Lazer & Dorte (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 838 (20 November 2025)

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 (No 2) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These are the reserved reasons for orders made on 18 November 2025 determining an objection pursuant to s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") as to the disclosure and production of documents on subpoena recording a protected confidence.
2. The orders made on 18 November 2025 are:
   1. It is DECLARED that the documents produced on Subpoena by [O] Hospital issued at the request of the maternal grandmother filed on 15 September 2025 are records of a protected confidence pursuant to s 102BA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
   2. The Objection to the subpoena filed on 24 September 2025 by NT Health Legal Services on behalf of the recipient of the subpoena - [O] Hospital is upheld.
   3. Pursuant to s 102BD(1) of the Act the documents produced pursuant to the said subpoena are not to be disclosed, produced, inspected or copied.
   4. The registry is to return any documents produced in answer to the subpoena to [O] Hospital within 7 days of the date of this Order

1. To give context to these reasons, Mr Lazer ("the father"), Ms Dorte, ("the mother") and Ms Geisler ("the maternal grandmother") are engaged in a trial that commenced on 17 November 2025 listed over 5 days as to the parenting of two children, X born in 2014 , and Y born in 2017.
2. The mother and the father commenced a relationship in 2013. They experienced two intermediate periods of separation in 2016. The final separation was in 2018. The children thereafter lived with the mother. The evidence at this stage of the trial is in conflict as to the fact, terms, and reasons for the conditions of time spent by the children with the father.
3. On 9 February 2022, the father filed an Initiating Application in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) seeking the equal shared care of the children as between he and the mother. By way of her Response to an Initiating Application filed on 1 April 2022, the mother sought different orders as to the parenting of the children. The proceeding was transferred to this Court on 10 March 2025.
4. On 16 March 2022, interim consent orders were made for both children to live with the mother and to spend alternate weekends with the father. Notwithstanding those orders, X remained in the father's care. The parties give conflicting evidence as to why the live with order as to X was not implemented.
5. On 3 May 2022, a second set of interim consent orders were made discharging the orders made on 16 March 2022, and providing for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (as it then was) for the children; for Y to live with the mother and spend weekday and weekend time with the father; and for X to live with the father and spend weekday and weekend time with the mother.
6. On 27 October 2022, the third set of interim consent orders were made discharging all previous interim orders, providing for Y to live with the mother and spend weekday and weekend time with the father, and for X to live with the father and spend weekday and weekend time with the mother.
7. Notwithstanding the orders, Y has not spent time with the father since April 2023. X did not spend time with the father from 8 April 2023 until 31 July 2025. On 31 July 2025, he collected X from school without the mother's knowledge. He says he retained the benefit of the consent order made on 27 October 2022 that X live with him, hence he was not failing to comply with an order when he collected her from school.
8. On 14 August 2025, orders were made discharging all prior parenting orders, for the father to return X into the mother's care, and for a recovery order to operate in the event the father failed to do so, for the children to live with the mother, and a broad range of injunctions against the father from attending the children's school and engaging in other conduct for the protection of the children. In the afternoon of 14 August 2025 X was returned to the mother's care.
9. X "ran away" from the mother's home on 15 August 2025 to the home of the paternal grandparents. She remained in the care of the paternal grandparents until the following Monday morning being 18 August 2025 when she attended school and was returned to the mother's care with the assistance of police.
10. The maternal grandmother has not spent time with the children since November 2023, except from 2 June 2024, when she collected X from school absent the consent of the mother or father.
11. On 29 July 2024, a child welfare authority concluded an investigation as to a complaint of the mother occasioning abuse to or neglecting X without making any findings.
12. A short time later, an interim ex parte Domestic Violence Order ("DVO") was issued in the P Court for the protection of the mother and the children from the maternal grandmother.
13. The maternal grandmother retained X for 10 weeks until 2 September 2024 when X was returned to the mother's care by the Police. The report of the child welfare authority dated 6 November 2024 records that the maternal grandmother is a "person believed to be responsible" for causing harm to the children.
14. The maternal grandmother's friend collected X from school on 5 September 2024. X was returned to the mother's care by the Police on that day. The maternal grandmother was arrested in late 2024 and charged with breaching the DVO. The DVO matters are listed for hearing in the P Court on [date redacted].
15. The father has had limited contact, if any, with the maternal grandmother since January 2022.
16. A "Regulation 7 Private Family Consultant", Ms F has prepared four reports over the period of the litigation (Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4).
17. Exhibit 4 records:
    1. This has been a high conflict parenting matter, with a history of the children being withheld from each parent amid allegations of family violence and child abuse...

...

ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING ASSESSMENT

Issues in Dispute

• • Essentially, the parties do not agree about any matters relating to their conflict and disagreement, or any matters relating to the children, in particular, reasons why the children are not spending time with Mr [Lazer] or Ms [Geisler].

Issues Identified/Considered During Assessment

• • The impact on the children of continued and ongomg conflict over their parenting arrangements.
• • The potential impact on the children of any significant change in their living arrangements.

ADULTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS

1. The adults are all estranged from one another, and there is no direct communication between them.

...

1. Mr [Lazer] maintained that Ms [Dorte] had been entirely dishonest in relation to previous allegations of family violence against him or any members of his family, and had fabricated allegations of child abuse or poor parenting by him or his partner, Ms [N]. He recalled that Ms [Dorte] had made allegations against his father of sexual grooming or abuse of [Y], and was of the view that if the children were to spend time in his care, Ms [Dorte] may go to any length to discredit him as a parent, such as accuse him of serious child abuse.

2. Ms [Geisler] provided an account of the conflict between her and Ms [Dorte] which arose when they were on holiday in November 2023. She laid blame for their conflict squarely at the feet of Ms [Dorte], repeatedly referring to her as a volatile, unpredictable and aggressive individual, who is pervasively dishonest. Ms [Geisler] peppered her language with profanities, repeatedly referring to Ms [Geisler] as a 'bitch' and 'cow'. Ms [Geisler's] recollections of Ms [Dorte] as a child and teenager were pervasively negative and she made comments such as, 'Ms [Dorte] is controlling and dictatorial, she was always trouble and a handful'. She referred to Ms [Dorte] as 'a liar', 'psychopath' and 'narcissist'.

...

1. Ms [Geisler] was incredulous that she was a respondent to a noncontact DVO protecting Ms [Dorte] and the children, saying she had engaged a lawyer to oppose the DVO at an upcoming trial in the Local Court in [City P], referring to Ms [Dorte] as 'a liar', speculating that she (Ms [Dorte]) wanted to 'destroy' her.

2. ...Ms [Geisler] said she had often spoken to [X] about her mother's behaviours and the adult conflict and had agreed with [X] that her mother was a difficult and somewhat abusive individual. Ms [Geisler] reported that she had always asserted to [X] that she would support her wishes and allow her to live with her if she wished, despite what her mother wished.

...

1. Ms [Geisler] said she had made three or four reports to [child welfare] about the children in Ms [Dorte's] care, including that she believed there was a lack of food in the house, the children wore dirty clothes, Ms [Dorte] was swearing at them and leaving them at home alone such as when she went to the gym. According to Ms [Geisler], she had garnered this information from [X]. Ms [Geisler] acknowledged that she had been the subject of an investigation by [child welfare] in [late] 2024 and understood the outcome of the investigation was that she was found responsible for causing emotional harm to [X].

...

1. Ms [Dorte] provided her version of the conflict between her and Ms [Geisler] during their holiday, describing Ms [Geisler] as an aggressive, volatile and unpredictable individual, who was not to be trusted. Ms [Dorte] emotionally and tearfully described her experiences of mothering by Ms [Geisler], alleging that she had been physically, verbally and psychologically abused and assaulted by her throughout her life. She was concerned that her mother had a serious underlying mental health condition, and said she had encouraged her to engage in therapy.

...

1. It is apparent that the children have been exposed to and involved in the adult conflict over a long period of time, which is likely to have seriously undermined their emotional wellbeing, and caused them to feel destabilised, insecure and fearful, despite whether the allegations are accurate or not.

...

1. According to Ms [Dorte], after the [child welfare] investigation and the issuing of a DVO against Ms [Geisler] in [late] 2024, [child welfare] and Police directed that [X] be returned by Ms [Geisler] to her care.

...

1. [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. Despite the writer's encouragement, [Y] resolutely refused to see his father for the purpose of an observation for this assessment. Due to [Y's] emotional presentation and persistent refusal, the observation did not occur.

2. An observation of the children with Mr [Lazer] did not occur due to the children's resolute refusal.

3. An observation of the children with Ms [Geisler] did not occur due to conditions of the noncontact DVO and the circumstances of this matter.

(Italic emphasis in original) (Bold emphasis added)

1. The presentation of the current adult relationships is of deep resentment, mistrust, and dysfunction. The parties have not had any capacity to communicate for years except through lawyers.
2. In August 2025, the mother observed that X's arm was bleeding and that she had around eight deep cuts. She took X to O Hospital. X undertook a mental health assessment. She stayed overnight at the hospital but was not admitted. X was referred to a general practitioner, who then referred her to Dr R ("Dr R"), a child psychiatrist specialising in complex trauma. X's first appointment with Dr R was on 25 September 2025 and she then commenced weekly appointments for two to three hours from 23 October 2025. X also was scheduled to attend an appointment made from a referral to Ms S ("Ms S"), a child psychologist, on 28 October 2025.

1. The father seeks that he have sole long-term decision-making responsibility for the children; that they live with him; that there is a moratorium of no contact between the mother and the children for three months and then permanent supervision of the children's time spent with the mother for "2 - 4" hours each alternate Saturday; that no time be spent by the children with the maternal grandmother "while she is subject to any active Domestic Violence Order" and then for "up to three" hours once a fortnight in a public place progressing to "extended or overnight time only upon written recommendation from the children's treating counsellor". The construction of some of the orders sought are identified as a divestiture of judicial power.
2. The mother seeks sole long-term decision-making responsibility for the children; that the children live with her and not spend time with or communicate with the father or the maternal grandmother; she seeks injunctive orders against the father and the maternal grandmother for the protection of both she and the children; and a recovery order to issue and be activated if the father or the maternal grandmother remove the children from her care.
3. The maternal grandmother seeks that the children live with the mother and spend specified time with her (the maternal grandmother) three days per fortnight; that they spend time with the father on alternate weekends and for one week of the Term 3 school holidays with her, with the parents equally sharing the balance of the holiday periods. The maternal grandmother implicitly does not contend that either parent poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children.
4. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") seeks that the children live with the mother; that she have sole long-term decision-making responsibility for them; that the children spend no time with the father; and that the father be permitted to send gifts and cards on special occasions and correspond with them. The ICL seeks an irregular order that should "the children express a wish to the mother to spend time or communicate with the father" they initially will spend supervised time at M Contact Centre and thereafter progressing to an unsupervised regime culminating to alternate weekends. The ICL proposes that the maternal grandmother spend time with the children on the third Sunday of each odd month.

1. The subpoena subject to objection was issued at the request of the maternal grandmother on 12 September 2025 directed to O Hospital to produce documents. The schedule to the subpoena sought the following categories of documents:

...

1. All medical notes for [X] born [redacted] 2014 including but not limited to referral treatments, mental health check and treatment, and physical treatments.

3. All admissions to hospital including but not limited to birthing suites, medical treatment and psychological treatment.

(As per the original)

1. The maternal grandmother sought to limit the material specified in the schedule by restricting the period to which the material was sought from January 2022 to date (Exhibit 6).
2. On 25 September 2025, NT Health Legal Services ("the objector") filed a Notice of Objection to the production of documents in the following terms:
   1. The documents are from the [Q Health Service] (23 pages), and contain Progress Search Notes (information) wherein the child provides details to a mental health treament team. The child would not expect details of her confidential comminications to be made avaialble to anyone outisde of her treatment providers.

1. The ICL and the mother support the objection to the subpoena. The father supports the maternal grandmother in seeking dismissal of the objection.
2. The objector confirmed that, in addition to the objection being upheld, directions were sought pursuant to both s 102BC and s 102BD of the Act. The mother and the ICL support the making of the Pt XI Div 1B directions as sought by the objector. The father supported the maternal grandmother in opposing the directions.
3. Each of the objector, the mother, the maternal grandmother and the ICL made submissions. The father made no independent submissions on either subject other than supporting those of the maternal grandmother.

1. Part 6.5 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") regulates the issue of a subpoena to produce documents. Rule 6.38 of the Rules confirms that the recipient of a subpoena has standing to object to a subpoena. The objection engages s 102BA of the Act. It provides:

102BA Definition of protected confidence

A protected confidence is a communication made:

(a) in the course of, or in connection with, a relationship in which one person (the confidant) is acting in a professional capacity to provide a professional service (see section 102BB) to another person (the protected confider); and

(b) in circumstances in which the confidant is under an obligation not to disclose communications made to them by, or in relation to, the protected confider (whether the obligation is express or inferred from the nature of the relationship).

1. Division 1B of Pt XI of the Act enshrines a statutory protection in respect of information that relates to the treatment provided to a party and/or a child. Section 102BA of the Act describes this information as a "protected confidence" which is provided by the "protected confider" in the context of their relationship with a person acting in their professional capacity (the confident). The Act covers communications made to the confident as well as communications made in connection with that relationship.
2. Section 102BB of the Act identifies professional services where information may be confided. It was agreed that the material in the documents sought to be disclosed by way of the subpoena record protected confidences of X within the meaning of s 102BA of the Act.
3. The structure of Div 1B of Pt XI of the Act enables the Court, on its own motion, or on application, to restrict the use of documents containing protected confidences by way of a "direction" pursuant to s 102BC of the Act for the documents to not be adduced into evidence, or by way of a "direction" pursuant to s 102BD of the Act for the information to not be produced, inspected, or copied (including by way of subpoena or the Rules), including as to the admissibility of the protected confidence.
4. In undertaking that exercise, the Court is to have regard to the statutory framework in s 102BE of the Act prior to making a direction pursuant to s 102BC or s 102BD of the Act. The determination by way of s 102BE is facilitated by the non-exhaustive list in s 102BE(2) identifying that harm may include physical and psychological harm or mental distress. Section 102BE(3) further provides:

If the direction is being made in proceedings under Part VII, the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

1. Section 102BE(4) sets out mandatory considerations when determining whether a direction pursuant to s 102BC or s 102BD should be made. It provides consideration of:
   • The probative value of the documents or evidence, their importance in the proceedings and the availability of other documents and/or evidence (102BE(4)(a));
   • The likely effect of adducing the evidence or permitting production, inspection or copying of the documents on the confider and/or child (s 102BE(4)(b));
   • The means available to the court to limit the harm likely to be caused (s 102BE(4)(c));
   • Whether the substance of the evidence/document has already been disclosed (s 102BE(4)(d));
   • The public interest of preserving confidentiality (s 102BE(4)(e));
   • Whether the protected confider opposes the disclosure of the protected confidence or any part of it (s 102BE(4)(f));
   • Whether the protected confider is legally represented (s 102BE(4)(g)); and
   • Where the protected confider is a child under 18, whether such disclosure is opposed by a person who holds parental responsibility and/or is an Independent Children's Lawyer (s 102BE(4)(h)).
2. The maternal grandmother submitted that determination of a protected confidence claim pursuant s 102BA is a discretionary judgment. The submission focused on the word "may" in a number of sections in Div 1B of the Act. I do not accept that submission.
3. While s 102BE entails the weighing of countervailing considerations. The weighing of the considerations either establishes:

(a) That it is likely that direct or indirect harm would or might be caused to the protected confider, or to a child, if the evidence were adduced or produced, inspected, or copied, and that the nature and extent of the harm outweighs the desirability of adducing, or producing, inspecting or copying the documents; or

(b) It does not.

1. That balancing exercise in s 102BE directs an evaluative determination requiring that the potential for harm must outweigh the desirability of the production of the protected confidence material before the making of a direction pursuant to s 102BC or s 102BD of the Act.

1. I accept as submitted by the objector that the protected confidence material is inherently sensitive and warrants protection.
2. The maternal grandmother conceded that the probative value of the material sought could not be assessed. She submitted that the parenting inquiry ought to be able to access all available evidence to ascertain "what [X] was going through at the time" (implicitly on 26 August 2025). The maternal grandmother submitted that it is "on the cards" that the documents sought by way of this subpoena will bear upon and have some relevance to the substantive proceedings. On enquiry as to what content of the documents sought will have apparent relevance to the issues at trial, the maternal grandmother tellingly said the documents "may", and later said "might", record X's "wishes" as to spending time with the maternal grandmother.
3. The maternal grandmother submitted that disclosure of material from the now referred treating therapists, Dr R and Ms S is not sought, reducing the likelihood of prospective harm on disclosure of the protected confidence. She further said that the Court had a capacity to limit any likely harm to X by imposing restrictions on the inspection of the material produced.
4. The evidence records that an aspect of the exposure of the children to adult conflict includes providing information to the children in support of their polarising positions. The mother made a powerful submission, that I accept, of a significant risk of "leakage" by the parties of the protected confidence, if disclosed. The parties do not respect personal boundaries. Each of them has not complied with court orders. The maternal grandmother has been charged with a breach of a protection order, a DVO. It is likely that the parties would fail to comply with any order imposing restrictions on inspection and dissemination designed to protect the confidence.
5. I accept the submission of the objector that there is a potential psychological harm to X arising from a breach of trust, that the risk of a breach of trust may have a flow on effect of a reluctance to engage with her health care providers, leading her to disengage in the future. X needs assurance as to the continuity of confidentiality extending from her hospital assessment into her recently commenced therapy. Should she become aware that her confidences disclosed at the hospital are no longer protected, I am satisfied there is a risk of harm compromising her current mental health therapy.
6. The position of the mother, as the adult with whom X lives, being the person responsible for facilitating X's continuing therapy on the understanding that it will be confidential, supports the objection and the directions sought, as does the ICL, who represents X's interests. Each of these considerations attract weight.
7. The ICL submitted, and I accept, that consideration of the orders sought by the maternal grandmother fails to engage a legitimate forensic purpose for the disclosure of X's protected confidences. The maternal grandmother did not contend any unacceptable risk is posed to X's safety. It is not proposed that the maternal grandmother will have any engagement or role in X's current therapy. The subpoena constitutes a "fishing expedition". The maternal grandmother has not established that there are reasonable grounds to expect that material as to X's wishes are recorded in the documents sought.
8. For all of the above reasons it has not been established that the desirability of the production of the protected confidence material outweighs the potential for harm. The objection to the subpoena will be upheld and a direction will be made pursuant to s 102BD. The parties agreed at the hearing that in the circumstances of this matter, if a s 102BD direction was made, a s 102BC direction was not required.

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