Lazer & Dorte (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 948 (22 December 2025)

Chapman & Palmer (1978) FLC 90-510; [1978] FamCA 86

Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094; [2022] FedCFamC1A 101

Flanagan & Handcock (2001) FLC 93-074; [2000] FamCA 150

G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387; [1994] HCA 48

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092; [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 190; [2021] FamCAFC 1

Lazer & Dorte (No 2) FedCFamC1F 838

M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1998] HCA 68

Mead v Mead (2007) FLC 93-327; [2007] HCA 25

Pierce & Pierce (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 162

Reynolds & Sherman (2015) FLC 93-659; [2015] FamCAFC 128

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

1. All previous Orders as to the parenting of the children X born 2014 and, Y born 2017 ("the children") be discharged.
2. The children shall live with the Mother.
3. The Mother shall have sole decision-making authority in respect of all major long-term issues with respect to the children.
4. The Mother shall notify the father by email of all major long-term decisions made for the children within seven (7) days of any major long-term decision being made.
5. The Mother shall be restrained by injunction from legally changing the children's surnames.
6. The Father shall not spend time or communicate with the children except as provided for by these orders, or as agreed to in writing by the Mother.
7. The Maternal Grandmother shall not spend time with or communicate with the children except as agreed to in writing by the Mother.
8. Each of the Mother and the Father shall advise the other within 21 days of the date of these orders as to a nominated email address for communication between them and a post office box address for the purposes of these orders and they shall do all things to keep each other informed of any changes to their email address or post office box address with at least 7 days' notice before changing either their email address or post office box address.
9. The Mother shall advise the Father in writing as to the children's participation in sporting and extracurricular activities on a 6-month cycle at the conclusion of each sporting wet season and dry season and provide each of the children's school reports at that time for the prior 6-month period.
10. The Mother shall forward to the Father's post office box, and by email, a photograph of the children and one of each of them every 6 months from the date of these orders.
11. The Father be permitted to:

(a) Send gifts and cards to the children on their birthdays, Christmas Day and Easter each year to the Mother's post office box and the Mother shall be at liberty to read their contents and provide the items to the children and shall encourage them to accept them; and

(b) Correspond with the children once every three (3) months by posting such correspondence to the Mother's post office box address and the Mother shall, subject to Order 12 and Order 13, provide those correspondences to the children and shall positively encourage the children to read them.

1. For the purposes of Order 11, the Father shall not correspond with the children about the following matters:

(a) Changes to the children's living arrangements;

(b) Areas of dispute or conflict between the parents;

(c) Family law proceedings; or

(d) Denigration of the mother.

1. For the purposes of Order 11 and Order 12, the Mother is at liberty to open and read the correspondences sent by the Father, and the Mother shall be at liberty to not provide such correspondence to the children if it contains subject matter identified in Order 12.
2. The Father is permitted to send with his correspondences any recent photographs of himself, his daughter U and the paternal grandparents.

1. Pursuant to Section 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the Mother is authorised and permitted to apply for, renew and receive an Australian Passport or travel document for the children without first obtaining the consent of the Father.
2. The Mother will retain in her possession any passport or travel document issued for the children.
3. The Mother be permitted to travel with the children and, the Mother is not required to obtain the father's consent for such travel.

1. Subject to these orders and pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of MS DORTE, X and Y, MR LAZER is restrained, and injunctions are granted restraining him from, unless agreed in writing by the Mother:

(a) denigrating, harassing, insulting, assaulting or abusing the Mother or the children, either directly or indirectly, including in person or online, or engaging any other person to do so on their behalf;

(b) removing the children from the Mother's care, their school, or any other location that the children may be in attendance;

(c) attending or approaching within 200 metres of the Mother's place of residence;

(d) attending or approaching within 50 metres of the Mother's place of employment;

(e) 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 centre;

(f) engaging or directing any other person to remove the children from the Mother's care, their school, or any other location that the children maybe in attendance; and

(g) 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 or through the agency of third parties;

1. Forthwith upon the expiration of the current Domestic Violence Order made in P Court on [...] August 2024, pursuant to s 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of MS DORTE, X and Y, MS GEISLER is restrained, and injunctions are granted restraining her from, unless agreed in writing by the Mother:

(a) denigrating, harassing, insulting, assaulting or abusing the Mother or the children, either directly or indirectly, including in person or online, or engaging any other person to do so on their behalf;

(b) removing the children from the mother's care, their school, or any other location that the children may be in attendance;

(c) attending or approaching within 200 metres of the Mother's place of residence;

(d) attending or approaching within 50 metres of the Mother's place of employment;

(e) 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 centre;

(f) engaging or directing any other person to remove the children from the Mother's care, their school, or an y other location that the children maybe in attendance; and

(g) 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 or through the agency of third parties;

1. In the event the Father removes either one or both of the children from the Mother's care at any time following the making of these Orders, pursuant to s 67Q of the Familv Law Act 1975 (Cth), this order be authority as a recovery order authorising and directing the Marshel of the Court, the officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police force of each State and Territory to:

(a) Recover the children X born 2014 and, Y born 2017; and

(b) Deliver the children to the Mother.

1. The persons authorised under Order 20 above herein are permitted to enter and search any premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft where they reasonably believe the child/ren may be found, using such force as is reasonably necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.
2. Order 20 remains in force for a period of four (4) years from the date of these orders.
3. In the event the Maternal Grandmother removes either one or both of the children from the Mother's care at any time following the making of these Orders, pursuant to s 67Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), this order be authority as a recovery order authorising and directing the Marshel of the Court, the officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police force of each State and Territory to:

(a) Recover the children X born 2014 and, Y born 2017; and

(b) Deliver the children to the Mother.

1. The persons authorised under Order 23 above 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. Order 23 remains in force for a period of four (4) years from the date of these orders.
3. 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.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer together with the Court Child Expert shall meet with the children at the Darwin Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 1 on 22 January 2026 at 9.00 am, or such other time and place as nominated in writing by the Court Child Expert, to explain these orders to the children and for that purpose the following shall apply:

(a) The Mother shall not inform the children as to these orders or reasons for judgment until compliance with this order; and

(b) The mother shall do all things as are necessary to cause the children to be delivered to the Darwin Registry to facilitate compliance with this order.

1. The Mother be permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to the children's schools, health care providers, and any other organisation the children are engaged with from time to time and direct those organisations to act in a manner that is consistent with the implementation and proper operation of these Orders.

1. In the event either party, or the Independent Children's Lawyer seek an order for costs of or incidental to the orders made herein, they shall file on or before 28 January 2026, an Application in a Proceeding identifying with precision the order as to costs sought, an affidavit in support thereof, and short written submissions.
2. Any party or the Independent Children's Lawyer responding to an Application in a Proceeding filed pursuant to Order 29, shall file and serve on or before 18 February 2026, a Response to an Application in a Proceeding, an affidavit in support thereof and short written submissions.
3. Any applications for costs filed pursuant to Order 29 will be listed for hearing on a date to be allocated from chambers.
4. Save and except as provided for by these orders, all outstanding applications and responses thereto are dismissed.
5. Pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto, and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. Section 68C of the Act provides that if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that MR LAZER has breached the injunction as set out in Order 18 herein by causing or threatening to cause bodily harm to the protected person or by harassing, molesting or stalking the protected person, such Police Officer may arrest MR LAZER without warrant.
2. Section 68C of the Act provides that if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that MS GEISLER has breached the injunction as set out in Order 19 herein by causing or threatening to cause bodily harm to the protected person or by harassing, molesting or stalking the protected person, such police officer may arrest MS GEISLER 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 the pseudonym Lazer & Dorte (No 3) has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These reasons determine disputes pursuant to Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") as to the parenting of two children, X born 2014 ("[X]"), and Y born 2017 ("[Y]") between Mr Lazer ("the father"), Ms Dorte, ("the mother") and Ms Geisler ("the maternal grandmother").
2. The parents commenced a relationship in January 2013, experiencing two intermediate periods of separation in 2016 before they separated on a final basis on 1 October 2018.
3. These proceedings were commenced by the father filing an Initiating Application in Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 9 February 2022. On 16 December 2024 the maternal grandmother was joined to the proceedings. On 10 March 2025 the proceedings were transferred to Division 1.
4. The management of the proceedings in Division 2 has been less than optimal. The matter has consumed 55 listings with 129 documents having been filed. 44 orders have been made. Ms F who was previously a Regulation 7 Primary Family Consultant, and at the time of the trial, a Court Child Expert and Family Report writer, has prepared four reports dated 22 April 2022, 19 August 2022, 29 August 2023 and 12 May 2025 (Exhibits 1 to 4 inclusive). The Court Child Expert clearly identified in her first report, and reinforced in each subsequent report, the rapidly escalating risk to the children being exposed to unyielding significant conflict. For reasons that are not evident, rather than determining the matter by way of a trial, the focus in the management of the proceeding deflected the responsibility for resolving the chronic conflict between the parties to a process of producing a series of expert reports.
5. Each parent contended that the other posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children by the perpetration of, and exposure to, unrelenting conflict and family violence. Allegations were made as to each occasioning physical and psychological abuse upon the children and retaining them from the other in addition to each neglecting the children.
6. The mother contended that the maternal grandmother posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children, while the father implicitly did not. The maternal grandmother did not contend that either parent posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children.
7. At the commencement of the trial:

(a) The father sought orders that he have sole decision-making responsibility in respect of all long-term issues for the children and that the children live with him. He submitted that the unacceptable risk posed by the mother to the safety of the children would be sufficiently ameliorated by there being a moratorium of time spent for three months and thereafter supervised time.

(b) The mother sought orders that she have sole decision-making responsibility in respect of all long-term issues for the children, that the children live with her, and that the children spend no time with the father. She submitted that no safeguards or conditions could adequately mitigate the unacceptable risk to the children's safety posed by the father.

(c) The Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") sought that the mother have decision-making responsibility in respect of all long-term issues for the children subject to restrictions, that the children live with her and spend time with the father should either of them express a wish to do so on a graduated basis commencing from professionally supervised time to alternate weekends and holiday periods. The ICL sought that the maternal grandmother spend time with the children on the third Sunday of each month. In the alternative the ICL sought orders for the father and the children to engage in family therapy "for the purpose of re-establishing relationships" and thereafter, spend time orders to be made between the children and the father on alternate weekends and half of the block holiday times, and for the maternal grandmother to spend time with the children each fortnight overnight during the school week.

1. As between the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother at the commencement of the trial:

(a) The maternal grandmother sought orders that she and the mother equally share decision-making responsibility for the children in respect of major long-term issues of education, religion/cultural upbringing and medical; that the children live with the mother; that they spend three days each week with her during school terms and block periods during school holidays; and two nights each fortnight with the father and block holiday time. The maternal grandmother abandoned her relief sought as to the sharing of decision-making responsibility for the children in respect of specified major long-term issues. It was challenging to reconcile the maternal grandmother's application for the children to live with the mother with her own assertions that the mother has, on occasions, perpetrated physical, emotional and psychological abuse upon the children, and neglected them.

(b) The father sought orders that the maternal grandmother spend time with the children for three hours a fortnight for three months and thereafter progressing to an overnight spend time with regime.

(c) The mother contended that the maternal grandmother posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children in the event they had any contact with her or if she communicated with them, the risk being of such magnitude that it was not capable of amelioration or mitigation. She sought that no order be made for the children to spend time with or communicate with the maternal grandmother.

1. All parties and the ICL agreed at the commencement of the trial that the children would not be separated.
2. The oral evidence, including the cross-examination of the Court Child Expert, was concluded after four days of trial. The father then foreshadowed seeking leave to make an oral application to amend his orders to broadly provide for X to live with him and for Y to live with the mother, with no orders as to time spent by either child with the other parent. He did not articulate how the terms of his proposed amended relief reconciled with his contention of the mother posing an unacceptable risk of harm to the safety of Y. At least implicitly, that contention was abandoned.
3. Due to a weather event in Darwin, the scheduled fifth day of the trial was vacated.
4. On the following Monday, the trial recommenced for submissions. Each of the father and the ICL, as recorded later in these reasons, amended absent objection, their respective orders sought.
5. The ICL opposed any order as to the father or the maternal grandmother spending time with the children or communicating with them except by way of sending cards and gifts to the children on special occasions.
6. The father abandoned his relief for either child to live with him.
7. During submissions each party and the ICL further refined their respective orders sought and agreed to some orders proposed by the other parties.
8. By the conclusion of the parents' submissions, the maternal grandmother and the ICL agreed that the regime suitably equipped to promote the best interests of the children was for final orders to be made for them to live with the mother; for she to have sole decision-making responsibility as to their long-term issues; and for the mother to advise the father of all decisions of long-term issues within seven days of them being made. The father sought to caveat some categories of decision-making as to long-term issues by way of injunctive orders.
9. For the reasons that follow, orders are made for the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility in respect of all major long-term issues for the children; that the children live with the mother; that there be no order as to time spent between the father and the children; that the father have capacity to communicate with the children subject to prescriptive orders and the mother's oversight; that the maternal grandmother not spend time with or communicate with the children; and an injunction is made restraining the mother from legally changing the children's surnames, retaining a capacity as to the common usage of their surname. Section 68B injunctions are made for the personal protection of the mother and the children.

1. The parties ventilated an inordinate number of factual disputes in the affidavit and oral evidence as to events and circumstances throughout the relationship and over the seven years of intensive conflict since separation. Despite the detailed accounts of factual disputes in the evidence, as advised during the trial, I will only determine those factual disputes that are necessary to decide the issues as crystallised between the parties by the end of the trial (Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71).
2. The maternal grandmother was born in 1969. She is currently 56 years old.
3. The father was born in 1990. He is currently 35 years old.
4. The mother was born in 1991. She is currently 34 years old.
5. The evidence does not permit positive or negative findings to the requisite degree as to many of the disputed historical allegations and counter-allegations as to family violence as between the parents prior to their separation. In any event, their definitive resolution is not necessary as part of the final context of discretionary determinations that promote the children's best interests in circumstances where it is agreed that the mother will have sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues for the children subject to the making of a disputed injunction as to legal and common name use, and that the children live with her (Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101; (2022) FLC 94-094).
6. On 21 November 2018, the parents entered a parenting plan (Exhibit 18) providing for the parents to equally share parental responsibility; for them to live with the mother and spend time with the father once a week and on special occasions subject to the availability of one of the maternal grandparents. The maternal grandmother initially supervised some of the father's time spent with the children. After a torturous process of negotiation between the parents' lawyers by June 2019 the time the children spent with the father slowly increased to overnight time on weekends.
7. The father said in cross-examination that he had not spoken to the maternal grandmother from 2018 or 2019, when she ceased supervising his time spent with the children, until January 2022, shortly after the Town V incident as recorded later in these reasons. He did not speak to her again from January 2022 until she called him by telephone three and a half years later, in July 2025, advising him that X wanted to be collected from school. That circumstance is evaluated later in these reasons.
8. The maternal grandmother and the maternal grandfather separated in June 2019.
9. In October 2019 the father commenced a relationship with Ms W. They married in mid-2023. They have one child, U, who was born in 2021 and is currently 4 years old.
10. The father has another daughter, W born in 2020. W is currently 5 years old. She lives with her mother. The father said that he has not had any contact with W since she moved away from Darwin about a year and a half ago. He pays child support for W.
11. In August 2020, Y's daycare teacher made a report to the child welfare authority in response to a disclosure made by Y that the father had physically abused him. The mother suspended the children's time with the father. The investigation was finalised on [...] August 2020. The Northern Territory Police Child Abuse Task Force did not conclude any findings of abuse occasioned by the father or Ms N to the children.
12. The mother commenced living with the maternal grandfather in February 2021. She has remained living with him since that time.
13. On [...] July 2021, Y was referred by a general practitioner to Dr D for counselling by way of a mental health plan.

1. On [...] January 2022, the children attended Town V with the mother and the maternal grandmother.
2. On [...] January 2022, the children were spending time with the father. The father said in his affidavit that Y told him that "mummy hit [X]" and that X told him that the mother had punched her while at the beach the day before and "hit her in the side of head so hard she felt dizzy and couldn't see properly". The father made a report to the child welfare authority. He also took X to be examined by a doctor at Z Health Services. The doctor's clinical notes were not tendered into evidence. The father retained the children in his care.
3. The mother says that on [...] January 2022 when she, the maternal grandmother and the children attended the beach in Town V, X became overtired and started acting out of character with a poor attitude and behaving rudely. In response, she says that she tapped X on the back of her head. The maternal grandmother gives evidence in her affidavit that X was "short tempered, overtired and had an attitude about everything" on that day. She said that the mother had an empty water bottle in her hand and that she tapped the bottle on the back of X's head telling her to "stop whinging". The maternal grandmother said to the Court Child Expert that the mother tapped X's head in Town V, that the incident "was blown out" and she had "nil concerns" (at [94] of the Family Report dated 19 August 2022).
4. On [...] January 2022, the mother attended the child welfare authority for an interview. That afternoon, the mother and the maternal grandmother attended the father's home with the objective of collecting the children. An exchange occurred between the father, the mother and the maternal grandmother through a locked screen door.
5. The import of the father's affidavit and oral evidence was that he was calm and measured whilst the mother and the grandmother were screaming, yelling profanities, constantly ringing the doorbell and demanding the children. The import of the mother's evidence was that the father was yelling, and he and the maternal grandmother were engaged in a verbal argument whilst Y was trying to push through the front door to her, that she was encouraging both children to come to her, but Ms N took the children to their room and yelled at them to not leave. The import of the maternal grandmother's evidence was that the father and Ms N decided that they were not going to return the children to the mother on that day, and the retention of the children by the father caused "a lot of pain for everyone". Irrespective as to the competing versions of the event, the children could hear the fracas between their parents and were crying in a room with Ms N for a period. When Ms N entered the fray at the front door the exchanges were hostile, with yelling and screaming between the father, the mother and the maternal grandmother. Ms N called the Northern Territory police ("NT Police"). The mother and the maternal grandmother left. The children did not return to the mother's care on that day.
6. The father was uncertain in cross-examination as to whether the children were aware of the quarrel between the parties on [...] January 2022. He agreed that the children were distressed by the incident, but he was unsure as to whether they were crying asserting that they had "minimal contact" with the parties as they were in their room with Ms N. Ms N agreed that the children were upset during the incident and that they were able to hear the exchanges between the mother, the grandmother and the father. I find that the children heard the fracas, were distressed and crying.
7. During cross-examination, the father confirmed that when the mother attended his residence on [...] January 2022 he did not consider raising or speaking to her about X's disclosure to him about the Town V incident. He said that the reason why he did not tell the mother about it was because the family was due to attend at the child welfare authority the following day. He said that he had asked Ms N to film the exchange between him, the mother and the maternal grandmother so he could justify his retention of the children.
8. Exhibit 27 is a redacted investigation and safety assessment report of the child welfare authority dated [...] September 2021. The redactions prevent identification as to whether X or the father disclosed particulars of the complaint as to the interaction between X and the mother at Town V. It records:

Report raised allegations that the mother hit the child at the beach, that the child felt dizzy and unwell after it occurred. Furthermore that the mother refuses to dress the children at changeovers when the father picks the children up, they are in underwear.

1. On [...] January 2022, both parents visited the child welfare authority. The children were present. It was anticipated that both children would return to the care of the mother. The father said that X would not go with the mother, that he tried to persuade her to go, but she refused. Y left with the mother and returned to her care. X remained in the father's care.
2. The child welfare authority investigation closed on [...] January 2022 absent any findings as to abuse or neglect of X by the mother. The father said in cross-examination that he "believe[d] it to be a possibility" that the mother had hit X on the head but that he did not know how she was feeling and that he was "just going off what [X] said." Consistent with her affidavit evidence, the mother said in cross-examination that she tapped X on the back of her head with her hand, the tap being "nothing serious".
3. The resolution of the factual dispute as to the integers of the mother's exchange with X in Town V is not necessary within the parameters of this case as defined by the parties by the conclusion of the trial.

1. Upon commencing the proceedings on 9 February 2022, the father sought that the children live with both he and the mother on an equal-time basis. Implicitly, at that time, he did not contend that the children's safety was exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm in their mother's care.
2. Interlocutory consent parenting orders were made on 16 March 2022 providing for both children to live with the mother and spend alternate weekends with the father; for X to spend time with the father on one weekday night; and for the regulation of time with the parents on special occasions. The father said in cross-examination that he only consented to the orders because his lawyer recommended that he agree to them, but at that time he believed that there was a risk to the children remaining in the mother's primary care. Irrespective of the terms of exchanges between he and his lawyer, he did not explain why he sought an equal shared care arrangement, and at the same time, contended that the children were at a risk in the mother's care.
3. Notwithstanding those orders, the father did not return X to the mother. The parties give conflicting affidavit evidence as to the failure of the other to implement G Family Services intake procedures to facilitate changeover as to the reason that the care of X did not move from the father to the mother in compliance with the order. The father conceded in cross-examination that he understood X was to reside with the mother from 16 March 2022, but that he had no intention "at that stage" of complying with that consensual interlocutory order. I find that his detailed affidavit evidence attempting to deflect responsibility for retaining X to the mother's alleged failures to engage with G Family Services was misleading and deceptive. His objective, irrespective of a court order, was to ensure that X would not have contact with her mother before the scheduled upcoming appointments with the Court Child Expert on 4 April 2022 in preparation of the Child Impact Report.

1. The Court Child Expert, Ms F prepared a Child Impact Report dated 22 April 2022 (Exhibit 1). The report records that from 2019 until the date of the report, 10 notifications or reports of concern were made to the child welfare authority, three having been screened in for investigation, and none concluding with any substantiation of harm to the children. While recording each parent's allegations of family violence occasioned by the other, including the mother alleging physical assaults, threats to kill her, controlling and jealous behaviours, financial abuse and the father's allegations of verbal and other abuse from the mother; the Court Child Expert concluded that irrespective of the veracity of the allegations and counter-allegations, an atmosphere of tension and conflict in the home was experienced by the children in their infant years (at [62]).
2. The report recorded X's allegations of family violence occasioned by the mother pinching, slapping and pulling her hair in addition to swearing at her (at [20]). The father said in cross-examination that disclosures made to him by the children such as the mother making them stand on a pole in the kitchen all night were "definitely" true, then tempering his assertion by saying that it was true to some extent (Exhibit 21). The father agreed in cross-examination that he genuinely believed the mother would punish the children by making them stand on a tile square in the kitchen all night as he had "seen similar situations". The Court Child Expert recorded that X's strong resistance to returning to her mother's care may suggest possible risk.
3. The Court Child Expert opined as to:

(a) A strong protective sibling bond and that the maintenance of that relationship was vital for each child's emotional wellbeing in circumstances where both children have experienced distress over separation from each other (at [79]);

(b) The high level of animosity between the parents having been exacerbated by their respective partners and that each of the children had been exposed to the conflict increasing their emotional distress (at [83]);

(c) In prophetically clear terms, that X was sensitive to adult conflict and her development required stability and routine to support her self-esteem and school functioning (at [73]-[74]); and

(d) In a similar vein, Y was developmentally attached to the mother but emotionally impacted by a separation from his father and sister (at [78]-[79]).

1. The expert clearly identified to each of the parents that:

(a) The risk of intersection between family violence, child abuse, and prolonged parental conflict was cumulatively harming the children; and

(b) A key consideration for their safety is grounded from the maintenance of the sibling bond and shielding them from adult conflict.

1. As will be explained, the future behaviour of each of the parents and the maternal grandmother was antithetical to this fundamental reality.
2. The expert said at that time that the maternal grandmother was a strong safety factor and supportive figure (at [84]). This assessment was prospectively tested.
3. The expert recommended that X continue to live with the father with any time spent with the mother to be contingent on the family attending therapy; both parents attending a parenting course; and time arrangements occurring at the maternal grandmother's home progressing incrementally to an equal shared care arrangement with the father. As to Y, she recommended that he spend regular overnight time with the father, incrementally increasing to an equal shared time arrangement with the mother. The expert recommended that the children's time in each household overlap with their sibling's; for changeovers to occur at G Family Services or at the children's school; and for the parents to communicate via a parenting app.

1. On 3 May 2022, a second set of interim consent orders were entered, and the orders of 16 March 2022 were discharged. The orders provided for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the children; for Y to live with the mother and spend two nights a week with the father; for X to live with the father and spend two nights a week with the mother; for changeover to occur at G Family Services; and for each child to have telephone contact with the other parent twice a week. An additional order was made for the appointment of an ICL.
2. The parties did not strictly comply with those consent orders and time spent between the parents and either child did not occur as provided for.
3. The mother spent time with X on five occasions from the date of those orders until 27 October 2022, one additional visit occurring on [...] June 2022 when the mother showed up unannounced at X's school sports day carnival. X refused to attend changeover on 15 October 2022 and 23 October 2022.
4. The father spent time with Y on two occasions from the date of those orders until 27 October 2022. Y refused to attend changeover on 13 May 2022. The mother did not bring him to the scheduled changeover on 23 October 2022 after Y disclosed to her that the paternal grandfather had inappropriately touched him, an incident subsequently reported by the mother to NT Police.
5. In addition, on [...] May 2022 the father made a report to NT Police that the mother was preventing X from returning to his care.
6. I find that at this time the parties by way of making intermediate ad hoc police reports against one another, were unable to reduce prolonged parental conflict and parent the children in a way that recognised and implemented the clear advice of the Court Child Expert.

1. The Court Child Expert prepared a Family Report dated 19 August 2022. The report records an atmosphere of high psychological acrimony between Ms N and the parents and that the children had been significantly impacted by continued adult conflict, feeling a sense of deep loss from being separated from one another (at [23]). The expert identified at [27], additional issues affecting the children including:

(a) the impact on their emotional and psychological well-being as a result of their experience of the adult conflict.

(b) their ages and stages of development in considering appropriate parenting arrangements;

(c) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between them and their other parent;

(d) the nature of their relationship with each of the parents and other significant adults;

(e) the potential impact on either of them of significant changes to their living arrangements.

1. As to the assessment of the adult relationships at the time, the Court Child Expert reported:
   1. It is apparent that the parents' relationship is characterised by high levels of psychological acrimony, resentment and mistrust, and that dynamics of power and control over the children's parenting arrangements are at play.
   2. [Ms Geisler] and [Ms Dorte] appear to feel highly resentful of and indignant about [Ms N's] influence in [Mr Lazer] and the children's lives, and believe that she has negatively influenced the parenting relationship.
   3. . All parties expressed a wish for an improvement in the tone of their relationship. However, it seemed that [Ms Dorte] was not prepared to make any overtures of civility towards [Ms N], and wished to deal exclusively with [Mr Lazer] in the resolution of this parenting dispute, and in future parenting arrangements.
   4. Each parent provided very different narratives about their experience of the parenting relationship since separation. It appears that communication between the parents has been ineffective; that [Mr Lazer] seeks only to communicate in writing with [Ms Dorte], and [Ms Dorte's] strong preference is to communicate directly and on a face-to-face basis with [Mr Lazer].

1. The Court Child Expert identified repeated themes, being that:

(a) Issues existed at to compliance with court orders by the mother;

(b) The relationship and personality dynamics as to conflict, control, resentment and hostility between the parents presented as a high ongoing risk to the children's emotional and psychological wellbeing (at [144],[147] and [151]);

(c) X was very strongly aligned to the father. The Court Child Expert said that may be indicative of her experience of care in his household providing her with a sense of security and safety (at [158]);

(d) Both children were anxious that they would not be returned to the other parent, including Y saying that his mother was worried that his father might 'steal' him (at [161]-[162]); and

(e) The burden the children feel is such that it is necessary to pit one parent against the other and the children were strongly compromised by loyalty conflicts (at [163]).

1. As to the promotion of a child's sense of safety, the Court Child Expert identified:
   1. It is promoted in child development and parenting literature that children fare much better in the long-term, and feel more secure and settled when they know what the household rules and behavioural expectations are, and when parents are consistent in maintaining behavioural boundaries and expectations without the use of authoritarianism, inappropriate physical or psychological disciplining, or permissiveness. A style of parenting which is warm and authoritative is considered to best promote children's sense of emotional safety and security.

1. The Court Child Expert concluded:
   1. The writer identified that the most significant risk of harm to the children is their continued exposure to the adult conflict and hostilities, uncertainty about their living arrangements, and what appears to be a contest between the parties to gain their loyalties. This is placing the children in an untenable situation, whereby they are likely to be feeling a strong sense of internal loyalty conflict, and significant loss with respect to the sibling relationship, their other parent, and other significant adults in their lives. This places them at risk for suffering with seriously compromised mental health into their developing years, particularly into adolescence and beyond. Both parents, the maternal grandmother, and [Ms N] identified that [X] is demonstrating signs and symptoms of compromised emotional and physical health as a result of the ongoing circumstances of conflict about her living arrangements.

1. The Court Child Expert recommended:
   1. ...that if a significant change does not occur insofar as each parent strictly adheres to conditions and requirements of Court Orders, and supports the children's relationships with their other parent, then the Court identify the parent who is best placed to provide the children with stability in their living arrangements and who is most likely to promote their relationships with the other parent and other significant adults, and both children live in that parent's primary care. If this were the outcome, then it would be recommended that the children spend two overnights per week in the other parent's care, and more substantial time during their school holidays, such as each alternate week.

1. On 15 October 2022, the mother made a report to the police about the paternal grandfather inappropriately touching Y by massaging his naked bottom.

1. On 27 October 2022 the third set of interim consent orders were entered. All previous interim orders were discharged. These orders provided 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. Staggeringly, Order 15 provided:
   1. 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. 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.

(Emphasis added)

1. It is inconceivable that a court in Pt VII proceedings would make an order authorising that the parties may record communications with each other, let alone it being made in proceedings plagued by significant parental conflict, distrust and belligerence. The father confirmed in cross-examination that he regularly recorded phone calls with the children and the mother using his personal phone.

1. As to the children's education, the consent orders made on 27 October 2022 provided:

Parental Responsibility

1. That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children [X] born [2014] ('[X]) and [Y] born [2017] ('[Y]).
2. 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. In late 2022, the mother proposed that both children attend L School in Suburb K. The father opposed the children attending that school. The father filed an urgent Application in a Proceeding on 7 November 2022 for orders to enrol Y at AA School. X was in her third year at AA School at the time and she was living with the father. Y was due to commence his first year of primary school. He was living with the mother.
2. The mother contended that X was not doing well at AA School, that she had been subjected to very serious bullying at that school, and that she had the capacity to pay the school fees of L School. The father put the mother's contentions into issue. A Division 2 judge at an interim hearing on 21 December 2022 did not accept the mother's contentions. Orders were made on that day for the parties to enrol Y in AA School, and for both children to attend AA School from Term 1 of 2023.
3. Both X and Y encountered challenges at AA School during early 2023. The conflict between the parents continued over this period. The father says that he became aware that the children did not attend school on 3 April 2023 after being in the mother's care. The mother gives evidence in her affidavit that she messaged the father via the Our Family Wizard app on 3 April 2023 advising him that the children had Hand, Foot and Mouth disease. The father says that the mother was unwilling to facilitate a changeover and that she contacted him via the Our Family Wizard app suggesting that X's school was concerned for her wellbeing in his care. The father says that he contacted the Vice Principal of AA School on 3 April 2023 and that he was told that the school had no concerns for X's wellbeing and that she had been regularly attending school.
4. In cross-examination, the father said that he had a good relationship with AA School and that they "corresponded quite a bit" yet he gave evasive and vague answers about whether he was aware that the children had been absconding from AA School in April and May 2023, saying that he had "seen bits and pieces" of the school's records. He said that he "did not know what was going on in their head[s]" when X and Y absconded from school, notwithstanding that X was living with him until March 2023 and he was spending time with Y.
5. On 27 April 2023, the mother contacted AA School raising concerns about X constantly leaving the school grounds. She sought that a plan be put in place involving the commencement of a homeschool period until X felt safe to return to school. The mother told the Court Child Expert that the children had not attended school from 6 April 2023 to 17 July 2023. The Court Child Expert recommended that the children resume attending school full-time (at [111] of the Family Report dated 24 August 2023). The mother homeschooled the children from 5 September 2024 to February 2025.
6. AA School prepared three risk management plans dated 3 May 2023, 14 July 2023 and 18 July 2023 to manage the perceived "high" risk of either X or Y leaving school grounds on multiple occasions (Exhibit 20).
7. The mother regularly communicated with the school principal, Ms CC. She tendered a letter dated 4 August 2023 from Ms CC identifying that X had absconded from school on six occasions between April and May 2023; that since 18 April 2023 X had experienced multiple instances of anxiety and there had been five days when X's anxiety was so high she could not enter the classroom (Exhibit 22).
8. The import of the father's evidence was that he made no enquiries of the mother to understand what she was doing to deal with the issue of the children running away from school or how proactive she was in engaging with the school at that time. The father gave unconvincing evidence about whether he knew X was being bullied at AA School at that time. He confirmed that he had not corresponded with the mother or AA School about homeschooling undertaken by the mother, stating it was the mother's responsibility to let him know. I find that the mother provided the father with homeschooling summaries. The father's overt criticism of the mother's decision to homeschool the children is reflective of his fixation on conflict with the mother and his incapacity to identify and meet the children's needs. As will be seen, this attitude continued up to the time of the trial.

The Continuing Unabated Conflict Between the Parents

1. The mother made multiple reports to the police on [...] November 2022, [...] March 2023, [...] April 2023 and [...] April 2023 as to the father threatening and/or stalking her.
2. The implementation of the orders made on 27 October 2022 disintegrated in March 2023. The date of the last changeover at G Family Services occurred on 26 March 2023 when Y returned to the mother's care without incident (Exhibit 14).
3. On 8 April 2023, the children refused to affect a changeover from the mother's care to the father at G Family Services. Exhibit 14, being changeover notes from the contact centre, records that both children were shaking their heads looking concerned and unhappy whilst communicating to the worker that they did not want to walk over to the father. Since that day, the father has not had any physical contact with Y. He agreed in cross-examination that he then elected to cease telephone communications with the children in July 2023 as the "telephone calls were quite hostile".
4. On [...] April 2023, a domestic violence order ("DVO") issued for two years against the father for the protection of the mother restraining him from causing her harm by way of threatening, intimidating or stalking her. The final DVO was subsequently withdrawn at an unknown date.
5. Notwithstanding the orders made on 27 October 2022:

(a) Y has not spent time with or communicated with the father since 8 April 2023.

(b) X did not spend time with the father between 8 April 2023 and 31 July 2025. The father says that when he collected X from school on 31 July 2025 without the mother's knowledge, 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. This contention was misplaced. The father elected to ignore a consent order made on 10 March 2025 restraining the removal of either of the children from school. It is a window into the father's parental capacities and attitudes.

1. The Court Child Expert produced a third report on 29 August 2023 recording the further deterioration of the parenting relationship between the parties and the polarised position of the parents now resulting in the children aligning with the mother and rejecting their father and the paternal family (at [89]). The children resisted and refused to participate in interviews with the father for the Family Reports produced by the Court Child Expert on 29 August 2023 and 12 May 2025.
2. The Court Child Expert opined that the children are coming to feel emotionally overwhelmed as they try to navigate, please and placate both their parents (at [92]). The expert further opined:
   1. ...They come to feel deeply divided and torn in their loyalties between the households, which places them under enormous stress. Common behaviours enacted by children in such circumstances may include them telling each parent what they think they want to hear, which often causes further conflict and problems, as the child might embellish certain behaviours by the other parent, believing this may be what the other party wants to hear in order to confirm their perceptions the other parent is dangerous, psychologically unstable, or malicious.

1. As to the impacts of the parental conflict on X having regard to her age and stage of development the Court Child Expert opined:
   1. Children in [X's] developmental age group, between approximately seven and eleven years, are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of parental conflict insofar as their reaction is to feel deeply divided in their loyalties and wanting to please and placate their parents. Typical to this age group is if they feel too overwhelmed by the parental conflict and deep divide between the households, they may choose a side and reject a parent. For a child to reject a parent is an extreme and uncommon outcome, known to occur in circumstances when a child cannot cope any longer transitioning between acrimonious households. Other circumstances when this may occur is when children have experienced serious harm and neglect in the rejected parents' household, which may include substance abuse, when the rejected parent suffers with a serious mental health condition or there are high levels of domestic violence.

1. The Court Child Expert concluded:
   1. Occasionally, there are family matters whereby for reasons other than the presence of actual significant risk factors, the parents are simply unable to develop a parenting relationship which supports the children living in a shared care arrangement. Whatever the reason between the parents in this matter which is prohibitive to [X] and [Y] living in a shared care arrangement, the unfortunate reality is that these children have rejected their father and his family, with whom they previously appeared to have a strong relationship, and with whom [X] expressed a strong wish to live. There has been a complete turnaround in the children's attitude towards [Mr Lazer], [Ms N] and [U] since August 2022.

...

1. It is not uncommon for children who have rejected a parent and their family, to justify their position and minimise their feelings of guilt and find reason/s, albeit commonly weak ones, to portray the other parent as all bad or 'mean'. There appeared to be a number of combined behaviours by both children that are characteristic of behaviours in children whereby a parent is unjustifiably rejected. These include: weak rationalisations by the children for their criticism of their father; a lack of ambivalence by them about their stance towards their father; claims by the children that these are their own thoughts; a demonstration of reflective support of their mother in the parental conflict; an apparent absence of guilt over their attitude towards their father; and their rejection spreading to [Ms N], [U] and the paternal grandparents.

(Emphasis added)

1. The Court Child Expert identified the risks of parental rejection, concluding:
   1. It is the writer's concern that if the children's behaviours towards their father are not corrected, they will not only lose the benefits of a significant parental relationship, but in all likelihood will suffer detrimental psychological repercussions. The impact of parental rejection can be complex and challenging due to the children's distortions and confusion. The distortion of history and of their relationship with one parent is considered to have potentially damaging effect on children. Literature consistently reports children who reject one parent without justifiable reasons are at risk for emotional distress and adjustment difficulties. Commonly, these children experience troubled relationships with their peers, in their intimate relationships and with authority figures, showing low resilience, being unable to resolve conflict effectively, and acting aggressively towards others, whilst often complaining of being bullied or victimised. As they mature, these children commonly suffer with low self-esteem, self- hatred and experience significant episodes of depression. Studies have revealed children who have unjustifiably rejected a parent, often whilst claiming they hated or feared the rejected parent, and on some level did have negative feelings, did not want that parent to walk away from them and secretly hoped someone would realise they did not mean what they said, and wanted the behavioural pattern detected and stopped.

The Estrangement of the Mother and the Maternal Grandmother

1. In September 2023, the relationship between the mother and the maternal grandmother became estranged and they ceased communication. They attended a mediation on 25 January 2024, and an agreement was reached for the maternal grandmother to spend time with the children on 13 March 2024 on the condition that she enrols in a parenting program. Y spent overnight time with the maternal grandmother on 13 March 2024. X refused to attend. Both children spent overnight time with the maternal grandmother on 27 March 2024 and then ceased spending any further time with her.
2. No agreement was reached at the mediation attended by all parties on 9 April 2024.

The Maternal Grandmother's Removal of X from School and Retaining the Child

1. On 2 June 2024 the maternal grandmother unilaterally removed X from the mother's care. The mother did not see X save for one occasion in 2024 when the maternal grandmother facilitated X's attendance at Y's birthday party.
2. On [...] July 2024, the mother was contacted by the child welfare authority. The child welfare authority held no concerns of abuse or neglect perpetrated by the mother upon X. Their formal investigation concluded on [...] July 2024 absent any findings of abuse or neglect perpetrated by the mother against X.
3. The mother said in cross-examination that X was returned to her care on 2 August 2024. Exhibit 8 is a note from AA School. It identifies that the mother attended school on 2 August 2024 and informed them that a DVO had been "put out on Nan". No DVO as against the maternal grandmother existed at that time although one was contemplated by the mother.
4. Exhibit 39 is an email from the Principal of AA School to the mother dated 3 September 2025 recording "I am mindful that as she did previously (Friday 2nd August), she [X] may refuse to go with you [the mother]." The maternal grandmother focused a significant period of her cross-examination of the mother on this subject matter. The mother confirmed that she had not included the circumstance of attending the school and X refusing to come into her in her trial affidavit as she had to "compromise a lot of information" given the volume of material.
5. I formed the clear impression that the maternal grandmother was endeavouring to undermine the credibility of the mother for the purpose of the current DVO proceedings in which she is the respondent in P Court. I find this to be reflective of the attitude of the maternal grandmother giving insight as to the prospective likelihood of her perpetuating conflict with the mother while being blinkered as to its impact and consequences.

The DVO for the Protection of the Mother and the Children

1. On [...] August 2024, an interim ex parte DVO was issued in P Court for the protection of the mother and the children from the maternal grandmother (Exhibit 35). The interim DVO restrains the maternal grandmother from directly or indirectly:

(a) Approaching or remaining in the company of the protected persons, being the mother, the maternal grandfather and the children; and

(b) Contacting any of the protected persons directly or indirectly except through a legal practitioner for the purpose of the proceeding.

1. NT Police conducted a welfare check on X at the maternal grandmother's residence the same day. The maternal grandmother was advised of the interim DVO. She was told that if the interim DVO was confirmed and served she would be in breach of the order (Exhibit 11). I find that the maternal grandmother knew as to the facts and terms of the interim DVO on that day and that she knew that she would be in breach of the interim DVO if she retained X in her care. Notwithstanding, she retained X until she was returned to the mother's care by NT Police.
2. The mother gives evidence in her affidavit that X returned to her care with assistance from NT Police on [...] September 2024. She contends that on [...] September 2025 the maternal grandmother attended X's school with her friend, Ms BB and retained her. The mother reported the incident to the police (Exhibit 45).

Return of X to the Mother; The Maternal Grandmother's charges for breaching the AVO

1. On [...] September 2024, Ms BB, at the instigation of the maternal grandmother, collected X from school. I find that the maternal grandmother used Ms BB as a vehicle to subvert the terms of the DVO. X remained in the care of the maternal grandmother's partner until police facilitated her return to the mother later that day. The maternal grandmother was arrested on [...] September 2024 and charged with breaching the interim DVO. She was held in remand for five days. The DVO complaint and the breach charge are listed for hearing in P Court on [...] January 2026.
2. On [...] November 2024, the child welfare authority completed an investigation and safety assessment in respect of the children. The email as received by the mother following the conclusion of the investigation said:

Dear [Ms Dorte],

RE: Investigation and Safety Assessment Outcome

I am writing to you about the Investigation and Safety Assessment we completed on [...] 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.

...

(Emphasis added)

1. Orders were made on 10 March 2025 for the children to enrol in and commence attendance at L School. A further order was made restraining all parties, then being each parent and the maternal grandmother, from removing either of the children from school. The children commenced attending L School in May 2025.

1. The Court Child Expert prepared a fourth and final Family Report dated 12 May 2025 recording the children's continued entrenched rejection of their father and the continued conflictual dynamics existing between the now three parties.
2. The children were interviewed by the Court Child Expert on 28 April 2025. The report records:
   1. [X] reported that she went to live with her 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.
   2. According to [X], her mother and grandmother 'don't get along' and 'swear and yell at each other'.
3. In this report each of the parents and the maternal grandmother gave descriptions of one another to the Court Child Expert.
4. The father described the mother as "entirely dishonest" having fabricated allegations of child abuse and poor parenting by he or Ms N (at [19]). It was his view that the mother would go to "any length to discredit him as a parent" and that she was not a person who would comply with orders that were not in her favour (at [16]).
5. The mother acknowledged that the father's attitudes and opinions of her had not changed (at [37]). She told the Court Child Expert that she was concerned about the children's alleged treatment by Ms N and the paternal grandparents. She perceived the father as a threat to her, particularly fearful that the father may attempt to kill her (at [38]).
6. The maternal grandmother's description of the mother was peppered with profanities almost entirely assembled by offensive language. She described the mother as a 'bitch', 'cow', 'controlling and dictatorial', 'a liar', 'psychopath' and 'narcissist'. The maternal grandmother repeatedly told the Court Child Expert that the mother was a volatile, unpredictable and aggressive individual who is pervasively dishonest (at [20]).
7. The mother described the maternal grandmother as "an aggressive, volatile and unpredictable individual, who was not to be trusted" (at [32]). She said to the Court Child Expert that she held serious concerns for the maternal grandmother's mental health and that the maternal grandmother can manipulate the children against her because of her need to have influence and control over them (at [32]-[33]).
8. The mother's hesitant description of the father extended to her oral evidence. She said that the father has strengths as a parent, but she could not specify them. It was evident from the mother's oral evidence that her view of the maternal grandmother had not shifted, the relationship between them remaining significantly hostile and tense with a complete absence of confidence and trust. The maternal grandmother's oral evidence affirmed her extremely strong disdain for the mother. The father's oral evidence confirmed his view that the mother behaves dishonestly with an intention to discredit his parenting by way of instilling a sense of fear and anxiety in the children. He said that his relationship with the mother was not amicable, and any attempts of his to overcome conflict with the mother were not reciprocated. He said that the mother was alienating the children from him.
9. The entrenched conflict between the parties was opined by the Court Child Expert as having "cast a strong shadow over the children's lives" (at [78]).
10. The Court Child Expert highlighted concerns that I accept as to the maternal grandmother's conduct in referring to the mother in a negative way and as to she speaking to X about the conflict between the adults (at [81]). The Court Child Expert further opined:
    1. ...Some of [Ms Geisler's] comments about [Y], such as that he had 'not seen through his mother yet' were alarming in the context that [Y] is a young child who appears to have a strong relationship with his mother, about which [Ms Geisler] seemed vexed and resentful.
    2. Gauging by [Y's] comments and presentation during his interview, and comments made by [Ms Geisler] and [Ms Dorte], it seems that he has developed a strong sense of anxiety in relation to [Ms Geisler]; worried that she may withhold him from his mother, and aware that [Ms Geisler] holds negative views about [Ms Dorte]. It was the writer's impression that [Y] has developed anxiety in relation to being withheld by his father or [Ms Geisler] from his mother. [Y] was an infant when his parents separated, and he has always experienced primary care by [Ms Dorte]. Now, at the age of 7 years, he has developed anxiety about removal from her care in the context of this ongoing and intense conflict between the parties over his and [X's] living/care arrangements. The writer is concerned about the potential emotional and psychological impact on [Y] if he were forcibly removed from his mother's care and was unable to spend time with her. [Y] has already experienced much upheaval in his short life, and the writer recalls that he was extremely distressed about separation from [X] when she lived in [Mr Lazer's] care in 2022 after he ([Mr Lazer]) made allegations against [Ms Dorte] of physical assault of her. [Y] is currently engaged in full-time school and sporting activities and has reportedly formed a positive relationship with [Ms Dorte's] partner, '[Mr DD]'. In the writer's opinion, at this stage in [Y's] development, his psychological safety and well-being would be promoted by experiencing certainty in his parenting arrangements and stability in his home and schooling. If [Y] were able to feel a sense of certainty that he was not going to be removed from his mother, perhaps his fear of the other parties withholding him may abate over time and his polarised position against them soften. Given that [Y] appears to have a strong relationship with his mother and seems to be sensitive to threats against their relationship, if he were to observe negativity towards or hear negative comments about her by the other parties, this would likely cause him to feel stressed and destabilised. It is most important for young children when they are in critical stages of their emotional and psychological development; when they are building their sense of identity and self-worth, that their relationships with the significant adults in their lives are supported.

1. The Court Child Expert observed the polarising positions that X has taken over the years following her parents' separation. She opined that X has been caught in the middle of a parenting dispute during the formative years of her childhood:
   1. 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.

84...If there is some accuracy in this, then [X] has been caught in the dynamics of long-standing dysfunction in [Ms Geisler's] relationship with [Ms Dorte].

(Bold Emphasis added)

1. The Court Child Expert opined and I find that:
   1. [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.
   2. Reportedly, [X] has biologically transitioned into puberty. It may be expected that she will experience significant changes in her hormones, causing fluctuations in her mood and behaviour. As [X] transitions into adolescence, it can be expected that she will increasingly seek to distance herself from the adult issues and become more aligned with her friends and activities outside of the family realm. Additionally, [X] may more assertively express her views and wishes and make compulsive decisions in circumstances where she feels unhappy about her parenting, including behaviours such as absconding to her maternal grandmother and refusing to return home. If [Ms Geisler] is not on speaking terms with the parent with whom [X] is living, then it is unlikely she will enforce [X's] return to their care.
   3. In the writer's opinion, it is a protective factor for [X] that she continues to attend school on a full-time basis, in person, and has remained strongly involved in sporting activities. Given the disruptions that [X] has already experienced in her home and schooling life, it is critical that from here on she experiences stability in these important realms and is supported to develop peer friendships, improve her academic record, and continue to participate in her sporting activities at the high level she has thus far achieved.
   4. Given the dynamics in the parties' relationships, and their inability to communicate effectively about anything, it is likely to create further stress and disruption for the children if they lived in a shared care arrangement, whereby they are traversing deep chasms of resentment and mistrust between the households on a regular basis, and potentially exposed to the adult conflict by the other parties.
   5. In the writer's opinion, it would provide relief to the children if they were to reside with one party. In the event the Court determines that their safety and well-being would not be promoted by a shared care arrangement, then it would assist the children if they were provided with explicit assurances from the other parties that they will continue to love them and be available to them whensoever they wish to reconnect with them. This would be best facilitated via a professional service.

1. Following her assessment, the Court Child Expert made the following recommendations:

(a) That the children should remain in the mother's primary care and a reversal of care may destabilise both children and cause them to experience developmental regression (at [91]);

(b) That the children's sibling relationship has historically been a strong and protective factor promoting a preference for them to continue to live together (at [92]);

(c) That there should be no significant time spent between the children and the maternal grandmother in circumstances where the maternal grandmother may be a manipulating factor in the children's lives (at [93]); and

(d) Fundamentally, that the children's best interests would be promoted by ensuring that they have stability and support from attending school full-time, engaging in extracurricular sporting activities and continuing counselling recommended by their therapist (at [94]).

The Father's Removal of X from School and his Retention of the Child

1. After he had the benefit of the fourth family report, the father collected X from school on 31 July 2025 while she was in the mother's care.
2. The maternal grandmother's affidavit evidence is that X contacted the maternal grandmother's friend, Ms BB, using a friend's mobile phone. She said in "an emotional state" to Ms BB that "[I] can't handle living her [the mother] anymore and needs to get away from her". Implicitly, Ms BB relayed the contents of the call to the maternal grandmother.
3. The maternal grandmother called the father. They had not spoken since January 2022, being 3 and a half years prior to this call. The maternal grandmother said that she contacted the father because the DVO prevented her from contacting X. There is no evidence, and I infer, that the maternal grandmother did not tell the father about the interim DVO, its terms, or the criminal breach charges relating to it.
4. During her cross-examination, the maternal grandmother said that "[X] wanted to be with [her]". She did not explain how she was aware of X's views at that time, or why X had called Ms BB instead of the maternal grandmother. She agreed that she was unaware of what the father's circumstances were at the time of her call.
5. I find that the maternal grandmother knew that the father's views of the mother and X being in the mother's care broadly aligned with her own views. I find that the maternal grandmother manipulated the father to secure X from the mother's care and by doing so, would avoid a breach of the interim DVO.
6. Notwithstanding X's polarised views expressed to the Court Child Expert three months earlier, the father attended L School and took X in his care. He had never been to that school before. As recorded earlier, his removal of X from school was contrary to the injunctive orders made on 10 March 2025. The father attempted to deflect or minimise his removal of X from school by relying on the orders made on 27 October 2022 providing for X to live with him. He later justified his actions by saying that they were "limited to signing her out temporarily in response to her call for help".
7. The father's affidavit did not include any evidence as to a conversation between him and the maternal grandmother. His recollection of this important recent event during his cross-examination was revealing. He initially said that X contacted him on 31 July 2025, not the maternal grandmother. He then said that he had missed calls on his phone from X before he received a call from the maternal grandmother. The father could not recall with any particularity the conversation that he had with the maternal grandmother over the phone "as it was an emotional time". He said he did not call X prior to removing her from school. The father said he could not recall "what the problem [X had] was".
8. I find that the father attempted to construct his affidavit evidence to avoid any indication of complicity between he and the maternal grandmother in the removal of X from the mother's care and that his evidence on the event of collecting X from school was unreliable. I find that he was reckless as to the craft of the maternal grandmother in manipulating him because it accorded with his views of the mother and her parenting of X and it again secured X in his care.
9. Rather than contacting the mother, the father, after signing X out of school, took her directly to the child welfare authority. When the father was told that the child welfare authority would not speak to X due to there being no active case, he took X undeterred to the office of the ICL, requesting that they interview her. He confirmed in cross-examination that the purpose of taking X to see the ICL was so she could "talk to someone about what is going on". I find that the father attempted to use the ICL as if they were a police officer or some other person with ostensible authority to record X's complaints in a constructed pre-trial forensic process.
10. The ICL emailed the parties' lawyers informing them of the following (Exhibit 17):

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;

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

2. 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;

1. 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.

...

1. The father thereafter retained X.
2. I do not accept that the father had any intention of returning X to the mother's care. I find that absent intervention of a recovery order, the father would not have permitted X to return to the mother's care and that he would have enforced a separation of X and Y, notwithstanding the clear importance of the maintenance of the sibling bond for each of the children as opined by the Court Child Expert in her fourth report.

1. On 4 August 2024, the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking urgent orders for X to return to her care, that both children live with her and spend no time with the father. The father sought, pending further order, that he have sole parental responsibility for X, for X to live with him, and to spend time with the mother "subject to her wishes" from after school on Friday until 4.00 pm on Sunday each alternate weekend, and from after school on Wednesday until the commencement of school on the following Friday in the alternate week. Implicitly, the father did not contend at that time that X spending time with the mother would expose her to an unacceptable risk of harm to her safety. The mother's urgent application was listed for interim hearing on 14 August 2025 before a judge in Division 1.
2. In mid-2025, X was suspended from school for five days after she was caught stealing. She was wearing her school uniform at the time. The father sent an email to the mother advising her of the event. The father's affidavit evidence, consistent with his oral evidence, was that the school contacted him to advise that X's behaviour had been a recurring issue. The father spoke to X about the seriousness of the matter, saying that he was very disappointed and unsure as to why she would be stealing. He said that X told him that she had been stealing for some time and that she made comments about the mother being aware of the problem. The father was aware that the mother took X back to the business after she was returned to her care to apologise and pay for the items she stole. He said he was not critical of the mother taking such action and sought to deflect any criticism levelled at him as to the X's behaviour when she was his care by saying that X was in the possession of fireworks when she was in the mother's care.
3. On [...] August 2025, Ms J, a counsellor prepared a Child Mental Health report in respect of Y's attendance upon her. It reported:

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. At the hearing on 14 August 2025, the maternal grandmother participated but did not file any material nor seek any orders. The ICL sought orders for X to return to the care of the mother and for the father to spend time with her on alternate weekends.
2. Orders were made on 14 August 2025 discharging the interim orders made on 27 October 2022, for the father to return X to the mother, that a recovery order issue for X, and for the children to live with the mother. No orders were made as to the children spending time with the father or the maternal grandmother. A range of injunctive orders were made for the protection of the children including:

10. 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. X was returned to the mother's care at the police station on that day.

X absconds from the Mother's Home to the Paternal Grandparents

1. The process of drawing inferences from established facts simply involves logical deduction (G v H [1994] HCA 48; (1994) 181 CLR 387 at [4]; Mead v Mead [2007] HCA 25; (2007) FLC 93-327).
2. On [...] August 2025, X left the mother's residence at around 7.30 am and went to the paternal grandparents' home. She did not tell her mother that she was leaving her home.
3. The DVO as against the maternal grandmother for the protection of the mother and the children and the injunctive orders made on 14 August 2025 prevented her from being in contact with X. The father had not been in contact with X since the prior evening of 14 August 2025. He was restrained by an injunction made on that day from contacting or communicating with the children.
4. The paternal grandfather said he observed that X had cut a hole in the flyscreen of her bedroom window, had exited the window, and jumped over the side fence surrounding the house. The paternal grandfather did not give evidence in the trial.
5. The father's oral evidence as to this event lacked particularity. He could not recall when X returned to the mother's care, nor could he explain how X came into his parents' care or how long she remained with them. He said that throughout this period, he did not speak to X or have any contact with her.
6. I carefully observed and listened to the evidence of the father and his mother, Ms EE ("the paternal grandmother") on this subject matter. I found their evidence to be both implausible and inconsistent because:

(a) The father confirmed in cross-examination that he had spoken to his parents about the orders made on 14 August 2025 after X had been returned to the mother. His mother confirmed in her oral evidence as to a conversation of the same import between the father and the paternal grandfather. I find that the paternal grandmother knew that orders had been made providing for X to be in the mother's care and restraining the father from communicating with X.

(b) Notwithstanding the happenstance of the events of X appearing at the home of the father's parents the morning after she was removed from the father's care, on the evidence of the paternal grandmother, she or her husband did not call the father. I find this to be incredulous. The paternal grandmother told X that she needed to take her to the police station. She said that before they left, she made a series of phone calls, the first being to the child welfare authority. They suggested to contact either T Mental Health Services, the school counsellor or the ICL. The paternal grandmother attempted to contact each of those services but was unsuccessful.

(c) The paternal grandmother took X to City B Police Station on the morning of [...] August 2025. The paternal grandmother said in cross-examination that she took X to the police station "to cover us [the paternal grandparents]" and to not return X to the mother.

(d) The father denied that he discussed with his parents the prospect of taking X into their care. He gave a different chronology of events. He agreed that he told his parents to take X to the police station to "make a disclosure". Implicitly, this occurred prior to them visiting the police station. The father did not identify the content of the disclosure to which he referred. The father said that he did not otherwise speak to his parents over the weekend. In the circumstances, I do not accept that as credible.

(e) The paternal grandmother said she did not contact the mother and inform her of X's whereabouts because she did not have her number, she having been "blocked from everything". This exposes an absence of veracity to her evidence. She agreed that she did have access to the number because X texted the mother from the paternal grandfather's phone. The paternal grandmother could not proffer an explanation as to why she did not ask the police to call the mother to let her know that X was safe at their home. I infer that, in that event, she had been told, or she knew, that the mother would likely seek to recover X with the assistance of the authorities.

(f) The paternal grandmother attended the father's home after she went to the police station to collect some clothing for X that "had been there from a previous time". The mother contended complicity between the father and his parents as the bag of clothes retrieved by the paternal grandmother from the father's home contained X's school uniform. The paternal grandmother said in cross-examination that X's school uniform, as if by chance, "must have been in her bag". I do not accept that evidence. The paternal grandmother said that "she [X] was living with us". This evidence is striking in that X had just come into the care of the paternal grandparents. I infer that the paternal grandmother was told that the school clothes would be available for collection from the father's home for X to wear to school the following week.

(g) X remained with the paternal grandparents until [...] August 2025. The paternal grandmother took her to school. The paternal grandmother knew that she was not allowed to attend X's school on that day. Despite dropping X off to school in the morning of [...] August 2025 and being told that she was not allowed to attend or remain there, she told the school that X was staying with her and the paternal grandfather, that she knew X "had to be at school for a meeting" and that X wanted her there for support. She thereafter left the school and returned later that afternoon.

(h) The paternal grandmother said that over the course of the weekend and on the Monday, "the father could not do anything".

1. I do not accept that the father did not discuss with the paternal grandparents the possibility of X absconding to their home, and the course to adopt if she did. I infer the paternal grandmother was a puppet of the father in the events regarding X from [...] to [...] August 2025. I infer that the father had a hand in each of the fact of X's absconding after he returned her to the mother's care pursuant to the order made on 14 August 2025, in her retention at his parents' house, and in their conveyance of X to the police.
2. The police arrived at X's school at about 5.45 pm on [...] August 2025. The police spoke to X offering her a choice to return to the mother's care or to leave school with them. X chose to leave with the police. An hour later, four police officers attended the mother's residence with X, returning her to the mother's full-time care.

1. On [...] August 2024, X and the maternal grandmother attended school for a meeting in relation to X's progress at school and potentially, an incident of self-harm. The evidence is unclear as to the occurrence of the incident. Exhibit 10 is an affidavit of the mother sworn in the Local Court DVO proceedings. It records that on 16 August 2024 the mother was advised by her lawyer that the maternal grandmother advised him that X was "experiencing suicidal thoughts and her current mental condition is that of extreme danger, inflicted purely by the domestic violence [X] is experiencing."
2. On [...] August 2025, X engaged in a second self-harm event. On observing that X had around eight deep cuts to her arm, the mother took X to O Hospital where she 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. Dispute exists as to whether he is a child psychiatrist specialising in complex trauma or that he has some expertise in complex child trauma. X's first appointment with Dr R was on [...] September 2025. She commenced weekly appointments with him from [...] October 2025 for two to three hours. X also was scheduled to attend an appointment made from a referral to Ms S, a child psychologist, on [...] October 2025.
3. On 12 September 2025 a subpoena was issued at the request of the maternal grandmother directed to the Proper Officer - O Hospital seeking documents recording X's presentation and treatment. On 25 September 2025, Northern Territory Health Legal Services on behalf of O Hospital filed a Notice of Objection to the subpoena claiming on behalf of X a protected confidence pursuant to s 102BA of the Act. On 18 November 2025, the Court declared that the documents produced under the subpoena were records of a protected confidence. The objection was upheld and any documents already produced in answer to the subpoena were ordered to be returned to the hospital (See Lazer & Dorte (No 2) FedCFamC1F 838).

1. Both parents agree that the children are currently well-settled at school and that they are progressing academically. They further agree that both the children excel at sport, especially X, and that sport is especially important to her. It is anticipated that she will continue to do so, including possible opportunities to travel outside Australia. The father does not wish in any way to impede these opportunities for X if they arise.
2. Both parents were alarmed by X's self-harm event on [...] August 2025.

THE FINAL TERMS OF THE ORDERS PROPOSED BY EACH PARTY

1. At the commencement of submissions, the father sought orders in terms of Exhibit 46:
   1. That the children [X] born [2014] and [Y] born [2017] live with the mother.
   2. That the mother shall be responsible for making long term decisions concerning the children subject to the following:

a. the mother is not permitted to change the children's names;

1. the mother shall not relocate the children's residence from the greater Darwin area without first obtaining the written consent of the father;

2. the mother is required to first consult with the father about long term medical/health issues affecting the children and consider any response he provides; and

3. the mother is required to notify the father of all decisions made by her within 48.hours of any long term decision being made

4. That this order shall provide sufficient authority to each of the children's treating medical and/or allied professionals to provide to the parents all information, records, reports, assessments and the like which may be requested from time to time by either of the parents, at the cost of the requesting parent, and for this purpose, each parent is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these orders to all such professionals attended by either of the children.

5. That the mother shall provide the father with the names and contact details of any health professional treating any of the children and shall promptly post to the parenting App "Our Family Wizard" a copy of any report, assessment or referral received by her.

6. That this order shall provide sufficient authority to each of the children's schools to provide to the parents all information, records, reports, newsletters, access to parent/school digital platforms and the like which may be requested from time to time by either of the parents, at the cost of the requesting parent, and for this purpose, each parent is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these orders to the school/s attended by the children.

7. That the mother shall keep the father updated about the children's participation in extra curricular activities and advise of any significant events the children have been selected to participate in.

8. That the father is permitted to send cards and gifts to the children for special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, Easter, graduations, achievements and similar and the mother shall provide those to the children and shall positively encourage the children to open and accept them.

9. That the father is permitted to correspond with the children once every 2 months and the mother shall provide those correspondences to the children and shall positively encourage the children to open and read them.

10. That the father shall not correspond with the children about the following matters:

(i) The children's living arrangements;

(ii) Parental disputes;

(iii) Family law proceedings; or

(iv) Denigration of the mother

1. That the father is permitted to send with his correspondences any recent photographs of himself and his daughter [U].

2. That the mother will send to the father recent photographs of the children every 6 months.

3. In the event that the children wish to correspond with the father, the mother shall promptly facilitate that correspondence being emailed or posted to the father.

4. In the event either of the children express a wish to the mother to spend time or communicate with the father, the following shall apply:

(i) The mother shall promptly notify the father and make suitable arrangements for the time or communication to occur;

(ii) In the event that time spending cannot be agreed between the parents, they shall make arrangements to attend family dispute resolution with a Registered Practitioner and pending agreement otherwise, the following shall occur:

(a) such time shall commence at [G Family Services] on a supervised basis for 4 visits; and

(b) the children shall then spend time with the father each Saturday for 4 hours from 9am to 1pm or otherwise as agreed between the parties for a period of 3 months; and

(c) thereafter, the children shall spend time with the father each alternate Saturday from 9am to 5pm for a period of 4 months; and

(d) thereafter, the children shall spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 5pm Sunday for a period of 6 months; and

(e) thereafter, the children shall spend time with the father each alternate weekend during school terms from after school Friday (or 4pm if Friday is a non school day) until the commencement of school the following Monday (or 9am if Monday is not a school day) and shall spend block time with the father of no less than 4 days during each school holiday period following first, second a school terms and for no less than 2 block periods of 5 days each during the Christmas school holidays

(iii) In the event that time occurs pursuant to order 14(e), the parents shall engage in family dispute resolution in an attempt to reach agreement about ongoing time, particularly in relation to school holidays and on days of special significance.

1. In the event that time pursuant to the order above includes time when either of the children are scheduled to participate in an extracurricular activity, the father shall ensure that the child attends.

2. In the event that time pursuant to order 14 above includes time when either of the children are outside Darwin due to participation in a sporting or school activity, the children's time with the father during that period is suspended.

3. That each party shall remain subscribed to the communication App "Our Family Wizard" and shall communicate with each other via that App in relation to matters affecting the children.

4. That the parents shall provide the other with their residential address, email address and phone number and advise of any change within 48 hours.

5. That the children spend time with the Second Respondent from 9am to 2pm on the 3rd Saturday of every odd month, unless otherwise agreed between the mother and Second Respondent, and subject to the children's participation in their usual sporting activities, and such time with the Second Respondent shall be suspended if it coincides with time the children are spending with the father.

6. That the mother ensure that the children continue to receive counselling as recommended by their counsellor, and if recommended by the Counsellor, the mother shall do all things necessary to engage the children in family t and the father shall attend such therapy as requested, and the parti each share equally in the costs of the family therapy.

7. That the mother shall provide a copy of these orders to the children's counsellor/s.

8. That the mother is permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia with the children without first obtaining the consent of the father on the following conditions:

(i) The mother shall not travel to any destination country which the Australian Government has categorised as being of Level 3 or Level 4 on its Smart Traveller website; and

(ii) She shall provide the father with a copy of the children's Itinerary, including flight details and holiday destination/s no less than 4 weeks prior to travel, and shall confirm the children's return within 24 hours

1. That each party is restrained and injunctions are granted restraining each of them from:

(i) Discussing adult issues with the children or within their hearing;

(ii) Discussing these proceedings with the children or within their hearing;

(iii) Discussing any domestic violence proceedings involving any of the parties, with the children or within their hearing;

(iv) Permitting the children to view any documents or reports from these proceedings or from any domestic violence proceedings between any of the parties;

(v) Saying nasty or negative things about the other party to the children or within their hearing;

(vi) Discouraging the children from spending time with or communicating with the other parent, either directly or indirectly, nor allowing others to do the same;

(vii) Exposing the children to family violence or conflict;

(viii) Physically disciplining the children and allowing others to physic discipline them; and

(ix) Removing from the children any photograph or momenta of the other parent;

1. That the Independent Children's Lawyer together with the Court Child Expert shall explain these orders to the children and for that purpose the following shall apply:

(i) The mother shall not inform the children about the orders made; and

(ii) The mother shall cause the children to be delivered to the Darwin Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on a day and time to be notified by the Independent Children's Lawyer

24. That each party pay their own costs.

(As per the original)

1. The mother sought orders as contained in her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025:

1. All previous parenting Orders be discharged.

1. The mother have sole decision-making authority in respect of all major long-term issues with respect to the children [X] born [2014] and [Y] born [2017] ("the children") AND an injunction be granted restraining the father or [Ms Geisler] from interfering with and/or prohibiting the mother from exercising her sole decision-making authority in respect to the children, including major long-term issues and other issues.

3. The children live with the mother.

1. The mother and father shall keep each other informed of their current email addresses and notify the other of any changes within 48 hours of same.

2. This order shall 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 , with a copy of photographic ID to be provided by the person authorised to collect the children on the mother's behalf AND for avoidance of doubt, the father and [Ms Geisler], or any third party engaged on their behalf, are not permitted to collect the children.

3. Pursuant to Section 11 (1 )(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005, the mother is authorised and permitted to apply for , renew and receive an Australian Passport or travel document for the children without first obtaining the consent of the father AND both the father and [Ms Geisler] be restrained by injunction from interfering with or prohibiting the mother from obtaining and retaining the children's passports.

4. The mother will retain in her possession any passport or travel document issued for the children.

5. The mother be permitted to travel with the children and, the mother is not required to obtain the other parties' consent for such travel.

6. Pursuant to Section 68B(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the father and second respondent are restrained and injunctions are granted restraining them from:

(a) denigrating, harassing, insulting, assaulting or abusing the mother or the children, the mother's partner, either directly or indirectly, including in person or online, or engaging any other person to do so on their behalf;

(b) removing the children from the mother's care, their school, or any other location that the children may be in attendance;

(c) attending or approaching within 200 metres of the mother's place of residence;

(d) attending or approaching within 50 metres of the mother's place of employment;

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

(f) engaging or directing any other person to remove the children from the mother's care, their school, or an y other location that the children maybe in attendance; and

(g) 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 or through the agency of third parties;

(h) commenting on, tagging, re posting, or otherwise engaging with any social media or online platforms which relate to the children's schooling, sporting activities, extracurricular activities and/or such other community or public engagement by the children, the mother, her partner and their family members;

(i) obtaining access to any app or platform used by the children's school, sporting organisations or any other organisation the children are engaged with from time to time; and

j) publishing, posting or circulating material online relating to the children, the mother, the mother's partner or their family members.

1. Pursuant to Section 114UB of the Familv Law Act 1975 (Cth), the father and second respondent do pay the mother's costs of and incidental to these proceedings individually or in equal shares, as determined fit by this court WITH such costs to be paid on an indemnity basis and as set out in the Affidavit of the mother relied upon at the final hearing.
2. . In the event either the father or [Ms Geisler] remove either one or both of the children from the mother's care at any time following the making of these Orders, pursuant to s 67Q of the Familv Law Act 1975 (Cth), this order be authority as a recovery order authorising and directing the Marshel of the Court, the officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police force of each State and Territory to:
   1. Recover the children [X] born [2014] and [Y] born [2017]; and

b. Deliver the children to the mother.

1. The persons authorised under Order 11 above 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. This order be authority to 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 mother be permitted to provide a copy of these Orders to the children's schools, health care providers, and any other organisation the children are engaged with from time to time and direct those organisations to act in a manner that is consistent with the implementation and proper operation of these Orders.
4. Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court deems necessary.

1. The mother withdrew her relief for injunctive orders restraining the father and the maternal grandmother from interfering with her decision-making authority.
2. The maternal grandmother sought orders as contained in her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 7 October 2025 except as to decision making responsibility:
   1. That the Maternal grandmother, [Ms Geisler], born [1969] and the mother [Ms Dorte] have equal shared decision making for [X], born [2014] and Y, born [2017] ("The Children")
   2. That in exercising decision making, the parties shall use their best endeavours to come to a joint decision in regards to the children's

a. Education;

b. Religion or cultural upbringing , and

c. Medical.

1. The father shall be advised, in writing, of the issue to be determined and his input shall be considered prior to any final decision being made.

Live With/Spend Time With

1. That the children live with the Mother and spend:

   1. Three days per fortnight with the maternal grandmother or as otherwise agreed between the parties

   2. with the mother 4 consecutive days per week or as agreed between the parties

   3. with the maternal grandmother three days per week or as agreed between the parties

5. That the children spend time with their father [Mr Lazer] alternate

weekends from after school on Friday to 6.00pm on Sunday.

Special Days

Mothers Day/Father's Day

1. In the event that the children are not spending time with the relevant parent on Mother's Day or Father 's Day the time with whomever they are with shall be suspended and the children spend from 6.00pm on the Saturday prior to Mother's or Father 's Day with the relevant parent until 6 .00pm on Mother's or Father's Day at the conclusion of which they return to whom they would be ordinarily spending time with.

Children's/Parent's Birthdays

1. That the parent that the children are not living w ith shall be at liberty to spend time with both children on either one's birthday or the non resident parent's birthday from after school to 7.00pm and if a non school day or a weekend from 1 0 .00am to 2 .00pm.

School Holidays

1. Terms 1 and 2 of the Northern Territory Gazetted school holidays

   1. That in years ending in an odd number the children shall spend the first half of Terms 1 and 2 holidays with the mother and the second half with the father or as agreed between the parents .
   2. That in years ending in an even number the children spend the first half of Terms 1 and 2 with the father and the second half with the mother or as otherwise agreed between the parents.

2. Term 3 of the Northern Territory School Holidays

3. That in ALL years the children shall spend one week of the Term 3 school holidays with the maternal grandmother, the mother and the father.

4. Term 4 of the Northern Territory School Holidays School

5. That in ALL years the Children shall spend two weeks of the Term 4 school holidays with the maternal grandmother, the mother and the father unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

School

1. That the parents who enrol the children at any school shall ensure that the details of the other parties are provided to the school and noted as emergency contact. A copy of these orders may be provided to the school.

2. The parties are at liberty to attend any and all school functions that parents are ordinarily invited to, including but not limited to parent/teacher interviews , school carnivals, school concerts, end of term concerts, swimming and athletic carnivals.

Medical

1. In the event that either child has an accident, injury or illness that requires hospitalisation the resident parent party to advise the other parties within two (2) hours of the event the following :

a. The nature of the illness , injury or accident

b. The facility that the child/ren have been taken to

c. The name, if known, of the treating medical professional

1. The parties shall be at liberty to attending the treating facility, if permitted by medical authorities.

2. In the event that either child has an accident, injury or illness that does not require hospitalisation, the resident parent party or parties to notify the other parties within 24 hours, advising the following:

a. The nature of the accident, injury or illness

b. The treating medical facility

1. Whether medication has been provided, including the dosage and frequency

2. That either party is at liberty to contact any medical facility that the children may attend and speak with their treating medical professional.

3. The parties shall ensure that all of the other parties' contact details are provided to any medical/dental or allied health facility that the children attend.

17. The parties may provide a copy of these Orders to the medical facility.

Restraints

1. The parties are restrained by injunction and an injunction granted restraining the parties from physically disciplining the children

2. The father is restrained by injunction and an injunction granted restraining him from allowing the paternal grandfather to be alone with the children, from verbally abusing the children or touching the children.

3. That the parties are restrained by injunction and an injunction granted restraining the parties from denigrating each other or their families.

(As per the original)

1. The ICL sought orders as contained in their Case Outline filed on 21 November 2025 (Exhibit 47):
   1. That the children [X] born [2014] and [Y] born [2017] live with the mother.
   2. That the mother shall be solely responsible for making all day to day and long term decisions concerning the children subject to the following:
      1. the mother is not permitted to legally change the children's names, nor permit or authorise the children's names to be changed in common usage; and
      2. the mother is required to notify the father of all long term decisions made by her within 48 hours of any long term decision being made
   3. That this order shall provide sufficient authority to each of the children's treating medical and/or allied health professionals to provide to each of the parents all information, records, reports, assessments and the like which may be requested from time to time by either of the parents, at the cost of the requesting parent, and for this purpose, each parent is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these orders to all such professionals attended by either of the children.
   4. That the mother shall provide the father with the names and contact details of any health professional treating any of the children and shall promptly post to the parenting App "Our Family Wizard" a copy of any report, assessment or referral received by her.
   5. That this order shall provide sufficient authority to each of the children's schools to provide to each of the parents all information, records, reports, newsletters, access to parent/school digital platforms and the like which may be requested from time to time by either of the parents, at the cost of the requesting parent, and for this purpose, each parent is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these orders to the school/s attended by the children.
   6. That the mother shall keep the father updated in a timely manner about the children's participation in extra curricular activities and advise of any significant events the children have been selected to participate in.
   7. That the father is permitted to send cards and gifts to the children for special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, Easter, graduations, achievements and similar and the mother shall provide those to the children and shall positively encourage the children to open and accept them.
   8. That the father is permitted to correspond with the children once every 3 months by posting such correspondence to the address to be provided by the mother, and the mother shall provide those correspondences to the children and shall positively encourage the children to read them.
   9. That the father shall not correspond with the children about the following matters:

(i) Changes to the children's living arrangements;

(ii) Areas of dispute or conflict between the parents;

(iii) Family law proceedings; or

(iv) Denigration of the mother

1. That for the purpose of order 8 herein, the mother is at liberty to open and read the correspondences sent by the father, and the mother shall not provide such correspondence to the children if it contains subject matter identified in order 9 above.

2. The father is permitted to send with his correspondences any recent photographs of himself, his daughter [U] and the paternal grandparents.

3. That the mother will send to the father recent photographs of the children every 6 months.

4. In the event that the children wish to correspond with the father, the mother shall promptly facilitate that correspondence being posted to the father at the address notified by him to the mother.

5. That if not already done, each parent shall subscribe to the communication App "Our Family Wizard" and remain subscribed to same and shall communicate with each other via that App in relation to all matters affecting the children.

6. That the parents shall provide the other with their residential address, postal address, email address and phone number and advise of any change within 48 hours.

7. That the maternal grandmother is permitted to send cards and gifts to the children for special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, Easter, graduations, achievements and similar and the mother shall provide those to the children and shall positively encourage the children to open and accept them.

8. That the maternal grandmother is permitted to correspond with the children once every 3 months by posting such correspondence to the address to be provided by the mother, and the mother shall provide those correspondences to the children and shall positively encourage the children to read them.

9. That the maternal grandmother shall not correspond with the children about the following matters:

(i) Changes to the children's living arrangements;

(ii) Areas of dispute or conflict between her and the mother;

(iii) Domestic violence proceedings;

(iv) Family law proceedings; or

(v) Denigration of the mother

1. That for the purpose of order 17 herein, the mother is at liberty to open and read the correspondences sent, and the mother shall not provide such correspondence to the children if it contains subject matter identified in order 18 above.

2. That orders 16 and 17 above are subject to any restraints which may be contained in any Domestic Violence Order in existence from time to time involving any of the mother, the maternal grandmother and/or the children.

3. That the mother shall send to the maternal grandmother recent photographs of the children once every 12 months.

4. In the event that the children wish to correspond with the maternal grandmother, the mother shall promptly facilitate that correspondence being posted to the grandmother at the address notified by her to the mother.

5. That the mother shall within 48 hours notify the father in the event that the children suffer a serious illness or injury and provide details of the treating health practitioners.

6. That the mother ensure that the child [X] attends all appointments which may be made for her to attend upon [Dr R] or such other practitioner which may be recommended or referred by [Dr R].

7. That the mother shall promptly comply with all recommendations made by [X's] treating health and medical practitioners.

8. That the mother shall provide a copy of these orders and Reasons for Judgment to [Dr R].

9. That the mother shall cause the child [Y] to attend upon a therapist of her choice for the purpose of assisting [Y] with any anxiety he is feeling about his living arrangements and his relationship with other family members.

10. That the father shall not spend time with the children unless agreed in writing with the mother.

11. That the maternal grandmother shall not spend time with the children unless agreed in writing with the mother.

12. That the children are permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia with the mother without first obtaining the consent of the father.

13. In the event that the children travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia, such travel shall be on the following conditions:

(i) They shall not travel to any destination country which the Australian government has categorised as being of Level 3 or Level 4 on its Smart Traveller website**;** and

(ii) The mother shall provide the father with a copy of the children's Itinerary, including flight details and holiday destination/s no less than 4 weeks prior to travel, and shall confirm the children's return within 24 hours

1. That each party is restrained and injunctions are granted restraining each of them from:

(i) Discussing adult issues with the children or within their hearing;

(ii) Discussing these proceedings with the children or within their hearing;

(iii) Discussing any domestic violence proceedings involving any of the parties, with the children or within their hearing;

(iv) Permitting the children to view any documents or reports from these proceedings or from any domestic violence proceedings between any of the parties;

(v) Saying nasty or negative things about any of the other parties to the children or within their hearing;

(vi) Discouraging the children from communicating with the other parties, either directly or indirectly, nor allowing others to do the same;

(vii) Exposing the children to family violence or conflict;

(viii) Physically disciplining the children nor allowing others to physically discipline them; and

(ix) Removing from the children any photograph or memento of the other parent or grandparent;

1. That the Independent Children's Lawyer together with the Court Child Expert shall explain these orders to the children and for that purpose the following shall apply:

(i) The mother shall not inform the children about the orders made; and

(ii) The mother shall cause the children to be delivered to the Darwin Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on a day and time to be notified to her by the Independent Children's Lawyer

1. Pursuant to s.67Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a recovery order issue authorising and directing the Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police Forces of all States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia, with such assistance as may be required, and necessary by force, find and recover the children, [X] born [2014] and [Y] born [2017] or either of them, and deliver the said children to the mother, being a person entitled to have the children in her care pursuant to order 1 hereof, upon the mother filing a sworn affidavit in the Darwin Registry setting out that one or both of the named children have been removed from her care or have not been returned to her care, together with the circumstances thereof.
2. That order 34 remains in force for a period of Two (2) years from the date hereof.

(a) The parties and the ICL either agreed or did not wish to be heard as to an order that the mother having sole decision-making authority in respect of all major long-term issues for the children subject to:

(i) Injunctive orders sought by the father in paragraphs 2a. and b. of Exhibit 46; and

(ii) An injunctive order sought by the ICL in paragraph 2a. of Exhibit 47.

(b) It was agreed that the mother would notify the father as to any long-term decisions made by her within 7 days of them being made (determining the relief sought by the father in paragraph 2d. in Exhibit 46 and the ICL in paragraph 2b. in Exhibit 47).

(c) The maternal grandmother did not wish to be heard in relation to any proposed orders outside of her case as to she spending time with or communicating with the children. She opposed the mother's relief for a recovery order to issue in the event of the children not returning to her care.

The Orders No Longer Sought or Abandoned and those Pressed by the Maternal Grandmother

1. In addition to discontinuing Orders 1 and 2, the maternal grandmother did not press orders in terms of paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 of her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 7 October 2025. Hence her relief was confined to paragraphs 4, 7, 9, 10 and 17 to 20 inclusive of her Amended Response to Initiating Application.
2. The father said he agreed to orders in terms of paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 as sought by the maternal grandmother. He opposed the order sought in paragraph 4 as to the maternal grandmother spending three days per fortnight with the children. He did not wish to be heard on remaining orders proposed by the maternal grandmother.
3. The mother opposed all the orders sought by the maternal grandmother.
4. The ICL supported the orders sought by the maternal grandmother in paragraphs 17, 18 and 20 of her Amended Response. The ICL did not support any orders sought by the maternal grandmother as to time spent between, or direct communication between she and the children.

1. The mother agreed to orders in terms of paragraphs 11, 12 and 33, as to a variation of paragraphs 4 and 14, and a variation of each of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Exhibit 47.
2. The mother opposed the order sought by the ICL in paragraph 2a. (as to what was described as an injunction restraining her from changing the children's name legally or in common usage).
3. The mother opposed an order in terms of paragraph 3, submitting that it is onerous and unhelpful, further promoting an avenue for conflict between the parties. The ICL did not press for the order contained in paragraph 3 conceding that it has the potential to encroach protected confidences and be a source for future conflict.
4. The mother opposed the orders in paragraphs 4 and 14 submitting that it unnecessarily incurs future expenses and a dedicated email address for communications was otherwise sufficient. The ICL did not press for the order contained in paragraph 4 agreeing with the mother that contact via email was adequate.
5. The mother opposed the orders contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 submitting that their construction was too broad. The ICL did not press those orders conceding that they were constructed in broad terms instead proposing that a 6-month summary of the children's dry and wet season sports activities would be sufficient as a variation of paragraph 6.
6. The mother opposed the orders contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 16 and 17 submitting that it is sufficient for the father and the maternal grandmother to recognise birthdays by way of a card. The ICL submitted that as constructed, paragraph 7 ought to allow the father the opportunity to recognise birthdays and Christmas but accepted that any prospect of remedying misunderstandings or interpretations fails on the broad construction of undefined terms such as 'achievements'. The mother agreed to an order to provide recent photographs of the children to the father every 6 months (paragraph 12 of the ICL's proposed minute of order). As to the mode of communication, the ICL submitted that correspondence proposed by the order contained in paragraph 8 could be sent to a post office box.
7. The mother opposed any order facilitating the father or the maternal grandmother writing to the children, or that upon request from the children, she is to facilitate contact. This was founded on her concern that there is a risk to the children. She submitted that the safeguards proposed by the ICL in the orders contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 18 or 19 could not sufficiently mitigate that risk.
8. The mother did not agree to an order as sought in paragraph 13 as the ambiguity in the expression 'wish' raises concerns where on her case the children, and X in particular, have been susceptible to manipulation by the father or the maternal grandmother.
9. The mother agreed to an order as sought in paragraph 15 as to providing a postal address to the father but not a residential address if she moves house.
10. The ICL conceded that there was no basis for the Court to make an order as sought in paragraph 20. The mother opposed the orders sought in paragraphs 21 and 22.
11. The mother submitted that orders sought in terms of paragraphs 24 and 25 are a divestiture of judicial power, there being no evidence to support the making of that order. The ICL did not press for orders in paragraphs 24 to 27 inclusive.
12. The ICL accepted in submissions that the mother would exercise appropriate judgement in relation to the safety of travel destinations and there was no evidence to ground the terms of the orders sought in paragraph 31(i).
13. The mother opposed the orders sought in paragraph 32 to the extent that she ought to be able to explain the terms of an order to the children in the event that they do not have any relationship or contact with the father or the maternal grandmother.

1. The mother did not press for orders sought in paragraphs 5 and 14 of her Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025.
2. The father agreed to the orders in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the mother's Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025. The father opposed the mother's relief for a recovery order to issue in the event the children were not returned to her care (paragraphs 11 to 13 inclusive of the Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025). The ICL agreed to orders in terms of paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the mother's Amended Initiating Application and paragraph 8 subject to some tweaking in relation to the construction of that order.
3. The maternal grandmother did not seek to be heard in relation to the orders sought by the mother in paragraphs 4, 6, 7 or 8 of her Amended Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2025.
4. The mother submitted that a recovery order ought to remain in force for as long as possible, preferably until the children turn 18.

1. The father said that it was with a "heavy heart" that he no longer sought a reversal of care of the children. Whilst he maintained his belief that the mother had harmed the children and the evidence concluded that the children had been subjected to a high level of conflict and psychological damage, he submitted that this is not a "no time" case. He accepted the concessions as broadly made by the ICL in Exhibit 47. He opposed any injunction for the protection of the children or the mother or any recovery order. He said that any orders needed to clearly identify the obligations of the parties and should be prescriptive. He did not seek to limit the travel of the children with the mother.

1. Parenting proceedings are governed by Part VII of the Act. In making a parenting order, s 60CA of the Act requires the court to regard the best interests of the children as the paramount consideration. In determining what is in the children's best interests, s 60CC(1) provides that the court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(2), and if the child is an Aboriginal child, as these children identify, the court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(3) of the Act.
2. Section 60CC(2)(a) directs that consideration must be given to arrangements that promote the safety of the children and other persons. The construction of Pt VII of the Act after the 2024 amendments, reinforces the consideration of the safety of children or another person as a focused starting point in those considerations to be weighed in determining a parenting regime that best promotes the best interests of the children (Pierce & Pierce (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 162 at [31]).
3. When it is contended that a party poses an unacceptable risk to safety in parenting proceedings, as is the case here, the first enquiry is as to whether there is objectively an unacceptable risk. If there is, steps must be taken proportionate to the degree of risk (Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123).
4. That assessment of risk in this case having regard to the agreed positions of the parties at the conclusion of the trial is directed to the safety of the mother and the children. It requires the consideration of two elements; the consideration of whether it is likely that some harmful event will occur, and then a consideration of the severity of the impact caused by such harmful event. The assessment and evaluation as to the magnitude of any risk is required to determine whether the risk to safety is unacceptable (M & M (1988) 166 CLR 69).
5. As for risk, or unacceptable risk, the Full Court clarified in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 ("Isles") that past allegations of violence, abuse and conduct are to be determined by reference to s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The Full Court added that the assessment "of 'unacceptable risk' cannot be measured by the civil standard of proof". Rather, I am to look to realistic possibilities (see Isles at 360). The Court may reach a conclusion of unacceptable risk from the accumulation of factors, none or some only of which are proved to that standard. The concept of "unacceptable risk" falls within the broader issue of determining what is in the children's best interests and to which the resolution of the existence of an "unacceptable risk" is subservient.

1. The heart of the mother's case is as to each of the father and the maternal grandmother presenting an unacceptable risk to the psychological, emotional and physical safety of both the children should either of them spend time with the children or if they communicate with them except by way of limited prescribed indirect processes. She contends that each of the father and the maternal grandmother present an unacceptable risk to her own psychological and emotional safety as the uncontested person with whom the children are to live.
2. The maternal grandmother disputes that she poses any risk to the children.
3. The position of the father at the commencement of the trial was that the mother posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of the children such that the amelioration of that risk required orders for the children to live with him and any time spent with the mother be subject to a moratorium period. By the conclusion of the trial, his position was less than explicit. He denied he posed an unacceptable risk to the children as asserted by the mother. He said that he believed the children had been harmed by the mother, but he agreed to her having sole decision-making authority for major long-term issues of the children and for the children to live with her.
4. The identification of risk and its magnitude in this case is multifaceted, being in part without complication and in part, nuanced. It engages the consideration of an amalgam of factors, including the historical conduct of the parties that in turn is informed by an evaluation of their respective capacities and attitudes.
5. The parenting of the children since separation has been characterised by reciprocal allegations of family violence, allegations of physical and psychological abuse occasioned upon the children by the other parent, and an absence of a scintilla of an effective co-parenting arrangement, or collaboration, or trust and confidence between the parents. There has been no material communication between them. The parents have generated polarised positions almost since separation.
6. The product of the unabated intense conflict has been:

(a) The entrenched rejection of a parent by the children or one of them;

(b) Consequential or ulterior unilateral retention of the children contrary to orders;

(c) The reporting of behaviour and conduct to authorities and requiring assessment from the Police and the child welfare authority;

(d) The Police and the child welfare authority being accessed by the parties for forensic purposes and to circumvent court orders. The child welfare authority have investigated the reported behaviour and conduct and have not concluded any allegation concerning either parent to be substantiated. They have substantiated risk of emotional harm to the children posed by the maternal grandmother;

(e) DVO proceedings and orders between the mother and the father, and the mother, the children and the maternal grandmother; and

(f) Recovery orders, orders suspending time spent, and injunctions for personal protection and safety.

1. The series of prophetic expert opinions of the Court Child Expert over four reports since mid-2022 as to the impact on the children of the years of entrenched antagonistic conflict between the adults as recorded earlier in these reasons was supplemented by the expert's consistent, logical and persuasive oral evidence.
2. I find that prolonged engagement of the children in and their exposure to adult hostilities and conflict between the parties has cumulatively harmed the children and poses an unacceptable risk to their physical, psychological and emotional safety. They have been torn in contests to gain their loyalty and confronted by an uncertainty as to their living arrangements, placing them in repeated intolerable situations including depriving them of the lived experience of their crucial sibling relationship.
3. I accepted the evidence of the Court Child Expert that common behaviours enacted by children in the circumstances experienced by X and Y includes them telling each parent what they think they want to hear. I accept the Court Child Expert's oral evidence that X has manipulated allegations, being characteristic of a child caught in conflict for a long time. I accept her evidence and find that X is "just trying to survive" but to her detriment, is developing "maladaptive behaviours" to maintain relationships with adults around her, placing her at great risk as she mirrors what is around her and what she experiences. I find that each child has felt so overwhelmed by the conflict between that adults that they will say whatever they think will please and placate the adult they are in the care of. I further find that by embellishing certain behaviours by the other parent, believing this may be what the other party wants to hear, the children are attempting to escape the acrimony.
4. I find that the continued engagement in, and exposure to, this conflict places each of the children at an unacceptable risk of seriously compromised mental health into their developing years, particularly into adolescence and beyond. I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert that they are each likely to experience distortions and confusions by way of troubled relationships with their peers, in their intimate relationships and with authority figures, showing low resilience, being unable to resolve conflict effectively, and acting aggressively towards others, whilst often complaining of being bullied or victimised. As they mature, they may suffer with low self-esteem, self-hatred and experience significant episodes of depression.
5. The Court Child Expert said in her oral evidence that the "years of relentless conflict has taken an extreme toll on the children and the family". She said it has impacted on Y's emotional world, priming the mother to be unsurprisingly vigilant and that will perpetuate the past issues experienced by the family. Y's increasingly significant emotional and psychological risks of harm are unacceptable. X has commenced to expose the presentations opined by the Court Child Expert, both physically and emotionally. Her absconding placed her at physical risk of harm. Her episode of self-harm presented unacceptable physical and psychological risks of harm. Her maladaptive and mirroring behaviour present unacceptable risks of psychological and emotional harm. The expert was unequivocal in her oral evidence of "watching" the deeply traumatising engagement of the children in the conflict, and their exposure to it, "unfold", concluding that "it has to stop".
6. I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert and find that the best interests of each of the children can only be met by removing them from the unacceptable risks posed by the conflict between the parties, and that any regime of parenting orders ensures they experience certainty in their parenting arrangements and stability in their home and schooling**.** This includes ensuring that they will not sense or fear removal from the mother's household and care. All parties agree that the children's best interests are promoted by them living with the mother.
7. Further, I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert and find that the best interests of the children are promoted by ensuring that they do not encounter disruption in the protective factors they experience when attending school. For X especially, it is critical to promoting her best interests that from here on she experiences stability in her important realms of home, school and sport. Any parenting regime must avoid the possibility of further stress and disruption for the children.
8. The challenge in this case is whether relationships between the children and each of the father and the maternal grandmother can be achieved in a manner that is in their best interests and without exposing the children to an unacceptable risk to their safety.

1. The mother's oral evidence was littered with remorse. She agreed that much of her prior conduct by way of interactions with the father was not appropriate. She acknowledged that the past was a "revolting period for everybody" and she admitted embarrassment for her part in the parental conflict.
2. The mother has completed six parenting courses being, the "Tuning Into Kids", "Tuning Into Teens", "Circle of Security", "Parenting after Separation", "New Ways High Conflict Parenting" and "Kids Come First" course. Her oral evidence was persuasive and indicative of emerging perceptive capacities as to the children's needs, learned and developed through her attendance at those courses. She said that she was able to obtain a lot of information from those courses which she has discussed with her counsellor. She had, upon receiving educational material from her treating practitioners, undertaken her own research using various medical webpages and public resources to best equip her with an understanding as to the differing behaviours exhibited by the children. She said that she will often "note take on everything imaginable" and if one child's behaviour changes, she will assess and seek to analyse how that change may in turn affect their sibling.
3. The mother exhibited a sympathetic capacity as to the children's experiences of psychological harm. She described X's self-harm incident as an attempt for her to release "so much pain" that she was experiencing. The mother said she recognises that X is "desperate for peace in her life". She believed that X feels conflicted and confused, being on an unending "rollercoaster". The mother said that X needs to be in a place where she can grow instead of building walls when she feels emotionally threatened. I found the mother's evidence on these subject matters to be impressive.
4. The mother agreed that both children, and Y in particular, need security. Her presentation in the witness box was that she was affected by the past and current upheavals experienced by the children. She gave detailed accounts of the children's attitudes and perceptions, including that X acted like a "solace human wondering" when she was with Y and that she was most impacted by the destruction of those "glimmers of happiness". The mother was of the view that an end to the conflict would allow Y to feel a sense of relief and a reduction in pressure.
5. The mother said if the cessation of conflict required the children to be detached from familial relationships, that would be a sad outcome.
6. The mother gave insightful evidence as to the impact of the conflict on her capacity as a parent and how she felt she was being undermined by the father and maternal grandmother when they provided electronic devices to X. She said that she had "always been undermined as a parent" by way of the father and the maternal grandmother destabilising the boundaries she set for the children to ensure that they were safe, secure and subject to a consistent environment, which could allow them to heal. She said that the detrimental impact of the undermining of her parenting left the children confused, conflicted and desperate for help. I accept this evidence, such that it echoes that of the Court Child expert. It was apparent to me that the mother had reflected on what she had been told, heard and experienced and that she has placed emphasis on the importance of achieving stability in the children's education and sport.
7. I accept her evidence that although she withdrew the final DVO restraining the father, she remains "petrified" of him and any conflict engagement with him. Her fears of conflict posed by the maternal grandmother are substantial and, in my view, for the reasons that follow, justified.
8. I accept the mother's evidence that there is no positivity promoted by the father and the maternal grandmother as to her parenting of the children. I accept that she perceives she receives no support from either of them, and that her isolation has been in the "centre of the trauma" experienced by the children. She perceives that this is what harms them the most and causes them to feel conflicted and upset. She firmly asserted that if the children were continually exposed to that circumstance, "they are never going to heal" or find peace, and that they "will consistently live in a state of despair" resulting in them further alienating themselves from all parties. She said that both children were "mentally exhausted" from protracted litigation and conflict, and it is paramount for them to be able to live their lives safely and without fear.
9. I find that the mother's current presentation and capacities as the uncontested resident parent would be adversely impacted with potentially intolerable challenges by way of the impact, stress and anxiety if time was to be spent by the children with the father or the maternal grandmother, such that it would lead to further allegations and counter-allegations and the likely retention of children (Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1; (2021) 62 Fam LR 190). This directs consideration being given to a regime of parenting orders that would ameliorate the extent of the mother's distress.
10. The mother acknowledged that from 2022 there has been a great deal of damaging behaviour causing flow-on effects to the children. Her evidence as to the dire need to cease all conflict was discerning. She showed practical insight into the outcome of the litigation, particularly identifying the need for X to be made aware of the intervention of authorities if there is non-compliance with court orders.

1. In her report dated 22 April 2022, the Court Child Expert had identified the maternal grandmother as a "strong safety factor for the children". This opinion diametrically shifted in the fourth report dated 12 May 2025, the maternal grandmother by that time becoming a significant activist in the conflict dynamic lived by and exposed to the children.
2. The opinions expressed by the Court Child expert as to the maternal grandmother in her fourth report were compounded by the maternal grandmother's oral evidence, the animosity she directed to the mother being palpable. I find that the maternal grandmother's attitude towards the mother and her views of the mother are entrenched, highly antagonistic and are unlikely to change in the future unless the mother conforms to her views and wishes.
3. X has been caught in the dynamics of long-standing dysfunction in the maternal grandmother's relationship with the mother. Y has been indirectly caught, in it in that he believes and fears the grandmother will also remove him from his mother's care.
4. The maternal grandmother confirmed in her oral evidence without hesitation that, implicitly absent inquiry, she believes the complaints of physical and psychological abuse made by X about her care in the mother's household. She was puzzled as to why "nobody is listening to [X]", asserting that X "should be listened to". She expressed a fixed view that X ought to have been able to self-place from the time she was 10 years old. She was unequivocal that adults, including X's parents, should comply with her wishes. The maternal grandmother confirmed that she has spoken to X about adult behaviours. It is striking that the maternal grandmother either cannot or will not shield X from her own negative views of the mother.
5. The inflammatory language in the submissions made by the maternal grandmother, after four days of evidence, illustrated the intensity of her entrenched opinion of the mother and her resolve to ensure that her perceptions of events are accepted, rather than constructively attempting to restore the relationship. She sought findings that the mother had engaged in "systems abuse" in obtaining the ex parte DVO in the Local Court and that she was "weaponising family violence". I do not accept those submissions. I find that the maternal grandmother will relentlessly pursue the Local Court litigation until she achieves her desired goal to establish that as she submitted.
6. The maternal grandmother said during her oral evidence, "when [X] was in my care, I was the parent". I find that the maternal grandmother has undermined the mother's parental authority by providing a phone to X contrary to the mother's direction and by way of her unilateral removal of X and then retaining her contrary to the mother's lawful authority. I find that the maternal grandmother has the capacity to manipulate others, including Ms BB and the father, to achieve her objectives, being reckless to the consequences to each of them or to X. Part of this recklessness included the circumstances of the continued retention of X after the maternal grandmother knew of the interim DVO and its terms, and the circumstances of the breach charges.
7. I find that the maternal grandmother is prepared to engage X in conflict with her mother and that she has no capacity or desire to shield X from her own negative views of the mother. I find that the maternal grandmother colludes with X as to complaints about her mother creating, as opined by the Court Child Expert, a significant emotional burden for X that requires X to engage in an emotional allegiance with the maternal grandmother against the mother. The maternal grandmother's views on these matters, and her attitudes as to dynamics of power and control as to X, are irreconcilable with the protection of X from conflict if she is living with her mother, and by extension, the protection of Y.
8. I find that the maternal grandmother inappropriately empowers X, fuelling X to act in a way that is manipulative and mirrors the maternal grandmother's conduct and behaviour in the way she interacts with the world around her.
9. I find that the accumulation of these factors directly exposes X, and indirectly exposes Y, to an unacceptable risk of harm to each of their safety in the event they come into contact with, or communicate with, the maternal grandmother.

1. The father said in cross-examination that he "without a doubt" believed the allegations of physical and psychological abuse reported to him by the children. He encountered challenges in acknowledging that he had any role in the parental conflict. He exhibited a limited understanding of the content and import of the opinions expressed by the Court Child Expert and explored in her four reports as to the impacts of that conflict on the children.
2. The father gave evidence in his cross-examination as to undertaking a parenting course to equip him with tools to have an understanding as to the children's capacity, and as to the challenges they had encountered arising out of the parental conflict. He said that X had historically been happy on occasions in the mother's care because of "parent alienation". He said that he had undertaken a course in 2022 with Anglicare, with the object of the course being to assist parents in understanding the impact of conflict on children. He said he learned "quite a bit" about how children are affected differently, how they can pick things up and how it greatly affects their early childhood. I find that the father encountered challenges putting those learnings from the course into practice.
3. As recorded earlier in these reasons, his knowledge of the challenges confronting the children at the school he insisted, with the benefit of a court order, and which they attended in 2023, was limited. His focus was to criticise the mother for not informing him as to their home-schooling progress and sheet fault on her for their issues with school attendance. He had little knowledge of the contents of their school reports at that time or during 2024, saying that the mother did not provide them (he did not ask the school for them) and that he had not inspected them when they were produced on subpoena.
4. Notwithstanding his oral evidence exposing some understanding as to the impact of the longstanding conflict on the children, he allowed himself to be engaged in the removal of X from school in July 2025. He was unable to engage with the impact of that conduct on Y or his separation from X. The findings made as to his role in X absconding to his parents' home does him little credit.
5. The implementation of the father's proposal that both children live with him was explored in his cross-examination, focusing on he not having contact with Y for two and a half years and in the context of X's recent confronting and challenging behaviour. He said that he would engage a counsellor at Z Health Services to assist the children with the transition. He had not spoken directly to that person and was unaware of their qualifications. His wife Ms N, who presented as a very straightforward and open witness, said in cross-examination that there had been very little discussion between she and the father as to any challenges that would be encountered in the event the children were placed in their home.
6. The father's proposed amended relief as articulated at the conclusion of submissions that X live with him and Y live with the mother, with either child having not spent any time with the other parent, presented as a non-sequitur. The father in his evidence confirmed his allegations as to the risk posed to the children by living in the mother's household, including the mother "brainwashing" them, but he did not explain as to why he would agree to an order that Y would remain living with the mother if he was subjected to an unacceptable risk of harm in her care.
7. The position taken by the father by way of his final orders sought was indicative of gaining an appreciation as to the magnitude of the risk posed to the children by way of the entrenched conflict between the parties over the course of the trial. This impressive improvement in his parental capacity was dimmed by his submission to shift responsibility for X's self-harming event to the mother because she was physically in her care at the time. That submission ignores the trauma endured by X for years and the significant upheavals in her recent care arrangements from the mother's household orchestrated by the father's conduct in removing her from school, and her absconding to his parents' home.
8. I find that the father has on occasion generated, and on other occasions fuelled, the chronic entrenched conflict between the parents. This included but was not limited to the retention of X in January 2022 after the Town V incident, her continuing to live with the father contrary to the consent order that was made for her to live with the mother on 16 March 2022, removing her from school on 31 July 2025 contrary to an order and then retaining her until the making of another order and his role in the absconding event to his parents' home. When this conduct is aggregated with his longstanding currently firmly held views of the mother and her parenting of the children, I find that in the event the father spends time with the children it will result in a continuation of the retention of the children contrary to orders and the reporting of behaviour to the Police and the child welfare authority. The stability of the parenting in the mother's home will be disrupted. She, as the agreed parent with whom the children will live, will become hyper vigilant, in turn impacting on her capacity to parent the children.
9. This accumulation of factors will expose the children, should they spend time with the father, for the reasons identified by the Court Child Expert as found earlier in these reasons, to an unacceptable risk to their physical, psychological and emotional safety.

The Children's Views and the Impact of the Order Sought on the Children's Relationships

1. X told the Court Child Expert that it was "okay living with mum, but I miss nan and want to live with her". She resolutely refused to see the father no matter how the opportunity to do so was presented by the Court Child Expert. As recorded earlier in these reasons, X's views have been strong and divergent but also distorted. I accept the Court Child Expert's views as to X being strongly influenced by the adults.
2. X will have a real sense of loss and sadness if she does not have contact with the maternal grandmother or with her father. She is likely to present as angry, and she may resent the mother as the person responsible. In part, her prospective behaviour is a function of the maternal grandmother's empowerment of X and in part a product of both the father and the maternal grandmother undermining the mother's parenting of her. It also originates in part from the close relationship and attachment X has with each. I find that X would also be upset and sad in the event she does not spend time with her father's family, including Ms N, U and the paternal grandparents.
3. Y told the Court Child Expert that he did not want to see his father at all and that "mum says I can see dad if I want to", but he did not want to. Despite the Court Child Expert's encouragement, Y also resolutely refused to see his father. I accept the Court Child Expert's opinion that Y's views are generated from his anxiety as to being removed from his mother's care and that his views, if that anxiety is alleviated, may soften as to seeing his father.
4. Y's failure to spend time with the father for the past two and a half years has coloured his attachment to and relationship with his father and reduces any sense of loss he may encounter in the event he does not spend time with his father. I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert that Y will have a sense of relief if no order for time spent with the father is made.

1. The fact and terms of the interim DVO for the protection of the children and the mother from the maternal grandmother has been canvassed earlier on in these reasons. The parties understand the terms of that order. The maternal grandmother understood that, save by way of operation of s 68R of the Act, that order while it operates prevents her from contacting the children at all. No oral application for leave to seek an order pursuant to Pt VII of Div 11 of the Act was made by the maternal grandmother.

1. The children identify indigenous heritage from their maternal side. I accept the mother's evidence as to her maintenance and support of the children's connection to their culture, including by way of their engagement in educational opportunities and programs. I am satisfied that the mother's evidence establishes the children's connection with and capacity to develop an appreciation of, and association with, their culture and that the mother will ensure these opportunities continue. The father was supportive of the children continuing to engage with her Aboriginal heritage.

1. The consideration of relevant s 60CC factors directs a mandate to achieve a sustainable regime as to the parenting of the children that ameliorates the risks of them engaging in, and being exposed to, perpetual entrenched conflict between the adults in their lives. This presents the necessity to strike a balance between the maintenance of a relationship with the father and the maternal grandmother, with whom they do not live with, against the loss of the relationship.
2. I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert that outcomes as to the children spending time with either the father or the maternal grandmother will maintain a burden on the children, especially on X, to choose, whatever structure of parenting orders is imposed. I find that that such an outcome must be subservient to ensuring that the children are not exposed to an unacceptable risk to their safety.
3. I find that in the event the maternal grandmother had any direct contact by spending time with the children, especially X, she would be impelled to attempt to undermine the mother's parental authority and would likely fail to comply with any order to regulate her conduct. She would fuel X to challenge her current living arrangements, re-engaging X in adult conflict and exposing her to an unacceptable risk of harm to her safety. A regime of the maternal grandmother spending time with the children will carry with it the prospect of destabilising their home, schooling and sporting arrangements, dismantling that which is pivotal to the protection and the promotion of the children's prospective interests.
4. The paternal grandmother did not seek, nor was she asked about, any regime of supervised time arrangement with the children. It is open, having regard to the content and tone of her evidence, that she may not have availed herself of such a regime.
5. The toxicity exhibited by the maternal grandmother, in the event of direct contact with the children, would cause the mother significant distress and anxiety, adversely affecting her capacity to meet the children's needs as the parent with whom the children will live. The process of amelioration of this risk arising from the dynamic between the maternal grandmother and the mother becomes vexing.
6. If the father were to have any direct contact with the children by way of spending time with them, I find that history will be indicative of the future. I find that notwithstanding any intention; he does not have the capacity to regulate his behaviour. I find that he would not support the mother's parental authority and does not at the heart of it agree that the children should be living with the mother. The reignition of conflict is a real probability including the retention of children and a failure to comply with orders. I find that the mother's capacity to deal with these prospective challenges as the person with whom the children will live will be significantly curtailed to the children's detriment.
7. Order 13 as sought by the father proposed that if a child expressed a wish to spend time with him, a process of supervised time would be implemented, then expanding to unsupervised time. During submissions, he acknowledged that this proposed spend time regime was problematic, in that if there was a finding as to unacceptable risk of harm to the children in his care, the order as constructed did not engage with the mitigation of that risk. He was unable to explain as a matter of logic how four periods of supervised time would be sufficient to mitigate the risk and thereafter operate as a trigger to provide for unsupervised time. He also acknowledged that the order as constructed, triggered operation for time to be spent by both children from the wish expressed by one. He acknowledged that disputes as to whether a wish was expressed, and the interpretation of that expressed wish, would present insurmountable challenges cast against the absence of trust and confidence between him and the mother and his views of the mother's parenting. His relief sought in Order 13 of Exhibit 46 is refused.
8. Although not sought by the father or the maternal grandmother, consideration for a regime of permanent supervised time with the children is problematic. No evidence was adduced as to the availability of permanent professional or community-based supervision services, as to the costs of those services if available, or as to the capacity of the parties to meet those costs. No party adduced oral or written evidence to support a proposal for time spent within a permanent supervised time dynamic. The parties are bound by the parameters of the case they construct at trial.
9. I find that the children's best interests cannot be, on the findings made, promoted by an outcome whereby either the maternal grandmother or the father spend time with the children. The relief sought for the father and for the maternal grandmother to each spend time with the children will be refused.

1. The mother expressed grave anxiety as to any written communication between the maternal grandmother and the children, as it opens a pathway for the maternal grandmother to "sow the seeds" to seize X from her care.
2. The litigation between the mother and the maternal grandmother in the Local Court remains afoot and may not be concluded soon as it depends on the Local Court's capacity to hear the matter and consequential appellate processes.
3. I find that the maternal grandmother's tenacious and unrelenting attitude directed to the mother and her relentless determination to pursue her objectives, will result in she not complying with any order regulating the content of any written material to be sent to the children, knowing that the mother will read it and that it will cause the mother to be anxious. It would be a method for the grandmother to coerce and control the mother. The requirement for the mother to read and interpret correspondence will perpetuate the cycle of conflict and cause the mother distress and anxiety, impacting on her parenting of the children.
4. An order permitting the maternal grandmother to communicate with the children will be a cinder to ignite further litigation. It is imperative to the children's best interests that they have a not insubstantial period of stability where they are shielded from any prospect of that conflict as is possible. The orders sought for the maternal grandmother to correspond with and send gifts and cards to the children will be refused.
5. After all litigation between the mother and the maternal grandmother has concluded, and a material passage of time has elapsed permitting the children to experience stability in their lives, the mother will have the opportunity, after the settling of emotions, if she considers it appropriate, to reach out to the maternal grandmother to re-establish their relationship. Historically, there was a semblance of mutual support between them.
6. The parents were broadly in agreement that the father could send gifts and cards to the children on the specified days of Christmas, birthdays and Easter. The proposal for the father to send cards and gifts on non-specific ad hoc occasions such as "graduations, achievements and similar" is imprecise, undefined and a recipe for further conflict. An order in those terms will not be made.
7. The orders proposed by the ICL, if some minor amendments are made, can prescribe a process for the mother to be able to filter material sent from the father to the children. It is important for the children to stay connected with the father and know of his desire to be a presence in their lives. Although, the mother, with some trepidation, is currently fearful of the father, her presentation in the witness box and her child focused evidence leads me to conclude this fear will subside over time. She acknowledged the importance of the father in the children's lives. Prescriptive orders will be made for a channel of communication to remain open for the father to assure the children that he wishes to feature in their lives and is interested in sharing his experiences and those of Ms N and U with them. Subject to restrain and safeguards he will be able to let them know that they are in his thoughts, including acknowledging annual milestones in their lives.
8. The parents disagreed as to the frequency that the father could correspond with the children. Having regard to the matters identified in these reasons, and the importance of the children being aware that the father remains interested in their lives, that opportunity ought to exist every three months.
9. The regime of orders as sought have been amended in part to ensure that they are as prescriptive as possible to avoid avenues of conflict. The mother will have the opportunity to agree in writing should she consider it to be in the best interests of the children, to re-establish other regimes of time spent between the father and the children, communication between them, and possibly, time spent between the children and the maternal grandmother and communication between them.

1. It was agreed that the mother would have sole decision-making authority in relation to all major long-term issues with respect to the children. Consequently, this would extend to an issue as to their surname. The father and the ICL sought to restrain the mother by way of injunction from, legally or in common usage, changing the children's surname. The children's surnames appeared to be an issue that emerged in the shadow of the trial. It was not the subject of affidavit evidence. The ICL conceded that no evidence was adduced from the Court Child Expert as to any social science as to surnames being a source of identification.
2. The father cross-examined the mother as to the reason X's surname was Dorte in some school records and a note of City B Police Station (Exhibit 9). The mother said it was because X requested that it be changed.
3. In response to cross-examination by the ICL, the mother said that she does not intend to change the children's surnames "immediately'. She gave this context by saying that if the children's surnames were to change, it would happen "much later". She said she would be fine if the children's surnames never changed.
4. Both the ICL and the father submitted that the retention of their original surname would help instil a sense of connection to their paternal family and specifically the father, in the event no order for time spent was made in his favour.
5. Any decision about the name by which a child should be known is dictated by the child's best interests (see Reynolds & Sherman [2015] FamCAFC 128; (2015) FLC 93-659 at [54]- [55]). There is no onus of proof. It is for the Court to balance in its discretion, the factors for and against the use of a name (see Chapman & Palmer [1978] FamCA 86; (1978) FLC 90-510). That decision will be informed by factors such as the degree of identification of the child with the existing surname and any difficulties or embarrassment for the child in using the same or a different surname. The list of factors is not exhaustive (see Flanagan & Handcock (2001) FLC 93-074 at [19]-[38]).
6. The proposed regime of orders as between the parents envisage the maintenance of a link between the father and the children through cards, gifts and correspondence. Although not submitted, there will not be an absence of interaction, albeit not in person, between them for the remainder of the children's minority.
7. There are other considerations. The children have for some time formally used a different surname than the mother. The mother cites that an order compelling the children's use of their current surname would result in them having a different surname from the mother, with whom they will continue to live, if they wish to change that name.
8. The children's identification with the father is important, but as they grow into adolescence, it may be that they will, for good reason, seek to by common usage be known by a different surname. A mandatory injunction in the terms sought by the ICL and the father has the potential to be fuel for further disputes between the parents in circumstances where a child could generate the initiation of a common-use surname. In circumstances where the mother said she would be "fine" if the children's surnames never changed, an order will be made restraining her from changing their legal surname, but not injuncting her from facilitating any change to the common use surnames of the children.

1. The father and the maternal grandmother opposed the making of recovery orders. The father submitted that each party should be able to "advise what is happening" before the police are involved. He said that he would use his best endeavours to minimise any police engagement in the children's lives.
2. The mother sought that recovery orders be made available until the children are 18. The ICL proposed a period of two or three years. I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests for a recovery order to be made to operate for four years from the date of this determination. X by that time will be 16 years of age and Y 12 years of age.
3. The Court Child Expert identified that X is approaching an age where she may make impulsive decisions in circumstances where she is unhappy with her parenting. I accept the evidence of the Court Child Expert that if X absconds from her mother's home, she should know that she will be returned. The father and the maternal grandmother must understand that if they remove a child contrary to an order, that child should be returned to the mother.

1. The mother sought a range of injunctions for the personal protection of she and the children pursuant to s 68B of the Act from the prospective conduct of the father and the maternal grandmother and to secure isolation from sources of conflict that may be available outside any parenting order made. The injunctions were opposed by both the father and the maternal grandmother.
2. The father submitted that the mother's fear of him is not genuine as the mother had withdrawn her DVO against him, and she had not sought any injunctive orders restraining him behaviour for over two years. I do not accept these submissions. I find that the relief sought in paragraphs 9 (a) to (g) inclusive of her Amended Response for the protection of she and the children scaffold the parenting orders, reinforcing security for them to maintain a certainty of arrangement by preventing interaction, contact and hence conflict. The mother did not adduce evidence to support the relief sought in paragraphs 9 (h), (i) and (j) as to the publication of material on social media or online platforms. Those parts of the injunctive orders sought will be refused. The mother will have the capacity, should she elect in the future, to agree with the father to permit him to re-engage with she and the children, should she consider it appropriate. That agreement must be reduced to writing.
3. The maternal grandmother identified that the existing interim DVO issued in P Court on [...] August 2024 engaged with s 114AB(2) of the Act for the purposes of the s 68B injunctions sought by the mother restraining her behaviour. That section is as follows:

(2) Where a person has instituted a proceeding or taken any other action under a prescribed law of a State or Territory in respect of a matter in respect of which the person would, but for this subsection, have been entitled to institute a proceeding under section 68B or 114, the person is not entitled to institute a proceeding under section 68B or 114 in respect of that matter, unless:

(a) where the person instituted a proceeding:

(i) the proceeding has lapsed, been discontinued, or been dismissed; or

(ii) the orders (if any) made as a result of the institution of the proceeding have been set aside or are no longer in force; and

(b) where the person took other action - neither that person nor any other person is required, at the time that the person institutes a proceeding under section 68B or 114, to do an act, or to refrain from doing an act.

1. The maternal grandmother identifies that the interim DVO made in P Court is a prescribed law of a territory for the purposes of the section. The maternal grandmother contended that the mother is not entitled to seek orders pursuant to s 68B of the Act restraining her.
2. The s 68B orders seek some restraints outside of those encompassed by the Local Court order. Insofar as they impact on the same subject matter as the Local Court order, I am satisfied that as to the maternal grandmother, they should operate prospectively from the conclusion of the Local Court order. Interim s 68B injunctions were made restraining the behaviour of the maternal grandmother absent her complaint on [...] August 2025. The maternal grandmother did not raise at trial any s 114AB(2) issue as to the making of those orders. The combination of the Local Court order and the interim orders made on [...] August 2025 have been effective in regulating the conduct of the maternal grandmother's interaction with the mother and the children.
3. The mother, the maternal grandmother and the ICL all sought injunctions restraining behaviour outside of those encompassed by the DVO. The mother forcefully submitted that the making of the injunctions restraining the maternal grandmother's conduct were pivotal to scaffold arrangements to ensure the best interests of the children. I accept that submission for the reasons recorded earlier. Absent a prescriptive order carrying with it a material sanction, I find that the maternal grandmother would attend school, contact the children directly, or use a third party to do so, and this would be a direct avenue to generate the engagement of the children in further conflict. This in turn presents a prospective risk of destabilisation and regression. It is in the children's best interests for an injunction to be made to operate from the date of conclusion of the Local Court DVO, which may be as soon as [...] January 2026, but for the same reasons as expressed for the father, injunctions to not extend to paragraphs 9 (h), (i) and (j) as sought to the publication of material on social media or online platforms.
4. Each of the father and the maternal grandmother are on notice that s 68C of the Act provides that if a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that they have breached the s 68B injunctions as made, they may arrest the person breaching the injunction without warrant.
5. The ICL sought injunctions that, having regard to the findings made, and the orders to be made, would operate only upon the mother. No material submissions were made in support of those injunctions. It is not established that such orders ought to be made when cast against the suite of orders.

1. By the conclusion of the trial, the parties agreed that the ICL and the Court Child Expert shall explain the orders to the children. An order will be made to facilitate that process. The mother opposed an order restraining her from telling the children as to the fact of the orders when they were made. There is no evidence to import why she ought to engage in that process prior to the ICL and the Court Child Expert explaining the orders. The delay will be for a month over the current school holidays. It is in the children's best interests for there to be an independent expert explanation of the orders and their import.
2. Although the mother did not press for an order authorising a sealed copy of the orders made to be provided to relevant institutions and service providers, such order will be made to avoid doubt or uncertainty.
3. Each party to these proceedings is on notice that the orders made create obligations and if they contravene those orders, consequences may follow.
4. No opportunity was afforded to the parties to make submissions as to costs. Orders will be made allowing for each party and the ICL, as they are advised, to make such application.
5. For all the above reasons, I am satisfied that the orders made herein are in the best interests of the children.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and sixty-six (266) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Campton.