Marley & Chadwick (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 31 (19 January 2026)

1. Pursuant to section 65DA(2) and section 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, 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 parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in Annexure A and the Fact Sheet from the Federal Circuit and Family Court attached hereto and these particulars are included in and form part of these orders.

1. The child X born in 2010 ("the child") live with the mother in Australia.
2. The child spend such time with the father as may be agreed in writing.

1. The father have liberty to rely on his affidavit filed on 16 January 2026.
2. The operation of Rule 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) be dispensed with such that the annexures to the affidavits filed by the parties be admitted into evidence.
3. The parties do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to facilitate the child attending O School in Adelaide from the commencement of the 2026 Australian school year.
4. The parties each be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining each of them from:

(a) abusing, denigrating or rebuking the other parent or any member of the other parent's family in the presence or hearing of the child or permitting any other person to do so; and

(b) discussing these proceedings or any dispute between the parties with the child save for the purpose necessary to inform her of the arrangements provided for in these orders.

1. The mother is released from the undertaking given by her on 10 July 2025.
2. The mother is at liberty to reimburse herself for the costs of the flights to Australia in December 2025 from the funds held on trust for the parties by C Conveyancing.
3. The father and his solicitor have leave to attend electronically for all future hearings other than the trial unless otherwise ordered.
4. The proceedings be adjourned to 25 February 2026 at 10.00 am for mention before Senior Judicial Registrar Schirripa.

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

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

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

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

1. These reasons were delivered ex tempore and have been settled from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected, citations have been added and amendments have been made to make the orally delivered reasons clearer and easier to read.
2. The interim application presently before the Court relates to the immediate schooling arrangements for the child X who was born in 2010 and is aged 15. In addition to the parenting aspects of the proceedings, the parties are engaged in property proceedings in this court pursuant to section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
3. By way of background, the applicant mother was born in 1970. She is an Australian citizen and resides in Adelaide, South Australia. The respondent father was born in 1970 in the United States of America ("USA"). He is a citizen of the USA and resides in Country B.
4. The parties commenced cohabitation in Country B in October 2001 (according to the father) or October 2002 (according to the mother) and married there in 2005.
5. There are two children of the parties' marriage being X and Mr H who was born in 2007 and is aged 18. Both children of the marriage were born in Country B and are dual citizens of Australia and the USA.
6. Throughout their marriage, the parties resided with the children in Country B. Prior to their separation, they commenced making arrangements to move from Country B to Australia with the children. In January 2023, the mother and X, who was then aged 12, moved to and commenced living in Adelaide, South Australia. X was enrolled in and commenced attending L School in Adelaide. Mr H remained in Country B until mid-2023, at which time he commenced living in Australia with X and the mother. He continues to live with the mother in Australia.
7. Although there is a dispute between the parties as to when their separation occurred, it is an agreed fact that the father did not ultimately move to Australia, and he has remained living in Country B. It is also an agreed fact that during 2024, X expressed unhappiness at L School. The father alleges that she was also unhappy with life in Australia more generally and the maternal family more broadly. This is disputed by the mother.
8. During 2024 the father entered into discussions directly with X about the prospect of her attending D School which is a school in State P in the USA. The father and X formed a plan for this to occur. The mother discovered this plan only after the father had contacted L School in relation to the proposed transfer.
9. The mother ultimately consented to X's attendance at D School. Her evidence is that she did so reluctantly and despite reservations about whether it was best for X under significant pressure from the father after he had already formed the plan directly with X. This is supported by the father's own evidence, which is that he explained to the mother after the event that he had spoken to X, who had settled on D School. Contemporaneous emails relied upon by the father demonstrate hesitation on behalf of both X and the mother.
10. X commenced attending D School in early January 2025. It is an agreed fact that X was unsettled upon commencement at that school and that from as early as February 2025 she expressed feeling "trapped" there. The mother's evidence is that X expressed feeling homesick and wanted to return to Australia. The father alleges that the mother was "destabilising" X.
11. X left D School and spent time with the father's father and stepmother ("the paternal grandparents") who reside in State N, in the USA, on 31 January 2025. This was initially intended to be only a weekend trip but was extended for three additional days by the father as a result of X's anxiety. During her journey back to the school, X had a panic attack and talked about running away, following which she returned to the paternal grandparents' residence on 6 February 2025 and remained there until she returned to D School on an unspecified date which appears to have been sometime in March 2025.
12. The matter came before the Court urgently on 10 December 2025 in circumstances in which the parties were unable to agree on the arrangements for X during what was then the impending Christmas break, when D School was to be closed.
13. The mother sought that X travel to Australia for the Christmas break and thereafter remain living in Australia and attend school here.
14. The father disputed the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the application on the basis that X was neither present in nor habitually resident in Australia.[1] His proposal, in the event that the matter was determined by the Court, was that X remain in the USA over Christmas, or in the alternative, travel to Country B, and that she then return and resume her schooling at D School.
15. On the day of that hearing I determined that the Court did have jurisdiction to determine the dispute. I ordered that X spend the Christmas break in Australia with the mother. Reasons for those orders were delivered on 16 December 2025 ("the December 2025 reasons").[2]
16. The parties were able to obtain an urgent private child impact report and the matter was listed for a further interim hearing this day with respect to the issues of X's ongoing place of residence and schooling arrangements.
17. In accordance with the orders of 10 December 2025, X departed the USA in December 2025 and arrived in Australia two days later in 2025. She presently remains in Australia. At the hearing this day the parties entered into productive negotiations, which is to their significant credit, and the Court has been told that a final minute of consent orders will be forthcoming with respect to parenting matters. The parties are to be congratulated for their efforts in this regard.
18. The parties have also agreed to an interim order that X live with the mother in Australia. The sole issue for determination is whether X's enrolment in school in Australia should be contingent on the question of whether she can be enrolled in year 10.
19. The father consents to X's commencement at O School in Adelaide if she can be enrolled in year 10, but otherwise seeks that she return to D School until the conclusion of the USA school year, which is in May or June of this year, with the question of what happens thereafter to be determined at a later date.
20. The mother seeks that X commence at O School irrespective of whether she can commence in year 10 or not. It is common ground that both schooling options, that is, commencement at O School, and return to D School, are available to X.
21. The evidence before the court includes WhatsApp messages exchanged between X and the father during 2025. Throughout those messages X repeatedly told her father that she was very unhappy in the USA and wanted to return to Australia. Those messages included, but were not limited to, the following:

(a) "Dad I really want to go to Australia that is the only thing that will make my happy. I miss my life I hate it in America I don't fit in here. If you really care about me you would let me go to Australia. I want to go to a new school and be around my friends."

(b) "I say it to you every time I talk to you about how I want to go home to Australia and you always tell me I can do whatever will make me happy yet you do the complete opposite."

(c) "I hate my life everyday and you tell me I can leave if I want I tell you everyday I can't do it anymore I want to leave I hate it here but yet you still keep it [sic] here."

(d) "You care more about school then [sic] my wellbeing you would rather see me hatting [sic] my life everyday then [sic] see me thriving at the country that I call hkme [sic]."

(e) "...I didn't know that when I came to D School I would [not be] allowed to go home because you wouldn't let me."

(f) "...I would leave tmrw if I could."

(g) "I would stay back 10 years if I got to be at home."

(h) "...anything to go home..."

(i) "Your [sic] fighting to keep me here which I hate."

1. Over the course of these communications, the father responded to X by giving his express consent to her returning to live full-time and attend school in Australia, and falsely told her that it was her mother who was standing in the way of that occurring. He also engaged in significant and concerning denigration of the mother in his messages to X, including by blaming her for X's unhappiness, and actively embroiled X in the dispute between her parents to a concerning degree.
2. The child impact report was prepared by Ms F and was released on 30 December 2025. I have had regard to the entirety of that report. Relevant passages include the following:
   1. The mother presented appropriately during her interview. She was reflective and balanced in her construct of the relational issues within the family system.

...

1. The father's presentation during the interview concerned the consultant. He frequently, throughout the duration of the interview, step away from the computer screen in attempt to manage his emotional regulation. He also used grounding techniques and breathing strategies to assist with this. He stated he experiences panic attacks when he is taking about children and money.

...

1. Whilst the mother was categorical there was no evidence of family violence during the relationship in [Country B], she described behaviours once she had relocated to Australia which indicate the father is a perpetrator of family violence. That is the mother described being digitally surveilled and verbally abused whereby she adapted her behaviour in attempt to assuage the father's concerns she was being unfaithful.

...

1. The father asserts the mother has and continues to be financially abusive. He said he had no visibility to their bank accounts, that during the relationship the mother gave him a "very small allowance" to live on and that the mother has strategically financially "destroyed" him. Furthermore, the father alleges the mother tried "to kill me to get all the money" by having him committed in 2011/2012. He believes the mother is still trying to kill him so she can have the entirety of their assets including his retirement through raising concerns about his mental health in attempts for him to be committed to a psychiatric facility.

...

1. Whereas the mother holds concerns for the father's current mental health state. She reported the father has a history of mental health issues with an involuntarily admission for a month in a psychiatric facility in either 2011 or 2012. Preceding this admission the mother said the father was under significant stress due to being under suspicion at work for a "hacking incident". She said the father was demonstrating paranoid symptoms, acopia, and being unable to sleep. Therefore, the mother arranged for the father to see a psychiatrist which results in him being detained and receiving a formal diagnosis of BPAD (Bipolar affective disorder). She reported the father ceased his medication regime shortly after being discharged and that he has not demonstrated any symptomatic behaviour which would indicate his mental state was compromised until this current dispute. She said that since the commencement of this dispute the father has become 'extremely paranoid" about people's actions which has resulted him terminating contact with mutual friends, surveilling her and accusing her of having an affair, and accusing a mutual friend of hiding the mother's belongings so they are not included in the property settlement.

...

1. Whilst the father acknowledged a historical and current mental health issues, his account regarding his mental health was unclear with his conversation being tangential, and therefore difficult to understand the chronological timeline of his mental health.

2. The father's overall presentation throughout the interview was alarming. He frequently had to step away from the computer due to struggling to regulate his anxiety, and it was apparent his emotional dysregulation was interfering with the congruency of his narrative. Furthermore, there were paranoid themes to the content of his conversation as well as delusional tone. He spoke about his belief the mother tried to kill him by having him committed to a psychiatric facility as she knew he would not "survive" a hospital admission. The father believes the mother had choreographed his admission with the detaining psychiatrist.

3. He spoke about discovering antihistamines "cut my stress levels" and his panic attacks, but that he had a black out from taking antihistamines which resulted in a car accident. The father spoke of "severe life-threatening panic attacks" which were triggered by talking to a counsellor about protecting the child, and by discovering the child and the mother had planned for the child to only spend a week in [Country B] before going to Australia. He said as a result he had to cease attending upon the counsellor and that he had a car accident due to finding out the mother and the child's plans.

4. Furthermore, the father did not explain to the consultant what he meant by "life threatening panic attacks" even though several attempts were made to understand what the father meant by this. The father did explain he can not speak to mental health professional as it triggers life threatening panic attacks because historically he had his sister involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment which had long lasting detrimental implications on his sister's quality of life.

...

1. In the context of discussing the father's mental health he said he knew what he needed to say in order to avoid being detained to psychiatric care. This is important to consider I the event the father is psychologically assessed, accessing his past metal health records may be of benefit.

...

1. The child presented as pragmatic and mature for her age. She understood the purpose of the interview was due to the mother and the father "fighting in Court" but she said she did not know the details of the dispute. Additionally, the child said she "doesn't really mind" when she was informed the parties would know the content of her interview.

...

1. The child reported change is relatively easy for her as she had made friends "everywhere" she goes. She said she enjoys tennis and 'hanging with my friends", that she enjoyed growing up in [Country B] as there were "not a lot of people " so you become 'very close", that she really liked Australia as she made "good friends' whilst she was as living there, and she likes the people and the school she is at in America. However, the child said although she likes her current school and the people at the school she does not like being there. She said this is because there is "always a lot of drama with my parents", asserting that "everyday is a new issue". In furtherance, the child said the father "likes to make things up", telling people "I'm struggling even though I don't really speak with him".

2. When the consultant asked about the "drama" with her parents the child clarified it was mainly the father, saying he takes "screen shots and sends it to school". She added the mother does not contact the school. When the consultant asked the child how she would feel about remaining at her current school if the drama was to cease the child said she would "like it more but not as much as being home in Australia", adding that she does not "like it here" in "general". The child's preference is to be in Australia with the mother and her brother.

...

1. The child described a close relationship with the mother and said they speak every day, and she feels confident to confide in the mother about her worries and feels the mother listens and supports her. She said she mostly seeks her mother for comfort and support when she is worried, but when she is in the USA, she will seek comfort from her paternal grandparents, clarifying this is only when she is spending time with them.

2. The child recalled a close relationship with the father "when I was younger" stating "he was caring and stuff". However, now she feels the father "is a different person". She spoke about the father "always" instigating "drama" which "stresses me out", commenting that the father yells and "always ends up hanging up on me" because she tells him she wants to "come home". She said that she will sometimes talk to the father about her worries by she knows that if she does try to talk to him about her concerns and issues he will "either screen shot it and thing happens or scream at my and hang up".

...

1. It is apparent the child has been exposed to, and feels caught in the middle of the parental conflict. She said the impact of this is that she feels "stressed about it" and as a result feels she cannot focus when she is at school. Additionally, it makes her feel angry at the father "because he wants to create dama [sic] even though I tell him not to, over and over". It is the consultant's opinion that the child's desire to return to live in Australia is her attempt at ending the current distress she is experiencing as a result of the parental dispute about her schooling.

...

1. She felt 2 in [Country B] when she was visiting the father during school breaks as she was "scared he would hit me". She further commented during these occasions the father would become aggressive and "yell at me more" when she said she wanted to go home to Australia. As a result, she said she would stay at friends' houses as she was "scared". The child was asked why she thought the father was behaving this way she believes it is to try and "make Mum feel asa [sic] sad as possible", stating she feels like the father does not want to mother to be happy.

2. The child was clear she wants to return to live and complete her secondary schooling in Australia. She said when she is in the USA "I'm always worried about coming home because Dad is fighting it in Court". The content of the child's conversation indicated she has felt betrayed by the father. She reflected that the father encouraged her to try her current school and said if she did not like it, she could leave but that he has since prevented her from leaving the school and has asked the school to withhold her passport.

3. When the child was asked about spending time with the father, she said she did not want to see the father in [Country B] but she would "maybe" want to see the father in the USA but she would only want to do this if her brother was with her because she is scared the father will be "angry" at her.

4. The child was asked how she would feel if it was decided she will return to the school in USA she became teary, wiping her tears away as she spoke, she said if she had to return to the USA for school she would be afraid she will have to stay there until she is 18 years of age.

...

1. The child made clear in her interview she wishes to return to Australia to live with the mother, and the non-subject child. It is likely that part of the reason for the child wanting to return to live with her mother is an attempt to cease the current dispute. It is also likely an attempt to mitigate the child's concerns that if she was to continue her schooling in the USA, she will be prevented from returning to Australia.

2. Furthermore, it is also likely the child's wish to return to Australia is that her initial request to attend [redacted] school was an attempt to create distance between her and the family conflict and to escape her adjustment issues regarding her parent's separation and relocating to another country. This attempt has not provided the desired outcome of creating distance but rather, has increased her entanglement in the parental issues.

3. Irrespective, given the child's age, if her views are not considered it is likely to create resentment and fracture in her relationships with her parents. Enforcing a time spending arrangement with an adolescent child where their views have not been considered is difficult and is likely to lead to conflict in the parent - child relationships. Fractured relationships between a child and their parents increases a child's vulnerability to outside influences and creates a sense of being alone in managing their psychological wellbeing.

...

1. In regard to risk factors, this assessment identifies family violence remains a risk factor in this matter and may need further assessment if this dispute remains unresolved.

2. Similarly, the consultant opines that the father's mental health is a potential risk factor in this matter and thus the Court is likely to be assisted by information from a psychiatric/psychological assessment of the father regarding the dispute about his mental health.

3. as to the child's safety and wellbeing, further assessment of this may be of benefit in the context of the father's mental health and the current dispute remaining unresolved.

...

1. given the recent fracture in the child's relationship with the father it would be of benefit for the child and father to receive therapeutic support in repairing their relationship. Particularly as it has been reported by all who were interviewed, for the purpose of this report, the historical closeness in the child's relationship with the father.

1. The process of decision-making in relation to the making of parenting orders is as set out in Part VII of the Act. Section 60CA of the Act provides that when deciding whether to make a decision to a child, the court must consider the best interest of the child as the paramount consideration. Section 60CC sets out how those best interests are to be determined and includes a list of considerations to be taken into account.
2. It is well established that for an interim determination such as this, where the evidence is untested, the court must be circumspect with respect to findings of fact in relation to disputed issues and the process of inquiry is necessarily curtailed.[3] However, the fact that evidence is untested does not mean that it can be disregarded and the likely impact on the child of each available cause of action, if the evidence is ultimately accepted, must be taken into account.[4]
3. The decision presently under consideration is not simply a decision as to schooling in the usual sense,[5] because it involves not just the question of which educational institution X is to attend, but an important decision as to whether X will remain living on a full-time basis with her mother and brother in Australia or travel to spend most of her time in a country in which neither of her parents resides.

What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child

1. In relation to this consideration, in the December 2025 reasons, I said as follows:
   1. In considering [X's] safety, it is necessary for the Court to consider (relevantly) 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).[6]
   2. "Family violence" is defined in section 4AB of the Act to mean "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful." It is not necessary that violent or threatening behaviour coerce or control or cause fear in order to be characterised as family violence.[7]
   3. A person may subject another to coercive control without subjectively intending to do so. Intention is not a necessary element of coercive or controlling behaviour. A person who engages in such behaviour may be completely oblivious to the impact of their behaviour, but the behaviour may nevertheless coerce or control the other family member and fall within the definition of family violence. The focus is on the behaviour and its impact.[8]
   4. Section 60CG of the Act provides, relevantly, 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 that the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
   5. Although the Court is not presently in a position to make findings, it must be noted that there are aspects of the father's conduct which, even on his own evidence and the available documentary evidence, give rise to concern for the potential that he has engaged in controlling conduct with respect to mother and [X]. These include, but are not limited to, his conduct in unilaterally making arrangements for [X's] attendance at [D School] without involving the mother until such times the plans were significantly developed despite the fact that [X] was living with the mother at that time, and his express refusal to allow the mother access to the online platform at [D School] used for authorising student absences.
   6. The mother's evidence (albeit untested) is of further controlling conduct on the part of the father towards both herself and [X], including subjecting her to electronic surveillance and tracking her movements prior to separation; monitoring her communications with [X] following separation; and refusing to allow [X] to travel to Australia, hiding her passports and causing her to feel like a "prisoner" when she spent time with him in [Country B] during her summer break in 2025.
   7. [X] herself expressed in the WhatsApp messages that the father's conduct towards her has caused her to feel fear.
   8. Furthermore, the WhatsApp message reveal concerning communications from the father to [X] (as discussed in greater detail below), including significant denigration of the mother and involvement of [X] in the dispute between her parents, the which may constitute psychological abuse.[9]
   9. The mother also expressed concern about the father's mental health, though there is limited evidence before the Court with respect to this issue.
   10. The father alleges that [X] was subjected to emotional abuse and denigration of him when living with the mother between January 2023 and January 2025, though unlike the allegations made by the mother, there is no indication in the mother's own evidence or in any independent records to assist the Court with respect to the veracity of these allegations. This alleged conduct not precluded [X] from expressing a strong desire to return to reside with the mother.
   11. As a result of these matters, there is reason for caution with respect to the issue of [X's] safety, particularly her emotional safety, in the care of the father, at least until the Court is in receipt of independent expert evidence as to [X's] best interests.
2. The concerns about the father engaging in controlling conduct towards the mother and X have only increased since the previous hearing.
3. The mother's evidence is that notwithstanding the order made on 10 December 2025 providing for X to travel to Australia, the father declined a request made by X on her school's online platform for leave to undertake the court-ordered travel and demanded that the mother not be given access to that platform.
4. How the father could have considered it appropriate either to reject a request for authorisation of travel that had been ordered by the Court or to dictate that there be any restriction on the mother's access to the school's platform is not known to the Court because his affidavit, which was filed late and well after that filed by the mother, is entirely silent with respect to his actions in this regard.
5. Unsurprisingly, the mother's evidence was that X was distressed by the father's actions. The father has adduced no evidence to suggest that he gave this entirely foreseeable consequence any thought whatsoever, nor that he has since reflected on the impact of his conduct in this regard on X.
6. Another significant cause for concern with respect to X's safety relates to the father's mental health. As already indicated, the child impact report expressed significant concerns about this. Although he is recorded as having acknowledged a history of mental health issues when recorded by Ms F, the father sought to distance himself from this in his subsequently filed affidavit, in which he sought to blame the mother for his past involuntary mental health detention. Notwithstanding this, he confirmed in his affidavit that he had experienced "life-threatening panic attacks" (for which he blamed a past therapist for giving him what he called "unsolicited advice"), and he acknowledged having had to "actively try his best to keep from going into panic" when interviewed by Ms F. The father's evidence with respect to these issues adds to and deepens the concerns raised by Ms F.
7. The mother expressed concern that the father's mental health issues were impacting on his ability to make child-focused decisions. This concern is supported by the evidence before the Court.
8. These issues are of concern notwithstanding the limited scope of the decision being made as to schooling, because the history of this matter involves the father, even on his own evidence, having exposed X to conduct which represented a significant threat to her emotional safety during her time at D School, and there is a real risk that if she returns there that conduct will continue.
9. It was submitted on behalf of the father that it could be hoped that embroilment of X in the parental conflict would cease upon the making of court orders. Unfortunately, the father's conduct following the making of court orders on the last occasion and his failure to take any responsibility for his role in undermining X's emotional safety and wellbeing have ensured that the Court can have no such confidence.
10. Furthermore, the father's brazen attempt to reject X's travel request in the face of a binding court order raises very serious concerns about what other actions he might take in future to control X's movements if she were to return to D School (being a place where the father has taken steps to ensure that the mother can have no influence and no say), and the Court can have no confidence that any orders regulating his conduct in this regard would be complied with.

1. Although they are not determinative,[10] X is 15 years of age and her views should be given significant weight. This is supported by the observations as to her maturity in the child impact report.
2. The father relies on hearsay evidence, both in the form of his own account of statements he says have been made to X by him, and in the form of statements made by members of staff at D School in emails to the parties about statements said to have been made to them by X (being second-hand hearsay). Whilst the hearsay evidence is admissible in parenting proceedings by virtue of the operation of section 102NL of the Act, care must be taken with the weight that is given to such evidence, and its hearsay nature cannot be overlooked in considering potential limits to its reliability.
3. The reliability of the hearsay evidence in question in the present matter is further undermined by the fact that it is inconsistent and contradictory in nature. In my view, the far more reliable evidence of X's views comes from the WhatsApp messages, which are direct evidence in her own words, and from the contact of the child impact report, which is the report of an independent expert witness. The evidence of X's views, as contained in the WhatsApp messages and the contents of her interview with Ms F, is consistent and clear. She has strongly and repeatedly indicated that she wishes to be with the mother in Australia and attend school here.
4. In the December 2025 reasons, I said as follows:
   1. The father's position appears to be that it was appropriate for him to have acted upon [X's] expressions of unhappiness at her school in Australia and to have acceded to her begging to change to an alternative that was at that time unknown to her (staying away from her parents in the USA) at the age of 14; but the Court should disregard her expressions of unhappiness at her school in the USA and her repeated requests to return to an arrangement that is largely known to her (residing in Australia with the mother and [Mr H]) at the age of 15.
   2. The father's position is effectively that [X's] wishes should be taken at face value and acted upon by the adults in her life only when they align with his own wishes, because to the extent that they differ from his, they must have resulted from "brainwashing," manipulation and destabilisation by the mother. This position is difficult to accept in circumstances in which [X] has spent less time with the mother than with the father during 2025 and it is the father, and not the mother, who has been demonstrated to have repeatedly engaged in inappropriate communications with [X] and embroiled her in the parental dispute.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child

1. In relation to this factor, in the December 2025 reasons I said as follows:
   1. As a teenager, [X] has an increasing need for independence. However, she is not an adult, and she continues to need support and nurturing from her caregivers and connection to her family, particularly her parents.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. In relation to this consideration, in the December 2025 reasons, I said as follows:

1. The parties each make allegations of deficits in the capacity of the other to meet [X's] needs, particularly her emotional and psychological needs. By way of example, the father alleges that the mother was often "cold and distant" to [X], leading [X] to "crave" her attention. He also alleges that the mother has, in the past, unreasonably berated [X] and subjected her to denigration of the father. Those allegations are largely disputed and untested, which precludes the making of findings at this stage of the proceedings. 2. However, there are aspects of the evidence before the Court which are largely undisputed and which give rise to concern with respect to the capacity of the father, in particular, to meet [X's] emotional needs, and which cannot be ignored. These include:

(a) The contents of his communications with [X] as demonstrated in the WhatsApp messages. For example, the father expressly told [X], entirely inconsistently with his position before the Court, that he consented to her leaving the USA and returning to Australia (framed by him as having been an "attempt to placate" her). The WhatsApp messages also demonstrate that he repeatedly denigrated the mother to [X], embroiled [X] in the parenting dispute, discussed the proceedings with her and told her that the mother was to blame for her unhappiness. This conduct was entirely inappropriate and can only reasonably have been expected to cause [X] emotional harm. > > (b) His conduct (to which he has admitted without any acknowledgment of its inappropriateness) in making plans with [X] directly for her to leave Australia and commence at [D School] without first having reached an agreement with the mother, with whom [X] was living. > > (c) Relentless criticisms of and a dismissive approach towards the mother, which are evident not only throughout his affidavit but in his communications to the mother as well as to third parties such as staff members at [D School]. These criticisms not accompanied by any acknowledgement or indication of reflection about his own role in the fact that [X] is embroiled in parental conflict. The evidence does not demonstrate that the mother communicates to or about the father in the same fashion. > > (d) His primary proposal that [X] spend Christmas without either of her parents in a place where she has expressly asserted that she is miserable, in favour of spending it with her mother and brother. The father did not propose to travel to the USA to spend Christmas with [X], instead proposing that if nobody else could be found to care for her there, she should travel to [Country B], where she has expressed a clear wish not to go. The father's proposal was effectively that [X] spend Christmas in any available place other than with her mother in Australia. This proposal is not child-focused and on one available interpretation was based on considerations of potential forensic advantage to him and his desire not to cede control over [X's] location rather than on any real or meaningful consideration of [X's] likely lived experience of spending Christmas away from both her parents. > > (e) His refusal to countenance the possibility that [X's] strongly expressed wishes may be genuine. One example of this is his evidence that he "entirely disagree[s]" with an assertion made by the mother that [X] had told her in November 2025 that she was ready to come home, despite that fact that [X] has repeatedly said precisely the same thing to him.

2. I note, in particular, that the father's admitted conduct in lying to X about being permitted to return to Australia and attend school here in order to "placate" her, as he put it, came after he had expressly acknowledged in email correspondence to the mother, being correspondence annexed to his own affidavit, that "giving a child false hope constitutes one of the most harmful forms of emotional abuse." His willingness to subject X to such conduct, in light of that understanding, is a matter of significant concern.
3. The contents of the child impact report add to the existing concerns about the father's capacity to provide for X's needs, particularly her emotional needs. This bolsters the need for caution in returning X to an environment in which the father has placed himself in a position of control to the point of dictating that the mother be denied even basic elements of her role as X's parent such as access to the platform on which travel from the school could be authorised.

The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so

1. Despite the nature of the dispute currently before the Court being limited to the question of schooling, because one of the proposals is a potential return to school away from any members of her family, this factor remains relevant.
2. As to this factor, in the December 2025 reasons I said as follows:
   1. It would clearly be of benefit to [X] to have a relationship with both of her parents if it is safe (including emotionally safe) to do so.
   2. Each of the parties has made allegations about the quality and emotional safety of [X's] relationship with her other parent. The untested nature of the evidence precludes significant findings, but as already discussed, there is largely undisputed before the Court, particularly the WhatsApp messages, which suggests a need for caution with respect to the father, particularly at this early stage when expert evidence is not yet available.
   3. The WhatsApp messages also suggest that there may be a risk that [X's] relationship with her father will be irreparably damaged if her clearly expressed wishes are ignored.
   4. [X] has two brothers. One brother, [Mr H], with whom she has lived for all of her life other than some brief periods of interruption, lives in Australia.
   5. The father deposes to there being an "excellent and loving" relationship between [X] and her half-brother [Mr J], who is present in the USA. However, there is no evidence of the extent of their past interactions or how much time they have previously spent together.
3. The contents of the child impact report have only added to those concerns.
4. It is clear from all accounts that X previously shared a close relationship with the father. Unfortunately for her, it would appear that this is not presently the case.
5. The father alleges that the deterioration in X's relationship with him has resulted from X having been "severely alienated" from him by the mother. There is no evidence before the Court, other than the father's bald assertion, to support this suggestion.
6. The fact that the father holds this view suggests that he has very limited insight into the impact of his own conduct on X and her emotional wellbeing, including but not limited to his manipulative conduct as demonstrated in the WhatsApp messages and his repeated attempts to refuse authorisation for X's travel to Australia for Christmas contrary to her strong wishes, which continued even after orders were made.
7. The father's willingness to blame the mother for the deterioration in his relationship with X must also be considered through the lens of what would appear to be a broader tendency on his behalf to blame her for all manner of things that have occurred. This includes blaming her for his past mental health admission, for a car accident he had in Country B while the mother was in Australia, and even for his own sworn evidence that X no longer holds a right of residency in Country B, being an assertion which he told Ms F had been "manufactured" by the mother despite it having been in his own affidavit.
8. The only evidence before the Court demonstrating any manipulation or emotional abuse of X is the father's own emotionally abusive communications with her in the WhatsApp messages.
9. Despite the Court's serious concerns about this issue having been raised and made very clear in the earlier judgment, and despite the issues raised in the child impact report, the father has made no effort even to address his concerning conduct in this regard, much less shown any contrition or insight into its damaging effects on X. His subsequently filed affidavit simply ignores this highly pertinent issue.
10. The child impact report suggests that X's relationships with the mother and Mr H are close and supportive and should be fostered. This supports her having the opportunity to live with them on a full-time basis rather than being away at school.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child

1. In this regard, I note that although there is some evidence to the contrary, there is extensive evidence before the Court, in addition to her expressed views, suggesting that X was unsettled at D School. This includes (but is not limited to):

(a) the events of early 2025 involving her having needed time away from the school;

(b) emails from the school including an email expressing concern that she was spending extensive time communicating with family rather than immersing herself in the school community;

(c) the father's own evidence that she was "destabilised" (for which he attributes blame to the mother); and

(d) a message sent by the father to X in September 2025, in which he questioned whether she could "at least finish" the school year, which strongly suggests that he was not confident that she could.

1. The father suggests that X might need to repeat a year of school if she were to return to school in Australia. There is no evidence before the court, save for the father's unsupported assertion, to support this suggestion. The communications received by the parties from the proposed Australian school, which are before the Court, suggest that the intention is that X be enrolled for year 10, which is appropriate for her age, and they further suggest that this is in accordance with the school's usual policy.
2. In any event, this consideration is, in my view, significantly outweighed by the other considerations to which I must have regard when assessing X's best interests. The father has given evidence that if it remains her wish after the conclusion of the USA school year, X could then transition to school in Australia, which he considers would afford her greater stability. He has not, however, committed to that as part of his proposal before the Court this day.
3. I do not agree that this would provide stability to X. The Australian school year commences in the coming weeks, and if X is to commence school in Australia at all, it makes much more sense that this occur at the commencement of the school year with the rest of her cohort. A further semester of uncertainty and potential continuation of the type of conduct to which the father has subjected X, in relation to which he has demonstrated no insight, much less remorse, would only be expected to have a detrimental impact on X.
4. It is a shame that the Court does not know with certainty whether X can commence in year 10 this year, although it does appear likely. It is apparent from the evidence of both parties that the school enrolment interview, which would have enabled this to be confirmed prior to this hearing, did not proceed as a result of the father having declined the invitation sent to him by the school and having failed to respond to their email correspondence with respect to the interview. The father deposed that this had been inadvertent, and it was suggested on his behalf that it may have been some kind of automated system error, perhaps arising from limited time between the invitation being sent and the occurrence of the interview. Although I cannot make findings at this stage, I accept the submission that this suggestion, for which there was no evidence, should be viewed with considerable scepticism.
5. In any event, I do not share the father's view that the decision as to whether X returns to D School should be contingent on whether she can commence in year 10 at the commencement of the coming Australia school year. If she ends up commencing in year 9 because that is what is assessed by education professionals as being appropriate for her needs, then so be it. There are many much more serious considerations going to X's best interests, such as her emotional safety and the question of whether she should be sent back to the USA without either of her parents against her strong express wishes, than the question of which year level she will go into in Australia.
6. Having regard to and balancing all of these considerations, I am satisfied that X's best interests will be met by remaining in Australia, living on a full time with her mother and brother and recommencing her education in Australia, rather than by returning to D School.
7. In my view, it would be contrary to X's best interests to force her to return to the USA, where she has expressed significant unhappiness in the face of her strongly expressed views, particularly when her mother is willing and able to care for her in Australia.

I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Parker.

[1] In reliance on section 111CD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[2] Marley & Chadwick [2025] FedCFamC1F 922.

[3] Goode & Goode [2006] FamCA 1346; (2006) FLC 93-286 at [66].

[4] Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104; (2015) FLC 93-654; Salah & Salah [2016] FamCAFC 100; (2016) FLC 93-713.

[5] And is to be distinguished from that discussed in authorities including Re G: Children's Schooling [2000] FamCA 462; (2000) FLC 93-025.

[6] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC(2A).

[7] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 (per Aldridge & Carew JJ, with whom McClelland DCJ agreed).

[8] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249.

[9] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 4 (definition of abuse).

[10] Bondelmonte & Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8; (2017) 259 CLR 662.