Linden & Rock [2025] FedCFamC2F 1239 (4 September 2025)

(a) Time shall occur four (4) times a year and for a period of two (2) hours each occasion.

(b) To the extent possible, and as can be accommodated by the Contact Centre or Supervision Service, the dates shall align with the child's birthday and Father's Day.

(c) Both parties are to do all acts and things required of them by the Contact Centre or Supervision Service including completion of documents, intake and assessments.

(d) The father shall be responsible for all costs associated with supervised contact.

(e) Leave is granted to the mother to provide a copy of these Orders to any Contact Centre or Supervision Service.

1. That in the event the Contact Centre or Supervision Service assesses the family as not suitable or withdraws or suspends their engagement with the family on a permanent basis at any time due to the father's conduct, then the child shall spend no time with the father.
2. Upon the child attaining the age of twelve (12) at the sole discretion of the mother as to whether supervision is necessary, the child shall spend time with the father as agreed between the father and mother in writing.
3. That the parties shall communicate with each other through a communication App to be nominated by the father (the Parenting App) and at his expense for the purposes of facilitating these Orders only.
4. The Father shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of these orders, obtain and maintain, at his own expense, a post office box at the Australia Post office located at a suburb nominated by the mother, herein referred to as the Father's PO box, for the purpose of giving effect to these orders.
5. Within seven (7) days of upon obtaining a post office box pursuant to order 6 above:

(a) advise the Mother, via the Parenting App, of the full details of the Father's PO box, including the PO box number and location; and

(b) provide to the Mother's solicitors all keys and/or codes necessary to enable the Mother to access the Father's PO box.

1. Upon satisfying the obligations set out at orders 6 and 7 above, the Father may provide to the child cards, letters, and/or presents through the Father's PO box:

(a) by 4:00pm on the day prior to the child's birthdays in each year;

(b) by 1:00pm on 24 December in each year; and

(c) commencing in January 2026, by 4:00pm on the seventh (7th) day of each calendar month; noting notation A with respect to time.

1. For the purposes of these orders, the dates and times set out in order 8(a)-(c) shall be referred to as the Father's PO box deadlines.

1. For the purpose of the Father's PO box deadlines in order 8 above, the period of time in which the Father may deposit any cards, letters, and/or presents commences at 12:00 (midnight) and concludes at 4:00pm for the child's birthday (the following day), and 24 December (Christmas Eve), and on the seventh (7th) day of each calendar month.

1. The provision of cards, letters and/or presents by the Father to the child in order 8 is permitted on the conditions that the Father does not, through any card, letter, and/or present:

(a) denigrate, in any way, the Mother, the child, or any person related to the child, including using abusive or belittling language;

(b) seek to find out any location at which the child, is going to be situated, including but not limited to the child's residence, school, extra-curricular activities, or any childcare facility at which they attend;

(c) mention, to the child, anything concerning any family law proceedings relating to the child;

(d) pressure either child to spend time or communicate with him; or

(e) pressure the Mother, through the child or directly, to have the child spend time or communicate with him.

1. That upon receipt of any cards, letters and/or presents by the mother she shall be permitted at her sole discretion to provide these to the child.
2. If the child requests to send the Father card or letter the Mother shall inform the Father, through the Parenting App that the child's written communication has been delivered, or shall be sent, to the Father's PO box for his collection within forty-eight (48) hours of the Mother's email notifying the Father in accordance with this order.
3. Each party is restrained from denigrating the other parent or members of the other parent's family to the child or in the presence or hearing of the child or permitting any other person to do so.
4. Each party is restrained from discussing the proceedings with the child, and each party shall do all things necessary on his/her part to ensure that no other person discusses the proceedings with the child.
5. That pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a) approaching within 100 metres of any school, place of residence or employment of the child X or the Mother Ms Rock.

(b) Contacting the mother other than as provided for in these Orders;

(c) Attempting to or allowing or encouraging any other person to find or locate the mother and/or the child including but not limited to their place of residence; or

(d) Physically discipline the child or permit anyone else to do so.

1. That Order 15 is an order for personal protection of the mother and the child to which a power of arrest without warrant attaches pursuant to the provisions of section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. That within 7 days of the mother enrolling child into a school, she is to inform the father in writing via the Parenting App.
3. The mother is to authorise the child's school to provide information and copies of documents such as school newsletters and school reports to the father and at his own expense.
4. In the event that the child suffers a major or life-threatening medical event then the mother is to notify the father in writing as soon as practicable.
5. That the mother is at liberty to provide a sealed copy of these Orders to the schools in which the child is currently enrolled or are enrolled in to attend in the future, all places of extracurricular activities they attend from time to time, the child's medical or allied health providers and the NSW Police.

1. That the Mother is solely appointed to give consent to the issue of a passport for the child under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and for the renewal of the child's passport at the Mother's cost from time to time.
2. Pursuant to Section 65Y(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother be at liberty to take the child from Australia to a place outside of Australia during the time that the child is living with or spending time with her.
3. That the child be removed from the Airport WatchList.

BY CONSENT AND ON A FINAL BASIS, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from obtaining a gun license in New South Wales or Australia otherwise than in a role of employment with the Commonwealth of Australia or a state government.
2. A copy of these orders is to be provided in relation to the order 24 to the NSW Police by the ICL.

1. The Court declines to make a costs order in relation to the ICL pursuant to s 114UC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings that were commenced on 21 September 2023 by the applicant father ("the father") against the respondent mother ("the mother"). The parties were married in 2014 and separated in February 2019, and a divorce order was made in early 2021.
2. There is one child of the relationship, being X ("the child"), born in 2017, who is now eight years old and currently lives with the mother.
3. The proceedings were fixed for a final hearing that commenced on 1 September 2025. By consent, on the first day, there were made two orders which materially resolved core issues that were raised in the evidentiary material that had been filed. Those consent orders provided for the child to live with the mother and for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions. Before those orders were made, the Court confirmed with the father that he understood that those orders meant that he was accepting the mother's parenting capacity, and the father confirmed that was the case.
4. During hearing evidence from the father he identified a level of insight in relation to his conduct where he withdrew from Court-ordered therapy and acknowledged that it was short-sighted and not child-focused. The Court raised the possibility, at that stage, of a potential for the father to be given a further opportunity to engage in such therapy. The inevitable consequence, if the Court were to entertain any such outcome, would have been the protraction of these proceedings, the prolongment of the stresses on all the parties, and an impact, most importantly, on the child and his primary carer.
5. The Court identified it would defer until the conclusion of the mother's evidence and the family consultant's evidence any further deliberation on that issue. The Court had the benefit of hearing the father's and mother's evidence, and the family consultant. Given the consent that had been foreshadowed by Ms Ryan, counsel on behalf of the father, in relation to the remaining areas of parenting orders that were in dispute, it is not necessary for the Court to descend into the evidence. Suffice to say that the father has consented to the identity contact orders that were proposed by the ICL and also has consented to an additional restraint identified by the Court in respect of no physical discipline pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), or permitting anyone else to do so, and has consented to orders that prevent the application for a gun licence otherwise than in the role of employment with the Commonwealth of Australia or a state government. This consent was gained by the father after the Court contended it would not further entertain an adjournment for further therapy by the father.
6. The only remaining issue is overseas travel. It follows like night and day from the orders that have already been made that it is appropriate and in the best interest of the child to permit the mother to travel overseas with the child and that the child's name be removed from the airport watch list. Whilst the child does have significant special needs, having an autism spectrum disorder, children generally benefit from overseas travel, and the Court notes that overseas travel was supported also by the ICL. It is unnecessary for the Court to make any further findings in that regard beyond finding it is in the best interests of the child to permit overseas travel.
7. The Court does wish to identify that it regards the consent by the father to the orders that occurred on 1 September 2025 as reflecting a level of insight by the father as to the best interests of the child. The Court heard today, evidence from the family consultant who clearly identified, having referred to material that had been provided to the consultant, that her recommendation now was aligned with that of identity orders only. The family consultant identified the unacceptable risks to both the child and the mother from orders that would have continued an arrangement of the interim orders that had been in place. The Court also heard evidence from the family consultant as to the adverse potential impact on the mother and the child from protraction of the proceedings outweighing any benefit of the Court potentially making an order for one further opportunity to comply with the Court's earlier orders in terms of therapy by the father.
8. The Court was informed by counsel for the father at the close of the evidence that the father now consents to the identity orders that have been identified by the ICL. The Court regards the father's consent in that regard as reflecting a level of insight by the father as to engaging in a child-focused approach, which was at the heart of questions that the Court had asked the father during the course of the hearing. The Court regards the father consenting to these orders in these circumstances as showing the father has actively engaged in revisiting his prior conduct and focus on himself and his own needs and has shifted to focus on the needs of his child.
9. The father is to be encouraged and congratulated in understanding and accepting the priority of the child's best interests. These proceedings had no other focus than the best interests of the child. It is, in fact, in the best interests of the child that the father has consented to these orders that have been identified by the ICL as identity orders, even be it that the consent occurred at the close of the proceedings. What it shows is that the father has been able to recognise and identify the best interests of his child. That said, these proceedings have taken a significant toll on the respondent mother.
10. It is unnecessary for the Court to descend into the extent of the material that was unfortunately put on by the father that only demonstrated a want of parenting capacity by him rather than in any way advancing the best interests of the child. The mother has been exposed to significant and unnecessary emotional and psychological distress in relation to allegations that had no real relevance to these proceedings, being accompanied with the best interests of the child, and were allegations that should not have been advanced.
11. The Court is not here making findings, given the consent that has been made, but the Court does observe that the mother identified in the course of her evidence a proper parenting focus upon the best interests of the child in the mother's parenting role in circumstances which were clearly extremely difficult and complex, and the Court commends the mother for the parenting efforts she has made for the child.
12. It is for these reasons the makes the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.