Lyford & Cantor [2025] FedCFamC2F 1277 (12 September 2025)

1. X live with the mother.
2. X spend time with the father at times to be agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement as follows:

(a) During school term periods, in Victoria:

(i) On the fourth weekend of each calendar month (being the weekend commencing on the fourth Friday of each calendar month), or the previous weekend if nominated by the father in writing by the conclusion of the previous school term; and

(ii) On Father's Day weekend if it falls during a school term period,

from the conclusion of school on Friday until 5.00 pm on Sunday, with such time to be extended to commence at the conclusion of school on Thursday if Friday is a non-school day and to conclude at 5.00 pm on Monday if Monday is a non-school day; and

(b) During school holidays as scheduled by the school X attends:

(i) During the term 1 and term 3 holidays for the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years;

(ii) During the term 2 holidays, for the whole of the holidays; and

(iii) During the long summer school holidays, for the first half of the holidays in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years.

1. When X's time with the father pursuant to order 4(b) is for the first half of the school holidays, it is to:

(a) Commence from the conclusion of school on the last day of term if the father is in Victoria and otherwise as soon after that time X can take a flight to City B; and

(b) Conclude so X returns to Melbourne by 5.00 pm on the day calculated to be the halfway point of the holidays.

1. When X's time with the father pursuant to order 4(b) is for the second half of the school holidays, it is to:

(a) Commence at 5.00 pm on the day calculated to be the halfway point of the holidays if the father is in Victoria and otherwise as close to that time as X can take a flight to City B; and

(b) Conclude so that he returns to Melbourne by 5.00 pm on the day before the school term commences.

1. For the purposes of orders 5 and 6, the halfway point of the holidays be calculated by reference to the number of nights of the holidays (concluding on the last day of the school holidays) and if there is an odd number of nights, the halfway point be calculated to provide for X to spend an additional night with the father.
2. If X and the father are in the same state, X spend time with the father on the following special occasions:

(a) On X's and the father's birthday for a minimum of three hours if the birthday falls on a school day and a minimum of four hours if the birthday falls on a non-school day; and

(b) As may otherwise be agreed by the parties in writing.

1. X's time with the father pursuant to these orders be suspended to accommodate him spending time with the mother, as follows:

(a) If X and the mother are in the same state, on X's birthday and the mother's birthday, for a minimum of three hours if the birthday falls on a school day and a minimum of four hours if the birthday falls on a non-school day; and

(b) As may otherwise be agreed between the parties in writing.

(a) The mother facilitate X communicating with the father by telephone and/or Facetime at all reasonable times and failing agreement, each Wednesday and Sunday between 7.00 pm. and 7.30 pm AEST, if X would not be spending time with him on those days, and at all other reasonable times requested by X; and

(b) The father facilitate X communicating with the mother by telephone and/or Facetime each Wednesday between 7.00 pm and 7.30 pm AEST, if X would not be spending time with her that day, and otherwise at his discretion.

1. To facilitate the communication provided in order 10, the parent with the care of X:

(a) Ensure that X is available to receive the call;

(b) Arrange for X to call the other parent on the following night, if for any X is unavailable to take or misses the call from the other parent; and

(c) Ensure X has privacy during these calls.

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, during school term periods and during school holiday periods if X is not spending time with the father in City B, each party facilitate changeover to and from school where practicable and otherwise at BP Suburb C.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and subject to order 14, the parties facilitate changeover for the purposes of X spending time with the father during school holidays in City B by:

(a) The mother delivering X to the gate at which his flight departs at Melbourne Airport at the commencement of X's time with the father; and

(b) The father delivering X to the gate from which his flight departs at City B Airport at the conclusion of that time,

IT BEING NOTED the parties agree to X travelling by air unaccompanied.

X's travel to spend time with the father during school holidays

1. For the purpose of X travelling to spend time with the father during school holidays, if the father elects for X to spend school holiday time with him in City B, unless otherwise agreed in writing:

(a) The parties each ensure X flies by direct flight to and from City B Airport and Melbourne Airport;

(b) The mother book and pay for flights for X from Melbourne to City B, being the first available direct flight after X finishes school at the end of term or the first available direct flight after the halfway point of the school holidays as applicable;

(c) The father book and pay for flights for X from City B to Melbourne, being the first available direct flight for X to return to Melbourne by the halfway point of the school holidays or the last day of the school holidays as applicable;

(d) The parties consult with one another before booking flights for X pursuant to this order and provide to the other parent confirmation of booked flights (with copy airline booking details and flight itinerary) for X at least 28 days prior to his travel or as soon as practicable in respect of the holidays immediately following the making of these orders;

(e) The mother accompany X to City B on the first occasion he travels to spend time with the father, at her expense;

(f) If X is unable to travel unaccompanied due to airline requirements or refuses to travel unaccompanied while in the care of the mother, the mother (or, subject to his agreement, her partner) accompany X to City B at the mother's expense and changeover occur at City B Airport;

(g) If X is unable to travel unaccompanied due to airline requirements or refuses to travel unaccompanied while in the care of the father, the father (or, subject to her agreement, his partner) accompany X to Melbourne at the father's expense and changeover occur at Melbourne Airport; and

(h) The parties keep one another informed at all times of any changes or delays in X's flights.

(a) Communicate in writing via the 'AppClose' parenting app as a primary means of communication between them about X;

(b) Communicate by phone in respect of urgent matters about X, including in the event of flight delays;

(c) Keep the other parent informed at all times of their residential address and mobile contact telephone number and advise of any change of those details as soon as practicable of any change or anticipated change in those details;

(d) Keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat X and authorise those practitioners to provide to the other parent with information they are lawfully able to provide about X; and

(e) Inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue, injury or illness suffered by X.

1. If AppClose becomes unavailable to them, the parties agree on an alternate parenting app within seven days and in the absence of agreement, the father nominate an alternate parenting app which the parties then use, each at their own expense (if any), in place of AppClose.
2. This order acts as an authority for any doctor, treating medical practitioner, hospital and/or health professional to release X's medical information to the requesting parent (at the requesting parent's cost, if any).
3. This order act as an authority for any schools attended by X to give each parent information about X's educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by X (at the requesting parent's cost, if any) and to provide access to information via the Compass or any other parent communication app.
4. The mother forthwith provide X's school (D School) or any other school X may attend with the father's contact details and include his details on X's enrolment documentation.

1. If X is prescribed medication or specific treatment which is required to continue into a period when the other parent will be responsible for X's care, the parent with the care of X provide to the other parent any medication or materials required for treatment along with details of the prescribed medication dose or treatment required.
2. If X is in need of treatment at any hospital the party with the care of X forthwith notify the other of any details related to the nature of the illness/injury, details of any related medical appointment, the hospital X is attending and details of any treating professional as soon as is practicable and the other be at liberty to attend at the hospital unless directed not to do so by the treating medical practitioner.

1. Each of the mother and the father are permitted to attend at X's school for all events that parents are normally invited to attend, including but not limited to:

(a) Reading, music and art assistance;

(b) Graduation ceremonies;

(c) Parent/teacher interviews;

(d) Sports days;

(e) School concerts;

(f) School plays; and

(g) Sporting events,

and should X's attendance be required for such event, then the parent having the care of X at that time facilitate X's attendance at that event where practicable.

1. Each of the mother and the father are authorised to attend all other extra-curricular events and activities X engages in.

1. The parties each do all things required to facilitate X continuing to attend non-reportable counselling with his current counsellor or such other professional as agreed between them in writing at their joint (equal) expense, including to support X's relationship with the father.
2. Both parties are authorised to communicate with X's counsellor, including to provide information about X, but his counselling is to remain confidential.
3. The parties provide a copy of these orders to X's counsellor, along with a copy of the family report of Ms E dated 20 December 2024 ("family report") and request X's counsellor to explain to X that his counselling is to be confidential subject to any mandatory disclosure requirements applying to the counsellor.

1. The parties are each restrained by injunction from:

(a) Denigrating or insulting the other parent and/or their respective partner or family members in the presence or hearing of X.

(b) Physically disciplining X;

(c) Discussing these court proceedings with or in the presence of X, save for the purpose of informing him the proceedings have concluded and explaining his care arrangements pursuant to these orders;

(d) Showing him any court documents from these proceedings;

(e) Passing messages for the other parent via X;

(f) Making any derogatory comment about the other parent, their partners or other family members in any public forum or on any social media platform, including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Snapchat;

(g) Consuming alcohol such that they have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) beyond the legal driving limit when X is in their care; and

(h) Using illicit drugs at any time X is in their care and for twenty-four (24) hours before any period that X is to be in their care,

1. The parties are each permitted to remove X from the Commonwealth of Australia for the purpose of international travel, subject to the following conditions unless otherwise agreed in writing:

(a) If the proposed travel times are outside the scope of time X is to spend with a parent pursuant to these orders, the proposed travel times must be agreed between the parties in writing before any travel bookings are made for X;

(b) The parent travelling with X ("the travelling parent") facilitate X communicating with the other parent by telephone or video at least twice each week during his travel;

(c) A minimum of 60 days' notice be provided to the other parent by the travelling parent of any overseas travel with X;

(d) A copy of the itinerary and travel details, including flight details, accommodation and contact details for X be provided to the other party by the travelling parent at least 30 days prior to travel and if the travel plans or itinerary change the travelling parent notify the other parent within 24 hours of becoming aware of the change; and

(e) Travel with X is limited to countries in respect of which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is in force with Australia, and which are not the subject of a travel warning issued by the Australian Government at level 3 (reconsider the need to travel) or above.

1. Each of the parties do all things required to apply for and obtain an Australian passport for X and to renew that passport upon the request of the other parent.
2. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing:

(a) The parent who seeks a passport be issued for X be responsible for all costs associated with the passport being issued;

(b) The mother hold X's passport subject to this order; and

(c) If the father seeks to travel with X internationally, the mother provide X's passport to the father at least 21 days prior to travel or as required for any visa application and the father return X's passport to the mother when X returns to her care following X's international travel with the father.

1. Each of the parties are authorised to provide to their own psychologist or counsellor, a copy of the family report, together with a copy of these orders and the reasons accompanying them.
2. The parties are each authorised to provide a copy of these orders to any school, medical professional and provider of any extracurricular activity attended by X and to any agency or authority in relation to X.

Obligations, consequences of contravention and assistance with orders

1. Pursuant to sections 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 and details of who can assist the parties to adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. The independent children's lawyer be discharged, with thanks of the court.
2. All extant applications be dismissed.

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. This proceeding concerns the child, X, who was aged 11 at the time of the hearing and is now 12.
2. The applicant is X's father and the respondent is his mother. I will refer to them as the father and the mother without intending any disrespect to them.
3. In particular, I am required to determine if X should live with the mother in Melbourne, Victoria, along with her partner and now adult son, Mr F (X's older brother) or if X should live with the father and his partner in City B, Queensland. This dispute arises in the context of X previously living in City H, Queensland, during the parties' relationship and after separation; the father moving to City B after separation; and the mother later taking X to live in Melbourne without the father's knowledge.
4. The parties commenced a relationship in May 2012 and separated in 2020, when X was aged six. They agree their relationship was one of high conflict and that they each behaved badly towards the other. They each make allegations of family violence against the other.
5. The parties' conflictual relationship continued after separation. I find X was placed in the middle of a power struggle between the parties, neither of whom prioritised his interests. It became apparent from the parties' evidence, that whilst there was an agreement for X to spend time with the father on alternate weekends and holidays, disputes arose because they did not agree on which weekends X was to spend with each of them or for how long he would spend with each parent over school holidays. They each acted unilaterally to orchestrate X spending time with them, rather than negotiating with the other or seeking court orders, to X's detriment. Following one such dispute between the parties in late November 2022, X stopped spending time with the father.
6. After the mother relocated with X to Melbourne in February 2023, there was a lengthy delay in the father taking steps to locate X and to commence court proceedings. X did not spend time with the father until May 2024, some 15 months following his move to Melbourne and over 18 months after he last spent time with the father. This was supervised time pursuant to interim orders. There was then a further delay of more than five months before X spent a second occasion of supervised time with the father, in October 2024. The mother acknowledged she did not prioritise X spending time with the father during this time.
7. Since November 2024, X has spent time with the father on a more regular basis, progressing from supervised to unsupervised time and then overnight time. Aside from what I regard to be minor complaints, the parties agree that time has progressed well for X.

1. One of the few things the parties agree on, is that it is in X's best interests for an order to be made providing for them to have joint decision-making responsibility for decisions about major long-term issues relating to X.
2. They do not agree on the arrangements for his care, each seeking X live with them in their current location.
3. The father submits the mother does not prioritise X's relationship with him, has coached X in relation to her family violence allegations and has acted to undermine their relationship, and I find this to be the case. He seeks orders providing for X to live with him and his partner, Ms G, in City B. The father proposes X spend equal time with both parents if the mother also returns to live in what he describes as the "[Region J Council] area" in Queensland. Evidence was not adduced in respect of the boundaries of that region. The father did not articulate how an equal shared care arrangement would work for X if the mother returned to live in City H, 1.5 hours away from his home in City B. In any event, the mother has made it clear she will not return to live in Queensland. The father's proposal for consideration by the court is therefore that X live with him in City B and spend time with the mother for one weekend each month in Queensland and for half of school holidays in Victoria or elsewhere. In the alternative, if the court makes orders providing for X to continue living in Melbourne, he proposes X spend time with him on a comparable basis. The father proposes the parties' equally share the cost of X spending time with whichever parent he does not regularly live.
4. The mother contends that where the parties agree X is doing well at school and socially, and he has resumed spending time with the father which has been positive, X's stability should be prioritised. On that basis, she seeks orders providing for X to continue to live with her in Melbourne and to spend time with the father for one weekend a month during school term periods, in Victoria, and during school holidays in Queensland. By the conclusion of the final hearing, she proposed X spend a little more than half of the school holidays with the father and she agreed to share the cost of X travelling to and from City B to spend holiday time with the father.
5. Notwithstanding the court's task is to evaluate the parties' proposals and determine which of these arrangements are in X's best interests, it was striking the parties gave so little evidence in their affidavits about their current circumstances and how they intended to facilitate their proposals for X to live with them and spend time with the other parent. The mother made some attempt to remedy this by an affidavit filed the afternoon before the final hearing commenced, describing X's life and routine in Victoria and of her intention to take steps to foster a positive relationship between X and the father. Even with that late-filed, aspirational affidavit, I was left with very little evidence to support the parties' respective proposals. For example, I was without evidence of the distance of travel for X to fulfil their proposals (from each parties' home to the airport), the availability, timing and cost of flights, airline guidelines for travel by unaccompanied minors, school term dates, the father's work roster, cost of accommodation to facilitate X spending time with his parents, and the financial position of the parties. Instead, the parties' affidavits focussed on accusations about the poor conduct of the other.
6. The independent children's lawyer recommends X continue to live with the mother in Melbourne given he has been living there in a stable living arrangement since 2023. The independent children's lawyer supports X spending significant periods of time with the father in both Queensland (during school holidays) and Victoria (during school term periods) if the father chooses to travel to Victoria, including for more than half of school holidays.
7. At the outset of the hearing a range of other matters remained in dispute. Happily for X, some of those matters were resolved with the assistance of the parties' legal representatives during the course of the hearing.

1. The following issues ultimately required determination:

(a) Should X live with the father in City B, Queensland, spending time with the mother as proposed by the father (in the absence of an alternate proposal by the mother), for one weekend each month during school term periods and for half of school holidays?

(b) Should X continue to live with the mother in Melbourne, Victoria, spending time with the father as proposed by the mother, as proposed by the father, or in some other way?

(c) What other orders should be made in respect of remaining issues in dispute, in X's best interests?

(d) Are the other parenting orders agreed by the parties in X's best interests, including for them to share decision making responsibility about major long-term issues relating to X?

1. The Full Court has made it clear that it may be important in appropriate cases to make findings of family violence if "they are available and necessary to determine what is in the best interests of the child".[1] As to whether it is "necessary" to make such findings, Austin and Williams JJ explained in Pickford & Pickford:[2]

It is [...] important to acknowledge how the purpose of litigation under Pt VII of the Act is to determine orders which will most ably serve children's best interests (s 60CA and s 65AA). Keeping children and their carers safe into the future is the ideal, which objective should not be subverted by allowing the litigation to be used as the medium by which to make definitive factual findings resolving disputed allegations of historical family violence between conflicted, vengeful or anguished parents, nor to make punitive orders against the parties who may be found to have perpetrated family violence.

and (citations omitted):[3]

[...] It is apposite to observe how judges need not make findings to resolve contested facts unless the findings authentically influence the outcome. In fact, the High Court of Australia has expressly cautioned against unnecessary factual findings in the context of risk assessment [...]. So has this Court [...].

1. The mother expressly stated in her written submissions:

The mother is not seeking findings as to the family violence that she says the father perpetrated against her both during the relationship and following same.

1. In circumstances where the mother's proposal is for the parties to have joint decision-making responsibility for X and for him to spend unsupervised time with the father on weekends and for more than half of school holidays, I infer she considers X will be safe in the father's care and will not be exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm from being subjected to or exposed to family violence when spending time with him. I accept it is unnecessary to make findings in respect of the contested allegations of family violence as resolution of those disputed facts will not authentically influence the outcome of this case, as to whether X should live in Melbourne with the mother and spend time with the father or if X should live in City B with the father and spend time with the mother.

1. The final hearing was conducted over two days. Each of the parties and the independent children's lawyer were represented by counsel.

(a) His further Amended Initiating Application filed on 10 April 2025;

(b) His affidavit filed on 10 April 2025 ("trial affidavit");

(c) His affidavit filed on 6 May 2025 ("affidavit in reply"), with leave where no objection was made to the late filing of this affidavit;

(d) Affidavit of Ms G, filed on 6 May 2025, with leave where no objection was made to the late filing of this affidavit; and

(e) His Amended Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) ("case outline") filed on 6 May 2025, including attached minute of final orders sought, with leave where no objection was made to the late filing of this case outline.

(a) Her further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 28 April 2025;

(b) Her affidavit filed on 28 April 2024 ("trial affidavit");

(c) Her affidavit filed on 7 May 2025 ("updating affidavit"), with leave where no objection was made to the late filing of this affidavit;

(d) Affidavit of Mr K, filed on 29 April 2025;

(e) Her case outline filed on 2 May 2025; and

(f) Written submissions filed on 7 May 2025, with leave where no objection was made to the late filing of these submissions.

(a) The child impact report of Ms L ("court child expert") dated 17 May 2024; and

(b) Affidavit of Ms M ("supervisor"), filed on 7 May 2025, including the annexed observational report dated 11 December 2024.

1. The parties and independent children's lawyer each also relied on the family report of Ms E ("family report writer") dated 20 December 2024 ("family report").
2. They also relied on the following documents:

(a) Joint chronology;[4] and

(b) Updated consolidated minute of orders sought, tendered during the course of the hearing, identifying agreed parenting orders and in respect of those issues in dispute, the terms of orders sought by each party and recommended by the independent children's lawyer.[5]

1. Tendered documents have been marked as exhibits.

1. I have considered the evidence given by each party in their affidavit, providing the background to the proceeding from their own perspectives, and have also been assisted by the joint chronology. I provide only a summary of the background to the proceedings, focussing on events that are particularly relevant to my determination of the issues in dispute.
2. The parties commenced their relationship and began living together in May 2012. X was born in 2013. The parties separated in 2020.
3. The parties reached an agreement (verbally) for X to spend time with the father on alternate weekends, from Friday to Monday, and during school holidays. However, the mother gave evidence that the parties were at times unable to reach agreement as to whether X would be spending time with her or the father on particular weekends and for how long he would spend with each of them during school holidays. She agreed that X was being told conflicting things by each parent and acknowledged it was not in X's best interests that the parties were unable to resolve those disagreements.
4. The father deposed the parties' co-parenting relationship deteriorated to the point where the mother would not allow him to pick X up from school on a Friday, contrary to the arrangement that had been in place. When in the mother's care, X would ordinarily travel to the mother's home at the end of the school day by bus with his brother. The mother said the father would sporadically pick X up on Fridays either an hour before school concluded or at times in the morning, causing X to miss school completely. The father denied collecting X from school early and said he attended to collect X when school finished, on weekends X was to spend with him. The father agreed he often did not communicate with the mother prior to collecting X and instead sent her a message after collecting X, relying on their general agreement for X to spend alternate weekends with him. He denied there was conflict about him collecting X from school, saying there was no discussion about it, and asserting the mother was happy for him to collect X from school "most times". The father acknowledged from the witness box that he wasn't communicating with the mother, that it would have been in X's best interests for him to do so, and the lack of communication placed X in a situation of conflict.
5. The mother alleged the father picked up X from school on 1 April 2021 and kept him in his care until 19 April 2021, without her consent or X's agreement. When cross-examined she again referred to X being held in the father's care for two weeks in April 2021. The father denied this occurred, deposing X did not spend any time with him during this period, referring to text messages between him and the mother and alleging the mother was making it difficult for X to see him during this time. Those text messages were not tendered but the father was not challenged in respect of this evidence. It was put to the mother this might have instead occurred in April 2022 which she denied. Neither party was otherwise cross-examined in respect of their evidence about this dispute and I am unable to determine what occurred during the April 2021 school holidays.
6. The mother said X became afraid the father would collect him from school and take him away. She asserted this caused disruption to X's emotional wellbeing and academic performance, culminating in occasions where he would refuse to attend school. She said he suffered from nightmares and bed-wetting episodes during this time.
7. The mother began keeping X home from school on Fridays, to prevent the father from collecting him. When interviewed for the child impact report, the father acknowledged he had attended at X's school on a Thursday in response to the mother keeping X home on Fridays. The mother then began keeping X home on Thursdays.
8. This wrangling between the parties continued during 2021 and 2022 when X was in grade 2 and 3, and he missed a significant number of school days. The father deposed school records showed X was absent for 25 days in 2021 and 60 days in 2022. The mother did not dispute that evidence, save to say X was unwell for some of that time.
9. The parties' evidence and the family report refer to other disputes arising during this time, which I find resulted in disruption for X and exposed him to ongoing conflict between his parents.
10. The mother formed a relationship with Mr K in 2021. She gave evidence they began speaking in March 2021 and commenced a relationship in April 2021. Mr K lived in Victoria and the mother was living in Queensland. They each gave evidence they first met in person in January 2022, when Mr K moved to Queensland for work. He lived with the mother, X and Mr F while working in Queensland, from January or early February 2022 until November 2022, at which time he returned to Victoria.
11. In August 2022 the mother travelled overseas with Mr K, for nine days. X was left in the care of a friend at the friend's home while they were away. The mother agreed she did not inform the father of her trip.
12. The mother deposed that in November 2022, she suggested to the father that X spend two weeks with him over the upcoming Christmas holidays, from Christmas Day. The father instead said he would take X for the entirety of the school holidays and return him at the commencement of the school year. This was not agreed to by the mother. On 28 November 2022, the father picked up X from school. When cross-examined, he confirmed he did so with the intention to have X for the school holidays. He acknowledged he did so notwithstanding the parties had not agreed on how much time X would spend with him over the holidays. He agreed he sent a message to the mother only after he collected X after school. The mother deposed she immediately called the father upon receiving his message and that she heard X yelling and asking to speak with her. She said that when she told the father to return X to her, he replied to say it was now his time with X and she would not see X until January the following year. The father did not respond to the mother's account in his affidavit in reply and I accept it.
13. The next day, on 29 November 2022, the mother attended at the paternal grandmother's home, suspecting X was staying there and retrieved him to her care. The parties provided different accounts of how this transpired. The mother deposed X broke free from the paternal grandmother, who she said tried to hold him back, and ran outside to her. She then drove away with him. The father alleged the mother waited outside the paternal grandmother's house for three hours for X to return home with the paternal grandmother, then ran up to the paternal grandmother's car and dragged X out of the car. I note however the father did not give evidence he was present and did not adduce evidence from his mother as to what occurred. I therefore accept the mother's account. This was the last occasion X spent with the father prior to the mother's relocation to Victoria.
14. In February 2023, the mother moved from City H, where X had spent his whole life, to live in suburban Melbourne with Mr K.
15. The mother gave various reasons for her move, including:

(a) Her decision was partly motivated by receiving notice she was required to vacate the rental property in City H in which she was living because it was to be sold, that she did not have alternate accommodation, and Mr K offered for them to live with him in Victoria;

(b) She "had enough of the abuse at the hands of [the father]" and the move presented an opportunity for her to live in a stable household away from him and "his abuse";

(c) The "constant issues [the father] would cause to [X] and [her]";

(d) The father "stalking" her, in January 2023;

(e) As "a way to escape the barbarism and cruelty [towards] [X]"; and

(f) Because she had significant concerns for X's wellbeing.

1. After considering all of the evidence, including the oral evidence of the mother and Mr K, I find the primary reason for the mother's relocation to Melbourne was to pursue her relationship with Mr K. I find it likely the mother would have remained living in City H with X, if not for her relationship with Mr K.
2. The father deposed that in November 2022, X told him they were moving houses but he did not press X for information. He said he then found out at the end of the school year in 2022 X had not been re-enrolled in his school at City H for the following year. However, he deposed he did not receive confirmation of the mother's relocation until 12 April 2023, when he received an affidavit made by one of X's teachers filed in a family violence protection proceeding initiated by the mother in early 2023.
3. When cross-examined, the father confirmed he made no efforts to contact X between November 2022 and April 2023. He acknowledged he then only made enquiries in an effort to ascertain the school X was enrolled to attend. He did not contact the mother during this time and made no other attempts at contacting X or the mother until he commenced these proceedings in September 2023.
4. The mother contends X benefited from moving to Victoria. She gave evidence that following the move, X rarely had nightmares, stopped wetting the bed, and experienced "thriving academic and social development" including improved grades, engagement in extracurricular activities and forging numerous new friendships. This evidence was not disputed by the father, whose primary concern for X is that the mother has obstructed and undermined X's relationship with him and with extended family members by her relocation and other conduct.
5. The father commenced these proceedings on 22 September 2023, amending his application in October 2023. The mother first filed documents in response to his application on 8 February 2024.
6. On 6 March 2024, interim orders were made ("March 2024 orders") providing for X to live with the mother and to spend time with the father for four hours on the second Sunday of each alternate month, supervised by N Contact Service. The March 2024 orders also provided for X to communicate with the father each alternate Wednesday and Friday, by FaceTime (with the father to initiate the call to X's phone), and for the access to and sharing of information about X.
7. On 12 May 2024, X first spent time with the father supervised by N Contact Service pursuant to the March 2024 orders. This was the first time X had seen the father since 28 November 2022.
8. The family was interviewed and observed for the child impact report on 15 May 2024.
9. The mother alleges that on the day of the family's attendance for the child impact report, after she and X had concluded their portion of the interviews, she was contacted by the Head of Welfare of X's primary school who informed her the father and Ms G had attended the school in the morning and attempted to remove X from class early. The father deposed he knew X was at the child impact report interviews and therefore not at school, and that he and Ms G attended at the school for the purposes of providing the school with his contact details so he could be listed as a parent of X. He said the school's Head of Welfare advised him the school would not permit his attendance, because of a temporary protection order provided by the mother to the school. The father alleged the mother knew the protection order had been dismissed when she provided it to the school. The mother deposed the order was current when she provided it to the school and when cross-examined, said she had phoned the school to advise it had been dismissed. The father deposed he was at the school for approximately 60 minutes, during which time he made no enquiries as to whether X was at school or any threats to take X from school. I prefer the father's account, supported by Ms G's unchallenged evidence, where the mother did not adduce contrary evidence from the school. I again observe a situation of conflict arose because of poor communication, with each party attributing blame to the other. The father should have made arrangements with the school in advance of his visit, informing the mother he was planning to do so. The mother should have liaised with the school to ensure the father was able to attend and obtain information in relation to X. Instead, the parties' conduct resulted in X's school becoming entangled in the parties' conflict.
10. In mid-2024, the mother applied for an intervention order against the father because of what she said had occurred the previous day.
11. The father deposed that following the first supervised visit on 12 May 2024, he contacted N Contact Service and proposed four dates for X to spend supervised time with him in June and July 2024, accommodating his work schedule. He said N Contact Service advised him the mother was not able to accommodate any of the four dates, and she did not provide an alternative proposal. The mother deposed only that these dates were "unsuitable" and that she instructed her solicitors to discuss alternate dates with the father. The father deposed that on 16 July 2024, he proposed (by email to the mother's solicitors) dates for the following six months for X to spend supervised time with him. The mother did not agree to any of the dates provided by the father. When cross-examined, she gave oral evidence this was because she had plans on those dates. She did not say what those plans were. Reasons she had previously provided for not agreeing to those dates included that X had music lessons on Fridays. When asked under cross-examination if she thought X spending time with the father is more important than him attending a music lesson, she initially twice replied "no", then elaborated, saying it was important for X to have "regular stability and routine" and that "[X] enjoys his [music] lessons". When challenged by counsel for the father in respect of this evidence, the mother ultimately agreed it is more important for X to spend time with the father than to attend a music lesson. When it was put to the mother she had changed her answer only because it was a better answer for the court to hear, she initially answered, "no comment". When pressed, she agreed she had changed her position, accepting the logic put to her and acknowledging it is more important for X to mend his relationship with the father than to attend his music lessons. I accept that was a genuine concession made by the mother but am troubled it took so long for her to make it. I had the impression that until this point, the mother was of the view X's time with the father should be fitted around his other commitments rather than the other way around.
12. The child impact report was released on 21 May 2024. Among other things, the court child expert provided the following assessment and recommendation:

The current ongoing parental conflict and distrust between both parents is a significant risk factor in this matter if these issues are not addressed. The writer suggests that supervised spend time with [the father] and [X] be increased to a minimum of once a month for six hours. If the Court receives positive feedback from the contact centre after four sessions, that in the interim spend time is increased to being unsupervised with [the father] travelling to Melbourne one weekend a month from Friday after school to Sunday evening. In addition, the writer suggests that [father] continue to contact [X] on FaceTime twice weekly, with [X] provided with the option to contact him as he desires.

1. In relation to the father's application for X to return to live in Queensland, the court child expert recommended:

As [X] is presenting settled in Melbourne, a relocation back to QLD is likely to be disruptive to his development, education and social connections Therefore, he is likely to benefit from a balanced arrangement that includes quality time with his father while continuing to establish his life in Melbourne.

As [X]'s primary carer, [the mother] will need to consider her role in the rebuilding of [the father's] and [X]'s relationship so that they can establish a meaningful connection It is also important that the parents develop a coparenting relationship and act in a way that affirms that they can be trusted and parent in a safe and protective ways. However, if infrequent contact continues between them, the long term status of the father and son relationship is likely to develop further barriers beyond geography, destabilising their relationship further.

1. On 3 June 2024, further interim parenting orders were made ("June 2024 orders"), including to facilitate X attending school counselling, for the parties' communication, and imposing injunctions protecting X from parental conflict, denigration and physical discipline. An order was made providing a mailing address for the mother for communication in relation to X. The joint chronology recorded as an agreed fact the mailing address could be used by the father to send a mobile phone for X. I note this was something the father had been trying to arrange for some time. An independent children's lawyer was appointed.
2. The father mailed a mobile phone to X to the specified mailing address. The father gave evidence of many attempts to communicate with X using the phone which were unsuccessful. He asserts the mother did not facilitate that communication, which was denied by her. She deposed to various reasons for the communication not proceeding, including difficulties with a SIM card and her attempts to resolve that. A large volume of evidence was given in respect of this issue. Ultimately, as the parent with whom X lives, it was incumbent on the mother to actively facilitate X's regular communication with the father and I am not persuaded she prioritised doing so.
3. On 27 October 2024, X spent supervised time with the father for the first time since 12 May 2024. The supervision report records the experience was positive for X and the father. Like observations were made in respect of their supervised time spent together on 10 November 2024 and 8 December 2024, including they appeared "happy and excited for their time together" and of "comfort and camaraderie" between them. The supervisor reported the mother had been collaborative and friendly and supportive of the process and of X's relationship with the father.
4. On 4 December 2024, the parties attended upon the family report writer for the preparation of the family report. Unsurprisingly, and consistently with the child impact report, the family report identified the ongoing parental conflict and distrust between the parties as a significant risk factor to X if not addressed.
5. In respect of the father's proposal for X to live in Queensland, the family report writer reported:

[The father] is not currently optimistic regarding a relocation Order, and has accepted that this may not be in [X]'s best interests, however, is something that he would prefer, in order to be able to have time with [X] more frequently and for longer.

1. When the father was asked about this at the final hearing, he gave evidence this was simply the interpretation of the family report writer and that it remained his belief it is in X's best interests to return to Queensland.
2. The family report recommended orders be made for shared decision-making about X and for X to live with the mother and to spend time with the father for at least one weekend per month (maybe in Victoria) and for half of each school holidays period (in Queensland). The family report also recommended X attend a psychologist to address his relationship with the father and to consider any other factors impacting on his ability to enjoy that relationship.
3. The family report writer did not make a recommendation in relation to X relocating to Queensland or continuing to live in Victoria but provided the following expert opinion about that issue:

[X] is experiencing a level of stability in his life that he has not had before, and it is likely a forced move back to Queensland would be detrimental for him at this stage. If the matter had been put to the Court shortly after the move then a recommendation may have been different, however, the two years of family life, in the same home and same school, will have supported [X]'s emotional welfare and this cannot be discounted, regardless as to [the mother's] decision to move [X] without consulting or advising [the father].

1. In relation to the father's proposal, the family report writer provided the following expert opinion:

[The father's] proposals to see [X] on weekends and during school holidays have the benefit of a structured and growing relationship to build between the two, whilst allowing [X] to remain with his primary caregiver [the mother] who he appears very attached to. If [X] were to begin therapeutic work to understand the adversity to his father and build repair, then it is likely [X] would be able to actually enjoy and benefit from that relationship, and paternal family members and old friends in Queensland.

1. X subsequently spent time with the father (along with Ms G), daily from 13 January 2025 to 16 January 2025 (from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm), unsupervised. The mother deposed that she had agreed to transition to unsupervised time after four occasions of supervised time, as recommended by the child impact report. It is heartening this progression occurred without the need for further interim parenting orders.
2. In respect of this transition, the mother deposed to some reluctance on X's part. The father made some criticism of the mother for informing him about that in front of X and not providing adequate shoes and clothing for X's time with him, but otherwise said the time went well. He described various sporting and other activities they engaged in together.
3. The father deposed to a FaceTime call to X on 9 February 2025, in which the mother interrupted the call to instruct X to say he did not want to stay overnight or stay with the father. The father deposed he immediately interrupted the conversation and the parties continued the conversation once X had left the room. The mother deposed to speaking on behalf of X because X was afraid to express to the father that he did not want to stay with him. It reflects poorly on the mother that this discussion initially took place in X's presence.
4. On 4 March 2025, the father communicated his intention to reduce X's FaceTime communication with him, to three occasions each fortnight, reporting he was seeing X display significant stress and anxiety during their calls. It was put to the father that he scaled back his FaceTime calls because he had insufficient phone reception when he was working away every second week. The father denied this, distinguishing between being "on site" when away for work, where he is without phone or internet reception, and when he is "in camp" where he has phone reception and internet access and is contactable and able to make calls to X, usually after 7.00 pm. I accept that evidence.
5. X spent overnight time with the father for the first time since moving to Victoria, from 15 to 16 March 2025. Both parties referred to this time in their affidavits but did not provide any detail of how that time went. X then spent overnight time with the father again on the weekend of 12 and 13 April 2025. The mother mentioned this time in her trial affidavit but did not provide any other evidence in respect of that time. The father did not refer to it in his affidavit in reply. I therefore presume this time proceeded uneventfully.
6. Neither party has sought to adduce further evidence since judgment was reserved on 9 May 2025, from which I infer X's time and communication with the father has subsequently proceeded well, without significant incident.

1. X lives with the mother and Mr K in suburban Melbourne.
2. He is in grade 6 at D School. He has attended that school now for more than 2.5 years. The parties agree he is doing well there. To the family report writer, X reported having fun at school, enjoying his classes and having many friends, including close friends with whom he has had a sleepover. He told the family report writer he enjoys sports and music lessons.
3. X will start secondary school in 2026. The father submits that because X will be changing schools next year, it will not be disruptive for X to move to Queensland and start a new school there. I do not accept that submission.
4. At the time of the final hearing, X had only recently commenced counselling with Ms P at O Centre, psychologist, pursuant to the June 2024 orders. This is confidential counselling which I agree is appropriate.

1. The father lives in City B, Queensland, with Ms G. They have been in a relationship and living together for more than three years. They live in a four-bedroom home they own. In the context of his capacity to afford the cost of private schooling he has proposed for X in Queensland, the father described their household as a "two-income" household, who could afford school fees for X of up to $25,000 per annum by the time he reached senior school. The father has a son from a previous relationship who died aged 22, with whom he did not have a relationship. He has a granddaughter, being his deceased son's daughter. The father's parents (X's paternal grandparents) live in Brisbane. The father has two sisters (X's aunts) and X has cousins who live in City Q. Whilst those relatives live in Queensland, they live a significant distance from City B.
2. The father works as a tradesperson. He works on a "week on / week off" roster, which runs throughout the year. That fortnightly cycle is not displaced by holidays or a new year and is therefore predictable. He also has the ability to take leave, which results in him having extended periods off work. The father gave evidence that if orders are made for X to live with him in City B, he intends to leave his current job and take up a contracting position working locally, Monday to Friday.
3. The mother lives in suburban Melbourne with Mr K. Mr K has two children, R (now 14) and S (known as "S") (now 11), who live with him and their mother pursuant to a shared care arrangement, maintained by consent. I accept the evidence of the mother and Mr K that X gets along particularly well with S and they enjoy a friendship.
4. Mr F is now 18. He lives with the mother, X, Mr K and Mr K's children when in his care. The mother gave evidence when cross-examined that Mr F was at that time starting university and applying for work in Victoria.
5. I acknowledge for completeness, recognising it is significant for their family, X and Mr F have another brother, T, who sadly died as an infant in 2005, prior to X's birth.
6. Little information was provided in respect of the mother's family, who live in Queensland.
7. The mother works full-time as a retail worker and also in her online sales business, usually in the evening. Evidence was not adduced of her current financial circumstances.
8. The mother has been assisted by Mr K and his parents to collect X from school. She told the family report writer she uses a mix of leave and holiday programs to care for X during school holidays. The parties agree X will now spend time with both parents during school holidays which will reduce the need for holiday care.
9. At my request before closing submissions, a document was jointly tendered with maps showing the location of each party's home referable to the airports from which it is proposed X travel, with travel times marked.[6] Both parties live within a drive of approximately 20 minutes from the airports they propose be used for travel for X, although I note travel time will depend on traffic conditions.

1. In assessing the evidence, I have applied the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof, as required by section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
2. I have read and considered all of the evidence adduced by the parties. If I have not mentioned a piece of evidence or an argument presented at the hearing that does not mean I have not considered it. As the High Court said in Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon:[7]

A judge's reasons are not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by the losing party as relevant to an issue. Judgments of trial judges would soon become longer than they already are if a judge's failure to mention such facts and arguments would be evidence that he or she had not properly considered the losing party's case.

1. I have already made some observations in respect of the parties' evidence, particularly their focus on complaints about one another, their failure to acknowledge their contribution to conflict between them, and the lack of evidence in support of their respective proposals.
2. My clear impression from the father's evidence is that he has not given a lot of thought to the impact on X of his past actions (and at times, inaction) and of his proposals for the future.
3. The mother's oral evidence confirmed the impression I had from the affidavit evidence and family report, that she has not prioritised X's relationship with the father and has at times acted to undermine their relationship. Only in her updating affidavit, did the mother depose to steps she intended to take to support X's relationship with the father. She acknowledged it was not her idea to file that affidavit, from which I infer it was filed on legal advice. I do have reservations about her capacity to prioritise and positively support X's relationship with the father.
4. Like the father, it was apparent from the mother's evidence the mother had given little thought to the logistics of her proposals for X to spend time with the father, including the travel required for X between Melbourne and City B.
5. Key matters were omitted from the mother's affidavit evidence, including that Mr K had lived with her and X and Mr F in Queensland from January 2022 until November 2022. She made serious allegations without supporting detail, including for example her allegation of the father engaging in stalking. It appears from her evidence given under cross-examination, that allegation related to the father driving by her home several times on one occasion in January 2023. She was at times unresponsive, unwilling to answer questions or propositions put to her, answering "no comment". She did so notwithstanding I explained she was being offered an opportunity to respond to submissions counsel may put to me at the conclusion of the case. These matters cause me to treat the mother's evidence with caution.

1. Ms G gave evidence in support of the father and his proposals. She was not required for cross-examination and her evidence is therefore not challenged, including that she has a good relationship with X and her account of attending X's school with the father on the day of the child impact report interviews.
2. Mr K gave evidence addressing family violence proceedings between him and his former partner which were revealed by subpoenaed documents and otherwise supporting the mother and her proposals. After cross-examining Mr K, counsel for the father submitted Mr K presented as a credible witness and I accept that submission.

1. The family report writer is a social worker and panel family consultant. She was cross-examined by counsel for both parties and the independent children's lawyer and her expertise was not challenged. The family report writer had been provided with the parties' trial documents before being cross-examined. She had not received the supervision reports but a summary of that evidence was provided to her. She thoughtfully answered questions put to her, taking into account the updated information provided to her from the parties' cross-examination.
2. I have considered the family report writer's evidence carefully, along with all other evidence, and I do put significant weight on her account of X's experiences and views and on her expert opinions.

1. This case has been described as a "relocation" case - in respect of the mother's relocation with X to Victoria, and as a proposed relocation for X to Queensland.
2. No matter the classification, relocation cases are not to be treated as a special category of case and are to be determined like all parenting matters, by considering the best interests of a child in the context of the legislative framework provided by Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").[8]
3. As far as possible, the relocation is not to be dealt with as a separate or discrete issue, but rather as just one of the proposals for a child's future living arrangements.[9] The court is required to identify and evaluate each of the proposals advanced by the parties.[10] This requires weighing the evidence and submissions as to how each proposal would hold advantages and disadvantages for a child's best interests.[11] It is not simply a matter of comparing the relocating party's proposal against the status quo and allowing or denying the relocation.[12] Subject to the requirement for procedural fairness, the court is not bound by the parents' proposals in determining what is in a child's best interests.[13]
4. A parent is entitled to live where they choose and there is no requirement for a parent to demonstrate a "compelling reason" to live where the parent proposes to live.[14] As the Full Court explained in Adamson & Adamson:[15]

These rights, and the right of freedom of mobility of a parent, only defer to the paramount consideration of a child's best interests where those interests would be so adversely affected as to justify such interference; and then the interference is legitimate only to the extent that it is necessary to avoid such adverse effects.

1. Accordingly, there is no onus on either parent to demonstrate why the relocation of a child should or should not occur. Again, the inquiry is to consider what each parent proposes and to determine the context of those plans and reasons for them in determining what is in the best interests of a child.[16]
2. The above principles have been consistently applied by courts when considering the best interests of children in cases described as relocation cases, notwithstanding previous and recent amendments to Part VII of the Act.

Objects of Part VII of the Act, relating to children

1. The objects of Part VII are set out in section 60B of the Act, as follows:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.

1. Those objects provide context and assist with interpretation of Part VII, and I have had regard to them.

1. Section 65D(1) of the Act provides that, subject to some other provisions, the court may make such parenting order as it thinks proper. Section 60CA makes clear that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, a court must regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration. In determining the best interests of a child, section 60CC(1)(a) provides the court must consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2), under the heading General considerations.
2. Section 43(1)(ca) of the Act requires the court to have regard to the need to ensure protection from family violence. Section 60CG(1) provides that in considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
3. In making my decision, I have considered these and all other relevant sections of the Act.

1. I now turn to the general considerations set out in section 60CC(2) as relevant to determine what is in X's best interests.

What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and each person who has care of X (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for X): section 60CC(2)(a)

1. When considering those matters in section 60CC(2)(a), the court is required to consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2A) as follows:

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

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

Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the X or a person caring for X (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for X): section 60CC(2A)(a)

1. The mother makes very serious allegations of family violence against the father but does not ask the court to make findings in relation to those allegations.

Any family violence order that applies or has applied to X or a member of X's family: section 60CC(2A)(b)

1. In February 2023, upon her relocation to Victoria, the mother applied for a family violence order against the father. A temporary order was made in early 2023 and dismissed in mid-2023. The mother again applied for a family violence intervention order after the father attended X's school on 15 May 2024 (on the day of the child impact report interviews), naming her and X as affected family members. She ultimately withdrew that application in mid-2024.
2. After considering all of the evidence before me, I do have doubts about the mother's bona fides in applying for those orders. I formed this view having regard in particular to:

(a) The timing of the applications;

(b) The lack of evidence in support of the mother's allegation of "stalking" which appeared to consist of the father driving past her home several times on one occasion in January 2023;

(c) The mother's acknowledged reliance on the alleged (by then historical) retention of X during school holidays in April 2021 in support of her application in 2023; and

(d) My assessment of the evidence in respect of the father's attendance at X's school on 15 May 2024.

1. Family violence orders had previously been made to protect the mother during the parties' relationship, in 2015 and 2016. The father had also previously applied for an order for his protection in 2014. These orders indicate there has been a long history of family violence allegations made by the parties, well before the current dispute. I am mindful of that history, even though I am not required to make findings in relation to the allegations themselves.

Consideration of section 60CC(2)(a) - arrangements that would promote the safety of X and each person who has care of X

1. Notwithstanding the above history, neither party contends the other orders sought by the other party would expose X to an unacceptable risk of harm from family violence.

1. I have considered how each of the parties' proposals would promote X's emotional safety.

1. The father's proposal would see X removed from the mother's care, being the person who has been primarily responsible for his care at least since the parties separated in 2020. It would also see him removed from a situation of stability and structure, which the family report writer recommended be prioritised for X.
2. I accept the expert evidence of the family report writer that if X was required to live with the father in Queensland and the mother remained living in Victoria as she says she will, this would be "absolutely devastating" for X and "extremely upsetting for him".
3. The family report writer was of the opinion X would likely adjust to living with the father after a period of time, with the support of extended family, friends and counselling. However, I have no confidence those supports would be readily available for X in City B, 1.5 hours away from City H where he lived until early 2023. Not only would X be removed from his mother's care, but he would be away from his brother, from his school where he is performing well, from a well-established friendship group in Melbourne and from a counsellor with whom he has recently begun attending. He would be required to attend a new school and activities and make new friends, while adjusting to secondary school and living with the father and Ms G, with whom he has not lived before. The family report writer identified X holds more concrete and rigid views than other children at his age and stage of development, identifying it is possible he has some traits that do not encourage thinking outside the box. She shared her expert opinion this would likely make it even more difficult for X than other children to manage this move.
4. I put significant weight on the expert opinion of the family report writer that X would likely feel rejected by the mother if he was required to live in Queensland and she did not move with him, and this would likely have a detrimental effect on their relationship. I also take into account the potential for an adverse impact on X's relationship with the father. The family report writer considered this is a real possibility, if X is required to move against his wishes and if he perceives the father responsible for him being removed from the mother's care, given his strong attachment with the mother. I find there is a high likelihood of this occurring given X's awareness of the court proceedings.
5. I am not confident the father has the required capacity to provide the emotional support X would need if he was to experience the effects predicted by the family report writer, given my findings in respect of his past failures to identify X's needs and act in his best interests and where their relationship is re-building following significant disruption.
6. I accept the family report writer's expert opinion X would be less likely to feel rejected by the father, if X remained living in Victoria with the mother and the father did not also move to Victoria, including because he has always known his father to live in Queensland.

1. Implementation of the mother's proposal runs the risk of emotional harm to X by the mother continuing to involve him in adult issues, not facilitating X spending time with the father and undermining their relationship.

1. The court child expert reported X's views as expressed to her when she interviewed him for the child impact report, as follows:

[X] noted that he has made friends but continues to miss his friends in QLD as well as the weather and [the father]. He was looking forward to seeing his father for observations. He explained that Melbourne is now home for him, and he does not want to relocate back to QLD as he does not want to resettle and leave his current friends behind. He is not prepared to relocate homes due to the numerous moves he has experienced.

[X] spoke about his recent experience of spend time with [the father] on 12 May 2024, and reported that he enjoyed it. He explained that they spoke for approximately one hour and believes [the father] ended it as there wasn't anything further, they could converse about. [X] would like to be able to spend time with his father twice per month, but he was unsure whether he preferred the time to occur in Melbourne or QLD. [X] believes his parents love him as much as he loves them and reported that they give him the "best hugs'

1. More recently, the family report writer reported X's views about his living arrangements in the following terms:

[X] advised that he misses the weather in Queensland, and misses seeing his maternal family there. [X] reported also missing his friends, advising that he talks to them on their birthdays.

[X] advised that he "sort of, sort of not" liked [the father], "because of what he has done" [...]

and, in respect of spending time with the father:

[X] advised that he only wanted to talk to him once per month and wanted to live with [the mother].

1. The difference between the two reports, of X's expressed feelings and attitudes towards the father and spending time with him, was striking.
2. I have considered X's views as shared with the family report writer but have also taken into account X has been exposed by the mother to information about the matters the subject of these proceedings. This is apparent from X presenting with an "absolute focus" on advising the family report writer on issues regarding his father, describing incidents he was not present for, being unable to elaborate on his description of other incidents beyond an initial narrative, and making express references to the mother's affidavit. I accept the family report writer's assessment that providing information for the family report was putting pressure on X to try and report things.
3. Counsel for the independent children's lawyer informed the court at the outset of the hearing that the independent children's lawyer had spoken with X both some time ago and again shortly before the hearing, on 6 May 2025. She reported they most recently spoke via video using Zoom, the mother was present, and when the independent children's lawyer asked questions, X asked the mother what the answer was.
4. Evidence of the mother involving X in and exposing him to disputes between the parents, including incidents of alleged family violence he had not been present for, and what the family report writer accepted was "coaching", reflects poorly on the mother. It casts doubt on her capacity to provide for X's emotional needs, including to protect X from disputes between his parents and to promote a positive relationship between X and the father.
5. I accept X's views have been influenced by the mother and given that influence, I do not give his views the weight I otherwise would. However, I do not discount his views completely given the family report writer's evidence about the potential adverse impact on X and his relationships with his parents if orders are made contrary to his views.
6. I do put significant weight on the family report writer's assessment of X's views and presentation when speaking of his relationship with his brother and of the support provided by his brother and his school, described in the following terms:

[...] [X] only presented as genuine when talking about school, his brother [Mr F], or his interests outside of school, raising concern regarding his account.

[X] advised that [Mr F] is always helping him with stuff, gives him challenging maths to do and they do stuff together. [X] reported sometimes annoying each other but "that's what brothers do". [X] smiled when talking about [Mr F] and presented as genuinely open for the only time during the interview.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X: section 60CC(2)(c)

1. X is aged 12. The family report writer reported he presented as polite and pleasant and meeting his developmental milestones.
2. It is not disputed X is "very attached" to the mother, as observed by the family report writer, being an attachment he has developed over the course of his life.
3. X's needs, including as identified by the family report writer, include:

(a) Stability and structure. I accept this need is likely even greater for X than some children due to rigidity in his thinking;

(b) A relationship with the father;

(c) The support of his academic performance and his passions and interests; and

(d) Some autonomy in decision-making to achieve his potential.

1. The family report writer emphasised the importance of the parties adhering to any parenting orders, from the perspective of these identified needs, in the following terms:

[X] requires stability and certainty in his life, and any time spend would need to be structured and adhered to, if he is develop a more positive relationship with [the father].

1. In relation to his spiritual needs, the family report writer reported X is embracing the Christian faith independently from his parents. X reported the mother was supporting the faith he shares with Mr F.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X to provide for X's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs: section 60CC(2)(d)

1. It is implicit in each party's proposal they acknowledge the other party has the capacity to provide for X's physical care needs. However, I find both parents have shown an impaired capacity to focus on X's emotional needs.
2. Prior to X moving to Melbourne, both parents allowed X to become the subject of a tug of war between them after separation, each taking unilateral action to support their proposals (the father collecting X from school without express agreement from the mother and retaining him in his care for extended periods over school holidays, and the mother keeping him home from school to prevent the father from collecting him from school), rather than seeking to resolve their disputes via some form of dispute resolution or court proceedings.
3. The mother moved to Melbourne with X, with the effect of severing his relationship with the father. By this and her subsequent inaction, she failed to support a relationship between X and the father, to X's detriment. The mother did not agree she had undermined X's relationship with the father but conceded via her counsel she was inactive in facilitating that relationship. I do find her conduct has undermined X's relationship with the father and it reflects poorly on her capacity to provide for X's emotional needs. I accept the assessment of the family report writer, which accords with my own assessment of the evidence that whilst the mother showed insight into X's need for a relationship with his father, this was not supported by her actions. I do have doubt about the bona fides of the submission made by the mother in her case outline that she is supportive of X's relationship with the father. I find it likely this submission was made in furtherance of her wish to remain living in Melbourne with X rather than a genuine expression of her feelings.
4. The father has also acted in a way that demonstrates a failure to focus on X's needs, including his role in the ongoing perpetuation of conflict between the parties and his delay in pursuing a relationship with X after X's relocation with the mother. The father's proposal for X to live with him in City B, a place he has not lived before, while the mother lives in Melbourne, in my view shows a continued lack of insight into X's needs. It is significant he has maintained this proposal even after the benefit of the expert opinions provided in the child impact report and family report.
5. The parties' conduct reflects poorly on both of them. They have both let X down.
6. That being said, there are some recent signs of improvement in the parties' capacity to prioritise X, including the arrangements most recently made for X to spend supervised and then unsupervised time with the father and their agreement to share parental responsibility for major long-term decisions about him. I accept that following the mother's relocation to Melbourne with X, she has provided X with stability and has supported his educational, social and spiritual needs. She has recently supported X spending unsupervised time with the father and that time has proceeded well, successfully progressing to overnight time. The father agrees X has recently been communicating regularly with him. Counselling has also now been arranged for X and the parties agree that will continue with input from both parents.
7. To the family report writer, the mother reported X would not at that point board a plane despite her encouragement. At that time she said this would make it "impossible" for X to spend time with the father in Queensland. By the time of the final hearing the mother expressed confidence in X travelling by plane to spend time with the father in Queensland. When asked what she would do if X refused to travel by plane to spend time with the father, she said she or Mr K would travel with him, at their expense. This demonstrates a positive development in the mother's attitudes towards X spending time with the father and a recognition of her responsibility to do what is necessary to support X spending time with the father rather than raising impediments to him doing so.
8. These developments provide me with some optimism in respect of the mother's improved capacity to support X's relationship with the father but they are recent developments and caution is therefore required.

The benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with X's parents, and other people who are significant to X, where it is safe to do so: section 60CC(2)(e)

1. It is not in dispute that X will benefit from being able to have a relationship with both parents and his extended family. Neither party now contend it would not be safe for him to do so. The family report writer observed warm and happy interactions between X and the father at the time of the family report interviews, indicating "a level of closeness and comfort" for X being with the father. The supervision reports also reported positive observations of their time and interactions together.
2. To the family report writer, X expressed missing seeing his maternal family and his friends from Queensland. It reflects poorly on the mother that she has not taken X to Queensland to support those relationships since she moved to Melbourne.
3. X living in Melbourne has the advantage of him living in proximity to his brother, who is now at university. I find this is an important relationship for X, particularly given the manner in which he spoke about his brother when interviewed by the family report writer.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of X: section 60CC(2)(f)

1. The court is also required to consider the possibility of the father relocating to live in Melbourne.[17] It was apparent from the father's oral evidence, he has given little consideration to what he will do if the court does not make the orders he seeks. He acknowledged he has not given much thought to the possibility of moving to Melbourne if orders are made providing for X to remain living in Melbourne. He explained it would require a lot of work, for him to look into alternate housing and work and so on. If the father was genuinely focussed on X's interests, I would have expected him to have undertaken that work and made those enquiries prior to the final hearing. His employment does not appear to be a barrier to him moving, his evidence being that if X lives in City B he will give up his current work and seek employment locally. I do though accept it would not be easy for the father to move. His life is in Queensland, he and his partner own a home in City B and his family are in Queensland.

1. I accept the mother's decision to relocate to Melbourne and her position that she will not return to live in Queensland, even if an order is made for X to live with the father in City B, suggests she prioritises her own desires and needs over those of X. However, the same can be said in respect of the father's position that he will remain living in Queensland and not move to Victoria to live near X, where X is now well-settled.
2. I am mindful the court must look beyond tactical elements within the approach of either party in their stated position and proposals and evaluate comparatively each option for X, one against the other, and consider the likely consequences for X of the orders ultimately made.[18] As Judge Altobelli (as his Honour then was) observed in an interim relocation decision:[19]

Of real concern to the Court is the attitude of the Mother in suggesting that she will move, irrespective of whether X comes with her. This is a worrying attitude. It prioritises her needs over those of X. The reasons that she gives for the move are primarily financial and lifestyle, but have not been carefully scrutinised and, quite frankly, sound hollow. Nonetheless, the Court has to make a decision that is in the best interests of X, and not allow itself to be distracted by issues of parental culpability.

1. I am not satisfied either party's proposals were well-researched and well-founded. To highlight this, and the paucity of evidence to support the parties' proposals, it was only during closing submissions it became apparent there are no direct flights from City B to Melbourne on Fridays. I have done the best I can given this vacuum in the evidence to structure orders that will be workable for X and reduce the prospect of further disputes between the parties.

1. Whilst there have been difficulties in the parties' communication to date, the parties join in seeking an order that they have joint parental responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to X. This will require the parties to consult with one another in relation to each such decision and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.[20] The independent children's lawyer supports the parties making joint decisions about major long-term issues for X but, understandably, has some reservations about the parties' capacity to implement such an order.
2. In respect of those reservations, the father gave evidence the parties are now communicating effectively using AppClose. He has recently communicated with X's counsellor. He is now receiving information directly from X's school from the Compass platform. The mother has provided the father with information about the school she proposes X attend next year in Melbourne. The parties now agree on orders providing for sharing of and access to information about X.
3. Where the parents have agreed to an order for joint decision-making responsibility, showing their commitment to a more cooperative parenting relationship, and noting these improvements in their communication and the sharing of information in relation to X and the other orders they have agreed to, I am satisfied it is in X's best interests to make the order the parties seek.
4. The parties also join in seeking an order that they each have parental responsibility for X while he is in their respective care. Such an order is unnecessary given the provisions of sections 61C and 61DAB of the Act. I will therefore not make the order they propose, on the basis it might suggest some limitation of the parties' parental responsibility for X and this may lead to disputes.

1. I find it is in X's best interests to continue living with the mother, in Victoria if she chooses to continue living there. I do so giving significant weight to the following matters in particular:

(a) The advantages to X living with the mother in Melbourne and spending time with the father, including:

(i) X's care history, strong attachment with the mother, and his reliance on her as his primary source of care and support;

(ii) The expert opinions of the family report writer that X is experiencing a level of stability in his life that he has not had before and that stability for X should be prioritised;

(iii) Recent positive developments in X's relationship with the father;

(iv) The benefit to X of supporting his relationship with Mr F;

(v) X continuing to benefit from a school and friends he enjoys and feels supported by; and

(vi) The benefit to X of transitioning to secondary school in 2026, from a situation of stability and with a cohort of friends; and

(b) The disadvantages to X living with the father in City B and spending time with the mother, including:

(i) The disruption X would experience if he was required to live with the father in Queensland. This includes living in the father's primary care for the first time, in a household (with the father's partner) he has not lived in before, in City B where he has not lived before and where he does not have other family or friends, and where he would be attending a new school and transitioning to secondary school without a cohort of friends;

(ii) The expert opinion of the family report writer that a forced move to City B without the mother would be "devastating" for X at this stage;

(iii) My lack of confidence in the father's capacity to provide for X's emotional needs were X to live with him and experience this disruption and the distress predicted by the family report writer;

(iv) The risk that if X is required to move to Queensland without the mother, contrary to his views, his relationship with the father will be negatively impacted;

(v) The risk that if he moves to Queensland and the mother does not also move, X's relationship with her, being the person he is most closely attached to, may also be adversely impacted; and

(vi) The risk of X's relationship with Mr F not being maintained.

1. I have come to this decision after balancing those matters with the following countervailing considerations:

(a) The advantages of X living with the father in City B, including:

(i) Supporting X's relationship with the father and his paternal relatives in Queensland;

(ii) Reducing the mother's influence on X and the opportunities for her to undermine X's relationship with the father; and

(iii) Alleviating the stress on X of being exposed to the mother's narratives and allegations against the father, which the family report writer assessed clearly weighs heavily on him; and

(b) The disadvantages of X living with the mother in Melbourne, including:

(i) The risk the mother may not actively support X's relationship with the father as she says she will, notwithstanding recent positive signs of improvement in her support of their relationship; and

(ii) The risk of further litigation if the mother does not comply with the final orders I make, including contravention proceedings and/or an application to revisit X's care arrangements.

1. Having weighed these considerations and determined it is in X's best interests to live with the mother in Victoria, I find it is in X's best interests to spend time with the father during school term periods, monthly, in Victoria. This will be less disruptive for X during school periods than travelling to and from Queensland. It will also provide X with the opportunity for the father to be engaged in his life in Victoria, including attending at his school, weekend activities and meeting his friends. The order I make will provide for the father to collect X from school on Friday and for their time to conclude at 5.00 pm on Sunday.
2. The orders I make will also provide for X to spend extended time with the father in the event of public holidays, curriculum days or other non-school days coinciding with weekends they spend together, which the mother said she supported. The father and the independent children's lawyer proposed X spend time with the father from 3.00 pm on Fridays which are non-school days. The mother proposed 6.00 pm. The order I make will provide for X to spend time with the father from the conclusion of school the previous day if Friday is a non-school day and to be extended to 5.00 pm on Monday if Monday is a non-school day.
3. The parties ultimately agreed X spend the fourth weekend of each calendar month with the father during school term periods. They agreed there should be some flexibility in that schedule. I will therefore make an order that the father have the opportunity to nominate the third weekend in lieu of the fourth weekend each calendar month, by the end of the previous school term. This will allow the father to accommodate his work roster and to take up the opportunity of long weekends with X for example. This will balance the benefit to X of the father being able to utilise his rostered time off and leave for X to spend time with him and the need to provide X with the structure and stability of knowing when he will be spending time with the father. It will also allow the mother to make plans of her own with X, and avoid the need for the parties to negotiate changes to accommodate the father's roster unless they wish to do so, reducing the prospect of further conflict.
4. In relation to school holidays, the independent children's lawyer ultimately recommended X spend one half of the first and third term school holidays, all of the mid-year holidays, and one month of the long summer school holidays with the father. In making my decision about school holidays, I balance the importance to X of also having the opportunity to enjoy holiday time and the opportunity for extended travel with the mother, with the opportunity to spend some additional time with the father given they will spend limited time together during school term periods. The orders I make will provide for X to spend time with the father for the whole of the mid-year (term 2) school holidays and for half of all other school holidays, including the long summer school holidays. This accords with the recommendation of the family report writer shared under cross-examination.
5. The father sought X spend the first half of the holidays with him in odd numbered years, so that X will spend Christmas with him this year, for the first time since the parties' separation. I find that to be in X's best interests.
6. I will provide for X's time with the father during school holidays to conclude at 5.00 pm on the last day of the school holidays (arriving in Melbourne by that time) rather than 9.00 am on the first day of school term, given he may be travelling from Queensland to Melbourne.
7. The parties ultimately agreed to share the cost of X travelling between City B and Melbourne to spend time with the father during school holidays. They agree he may travel unaccompanied, save that the mother will accompany him on his first flight to City B. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed that if X refuses to travel unaccompanied (or if he does not meet airline requirements to travel unaccompanied), they will each accompany him on the flight to the other parent's care or the mother will arrange for Mr K to do so. They agree he is to fly on direct flights between City B and Melbourne and that there may not be direct flights available each day, in which case, they will book the next available direct flight. I will make orders reflecting that agreement.
8. I will provide for the mother to book X's flights to City B, at her expense, so that she may book to accompany him if he does not wish to travel unaccompanied. Likewise, I will provide for the father to book X's flights to Melbourne, at his expense. The orders I make will require the parties to consult with one another before booking flights but for them to then book flights at least 28 days in advance, to facilitate X spending time with the father during school holidays as ordered, and to provide the flight details/itinerary to the other parent within that timeframe. This will ensure it is clear where responsibility lies for booking and paying for flights and provide X with notice of his school holiday plans, consistently with the family report writer's recommendation that he be provide with stability and structure in his parenting arrangements. I will include an exception in respect of the requirement to book flights at least 28 days in advance, in respect of the holidays immediately following the making of final orders. I will make an order providing for changeover to take place at the gate from which X's flight departs rather than from the "departure counter" to provide clarity and to ensure each parent actively supports X to travel to the other parent's care.
9. The parties ultimately agreed to changeover during school term periods occurring to and from school where practicable and otherwise at a BP service station in Suburb C. The mother proposed changeover take place to and from X's music lessons on Fridays when applicable. I find that X's time with the father should be prioritised over his music lessons, as was ultimately conceded by the mother, particularly given there was no evidence adduced by the mother that lessons cannot be organised at alternate times. The orders I make will also provide for changeovers for school holidays that don't involve travel to City B, to take place at the same BP service station unless otherwise agreed.
10. The mother sought orders providing for X to spend time with each parent on X's birthday and their respective birthdays. Whilst the father did not join in seeking such an order, I will make an order providing for X to spend time with both parents for his birthday and their birthday if they are in the same location. For example, if the father travels to Melbourne or if the mother is in Queensland. I will also make an order suspending a period of X's time with the father on X's birthday and the mother's birthday if X and the mother are in the same location. I canvassed with the parties making orders for X to spend the weekend with the father before or after X's birthday but have decided against it, prioritising stability and predictability in X's care arrangements.
11. I will make an order providing for X to spend an additional weekend with the father on Father's Day weekend in Victoria, the mother agreeing that was preferable to her proposal for the father to travel to Victoria to spend only 24 hours with X for Father's Day. There is no need to make an order suspending X's time with the father on Mother's Day weekend (being the second Sunday in May), as this will be a weekend X is ordinarily in the care of the mother.
12. The mother sought an order providing for X to communicate with the father by phone at all reasonable times when he is not in school or bed and twice a week at times to be agreed and failing agreement on Wednesday and Sunday evenings between 7.00 pm and 7.30 pm. I will make that order, without the restriction on X being in school or bed given the requirement of reasonableness, and will also include provision for communication by video. The order I make will include an express obligation on the parties to facilitate that communication.
13. I accept the submission of the independent children's lawyer that X's time with the father should be protected to some extent from the mother's influence, so I will provide for phone calls between X and the mother while X is in the father's care only once a week, mid-week, so X and the father's weekends are not interrupted. The father can facilitate other communications at his discretion, depending on how things are going for X.

1. The parties agree to X attending confidential counselling. The terms of the order they propose is for counselling to be "with a view to re-establishing the relationship" between X and the father. I will instead make an order providing for the counselling to "support" X's relationship with the father, recognising their relationship has already been re-established. The order will authorise both parties to communicate with the counsellor, including to provide information about X, but will make it clear that his counselling is to be confidential, subject to any mandatory disclosure requirements, and X's counsellor is to be requested to explain that to him.

1. To make an injunction pursuant to section 68B of the Act in relation to X, I am required to be satisfied that it is appropriate for his welfare. Section 68B is informed by the best interests of the child but not governed by the paramountcy principle.[21] The Full Court in Bielen & Kozma[22] observed there is no definition of the "welfare" of the child in the Act and expressed the view that consideration of matters impacting upon the welfare of a child "necessarily involves focusing upon the immediate, medium and long-term impact of proposed orders upon the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being."
2. I suggested to counsel some of the injunctions sought by the parties, whilst reflecting appropriate sentiments (for example, not to discuss "sensitive issues" in X's presence), were vague, subjective, likely unenforceable and had the potential for future disputes between the parties. The parties acknowledged this via their counsel and I will not make those injunctions. There is no evidence to suggest either party has not encouraged X to refer to the other party as "Mum" or "Dad" and X is of an age he will refer to parents by name he chooses, so I will not make the injunctions proposed by the parties about the use of those and like terms. An injunction restraining the parties from making any derogatory comments about "friends and/or associates" of the parents online is in my view too broad and not supported by the evidence or submissions. That injunction will be confined to prohibit the making of derogatory comments about the parents, their partners or other family members. Whilst not issues canvassed during the final hearing, I will make the proposed injunctions in relation to the parties' use of physical discipline with X and their use of alcohol and illegal drugs because the parties join in seeking them.
3. Appropriately, neither party ultimately pursued the proposed injunction retraining the parties from relocating with X "outside of the region [he] is residing in" without first obtaining the consent of the other. I note the parties have joint decision-making responsibility which requires them to consult with one another and make joint decisions about major long-term issues relating to X, which includes changes to X's living arrangements that would make it significantly more difficult for him to spend time with a parent. They have agreed this will be expressly stated in the final parenting orders.
4. I will not make the orders agreed by the parties requiring the parties to return messages and phone calls to one another within forty-eight hours or as soon as practicable, finding such an order has potential to cause further disputes and stress to the parties in the event of unwelcome or inappropriate communication. I find both parties have the required capacity to assess if a particular message warrants an urgent reply (which sometimes may be less than 48 hours) or not.

1. I have made separate orders in relation to X travelling internationally and being issued with a passport, rather than a single order governing those two issues as proposed by the parties. The orders I make will permit the parties to travel overseas with X rather than permit X to travel overseas and will require the parties to apply for and obtain a passport for X upon the request of the other parent rather than permitting X to obtain a passport. This is because parenting orders set out the parties' obligations in respect of X rather than govern what X can and cannot do. I will provide for the mother to hold X's passport given he will live primarily with her, subject to her making X's passport available to the father for travel in accordance with the orders or as otherwise agreed.
2. The orders will require the parties to provide notice of 60 days for planned overseas travel for X and for specific travel details to be advised at least 30 days prior to travel. This will provide time for X's passport to be exchanged and will give X appropriate notice of travel plans, providing the structure and stability the family report writer recommended for him.

1. I will make other orders the parties have agreed upon but at times adopting slightly different wording, to reflect the wording of the Act, to refer to X by name, to avoid duplication, and to make the parties' obligations clear with the aim of avoiding further disputes between them. I am satisfied this will also assist to safeguard against the risk of family violence between the parties, noting the history of family violence allegations (which X is aware of) and previous family violence orders.

1. Rule 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) provides that upon the making of final orders in a proceeding, any interlocutory order made in the proceeding pending further order is automatically discharged and ceases to have continuing effect. I will nevertheless make an order confirming this is the case, so it is clear for the parties and to any third party who may have been provided with copies of interim orders made in the proceeding.

1. For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are in the best interest of the children and make orders in those terms.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and seventy-five (175) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge A. Humphreys.

[1] Amador & Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196; (2009) 43 Fam LR 268 at [88].

[2] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230 ("Pickford") at [80].

[7] [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 77 ALJR 1598 at [62] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ.

[8] Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230; (2007) FLC 93-343 at [72-73]; Sayer & Radcliffe and Anor [2012] FamCAFC 209; (2012) 48 Fam LR 298 at [47].

[9] Taylor & Barker [2007] Fam CA 1236; (2007) FLC 93-345 ("Taylor & Barker") at [54] referring to U v U [2002] HCA 36; (2002) FLC 93-112 ("U v U") and KB & TC [2005] FamCA 458; (2005) FLC 93-224.

[10] Morgan & Miles [2007] FamCA 1230; (2007) FLC 93-343 at [80-81]; Sayer & Radcliffe and Anor [2012] FamCAFC 209; (2012) 48 Fam LR 298 ("Sayer & Radcliffe and Anor") at [48].

[11] A v A: Relocation Approach [2000] FamCA 751; (2000) FLC 93-035 confirmed in Taylor & Barker.

[12] Sayer & Radcliffe and Anor at [48].

[14] U v U at [82], citing AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160 ("AMS v AIF").

[15] [2014] FamCAFC 232; (2014) FLC 93-622 at [66].

[16] Malcolm & Monroe [2011] FamCAFC 16; (2011) FLC 93-460 at [83] referring to AMS v AIF at [179] and U v U at [259 to 260].

[17] U v U, per Hayne J at [175] and [176], Gleeson CJ and McHugh J agreeing; and Gaudron J at [35].

[18] Morrall & Olmos [2017] FamCAFC 2, [42-43], referring to LJ Thorpe's analysis in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166; [2001] 2 WLR 1826 [emphasis from judgment].

[19] Timms & Payton [2015] FCCA 3324 at [28].

[21] Hedlund & Hedlund (2021) FLC 94-065 citing previous authorities with approval.

[22] (2022) FLC 94-123; [2022] FedCFamC1A 221 at [30].