural 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;

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

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

1. Family violence is defined in s 4AB(1) of the Act as:

...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.

1. When considering the risk of family violence, the following is set out in s 60CG of the Act:

(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:

(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and

(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.

1. In considering these matters, the Court must give consideration as to whether there is an unacceptable risk of family violence and/or an inability to promote the safety of a child and parent in the making of parenting orders also involving a consideration of unacceptable risk. Upon establishing the existence of an unacceptable risk, the Court must then determine whether that risk "is able to be sufficiently managed or ameliorated".[1]
2. The Court is required to assess its factual findings on the balance of probabilities, and the impact of those findings upon the assessment of future risk. Accordingly, Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) 65 Fam LR 288 is applicable. The Court's determination as to what did or did not happen in the past is determined on the balance of probabilities. However, in hypothesising about future possibilities the Court is required to engage in an assessment of risk as a predictive exercise.[2] That assessment of risk is informed by the factual findings as to the past.

1. The matter is highly conflictual and has a long history of family violence allegations and counter allegations as made by each of the parties. The child X has undergone significantly destabilising changes in her residence and spend time arrangements, which may further be altered at trial, commencing on 17 November 2025. With such an imminent trial date, I conclude it is not in her best interests to further destabilise X by the making of any orders other than the return of her to her mother's care and the residence of her mother and brother, with no time spent with her father until such time as there is a proper opportunity to test the evidence before the Court and make necessary factual findings. I conclude that such arrangement will promote the safety of the children and the mother. I conclude that any time spent with the father by the children at the present time, shall not promote their safety.
2. The father highlighted in his approach to the interim hearing of the mother and father's competing applications, the existence of the October 2022 interim orders which had not been discharged. Those orders had not been complied with or enforced by the parties, and there was probably a tacit arrangement between them that such orders would not be put into effect given the changing factual dynamics at work in respect of the child X's living arrangements, in particular. The ongoing operation of the orders was not supported by the evidence, and the discharge of same was required in circumstances where a trial is soon to be held that will determine the making of final parenting orders.
3. Since living with their mother in March 2023, with no time spent with their father nor communication had, and until 31 July 2025, the children had consistent and satisfactory attendance at L School with X now being in grade six, and Y being in grade two. There had been no school suspensions, nor behaviour requiring that course. Both children had been extensively engaged in extracurricular activities, with X achieving highly in sport; such successes a matter of some pride and happiness for X. The children had not been separated and had the company and support of each other.
4. The mother has been and continues to be employed on a full-time basis in the public service and works from home. That arrangement has enabled her to be positively available to the children.
5. In mid-2024, X was removed from the mother's care by the second respondent and allegations were made by the child and the second respondent about the mother. Those allegations were not substantiated. The Department recorded that the second respondent, being the maternal grandmother, was the "Person Believed Responsible" for causing harm towards the children. She is not currently permitted to be in the presence of, or in contact with, the children, as a protective measure.
6. Whilst as recently as 28 April 2025, X would not speak to or see her father (as conveyed to the CCE and as conveyed to her father and mother), X determined on 31 July 2025, as she had done with the second respondent, to leave her mother's home, and her brother, to take up residence with, in this instance, an accommodating father. While her father was prepared for X to spend time with her mother pending the trial, such time was "subject to her wishes". Having consented to the dismissal of his March 2025 proceeding, the father again sought that X live with him and the raft of orders he sought in his response filed 14 August 2025. It is open to question the father's willingness to promote the child's best interests in his failure to return the child to the mother's care, either on 31 July 2025, or at any time thereafter. It is concerning that he did not seek to speak with the mother about the child's allegations and that he did not seek stability in X's living arrangements prior to the final determination of the matter. A Court order was needed to resolve the matter. There was an absence in the father's capacity in this instance to think about, and promote, the child's psychological and emotional needs.
7. Whether either parent will not promote the children's relationship with the other is a matter about which there was insufficient evidence before the Court on the interim hearing save the untested evidence as contained in the Family Report of 12 May 2025. It is a disputed and live issue, and matter for trial.
8. In the most recent Family Report of 12 May 2025, Ms F stated that, considering the children have remained in Ms Dorte's primary care apart from the period of 10 weeks with the second respondent, the CCE would be less inclined to support an outcome whereby the primary care of the children is reverted to the father. She highlighted the potential risk, that such a disruption may destabilise both children to the extent that they experience regression in their development, and recommended that the children remain together.
9. In the same Family Report, the CCE further noted:

Aside from sibling conflict with [Y], [X] said there had been "nothing really" which had caused her to feel scared, worried or sad in her mother's care, prompting her to live with the grandmother. She commented, "it's pretty good, it's okay at mum's".

[X], at the age of 11, has been caught in the middle of this parenting dispute during the formative years of her childhood. The writer has observed the differences in her views and wishes since 2022, when living in the different households. Initially in 2022, when in her father's care, [X] expressed a polarised position against her mother, alleging abuse by her and disparagement of her relationship with her father. At that time, she wanted to live with her father and was resistant to spending time with her mother. When interviewed in 2024, [X] had become polarised against her father,[Ms N] and the paternal grandparents, alleging abuse in their care and disparagement of her relationship with her mother. She refused contact with him/them and has remained polarised against them. Since 2022, [X] has consistently identified her maternal grandmother as a safe and reliable adult. In this assessment, she did not allege abuse in her mother's care, but it seemed apparent that she has a natural alignment to her maternal grandmother and expressed a preference to live with her.

...

[X] is a child who appears to have been strongly influenced by the party in whose care she has lived, to the detriment or exclusion of her relationships with the others. In the writer's opinion, [X] would benefit by living in the sole care of one of the parties, whereby she is provided certainty about her arrangements and understands that if she absconds from that home, she will be returned, or if she spends time with one of the parties and they do not return her, she will be returned (if it is safe to do so). [X's] emotional safety and well-being has not been promoted by her experience of parenting behaviours whereby it appears at some time or another in each home she has not been genuinely encouraged to return to the other parent's care. The writer stresses that [X] was not responsible for this, but that culpability lies with each of the parties for adopting strong and polarised positions against the other.

1. The Court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of X and Y, to reduce destabilisation of the children, for the children to continue to reside together in the care of the mother, without contact with the father until trial. It is probable that any contact with the father now will be destabilising because the father does not support the return of X to the mother's care. Indeed, he actively opposes it. That approach results in a separation of the siblings and estrangement between the child and the mother in circumstances where X has, in the main, lived with her mother, and thrived, since March 2023.
2. Because of the father's approach as set out in the orders which he sought, and his refusal to return the child X in the first instance, it is also necessary to make the injunctive orders as sought by the mother, additional to the parenting orders as sought.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hartnett.

[1] Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 at [83] referring to Russell & Close [1993] FamCA 62.

[2] Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) 65 Fam LR 288 at [50].