Mireille & Peleus [2025] FedCFamC1F 800 | Case summary

The mother be solely responsible for making long term decisions relating to health and medical (including psychological) matters concerning X.
For the purpose of paragraph 2, the mother is to notify the father of any medical appointments attended by X, including providing the father with the reason for the appointment and the outcome of the appointment (including any diagnosis, prognosis, assessment or medication prescribed by the relevant health professional).
As to all matters concerning health and medical decisions about X: -

Mireille & Peleus [2025] FedCFamC1F 800 | Case summary | Zoe

[38]

These are parenting proceedings which concern one child, X born in 2016. X is nine years old and is in Grade 4 at a school in Melbourne.
The mother is the applicant in these proceedings. She instituted these proceedings on 25 May 2023 following her removal from the former matrimonial home on in mid-2023 as a result of a Family Violence Safety Notice and related interim Family Violence Intervention Order ("IVO") with the father and X listed as protected persons. Following the mother's removal from the former matrimonial home, the parents could not agree about arrangements for X to spend time with or communicate with the mother.
When the matter commenced in May 2023, X was living with the father and spending limited time with the mother following her parent's separation. These proceedings were later allocated for inclusion on the Evatt List on 20 June 2023. Interim Orders of this Court resulted in an shared care regime for X moving between her parents. On 5 October 2023, following the release of a Family Report from Dr E, the father's time with X was reduced to three hours supervised time per week. Those Orders were by consent. Following an updated Family Report dated 15 March 2024 the father's time with X reduced to 90 minutes per week on a supervised basis.
At the time the matter came to final hearing, X was spending 90 minutes of supervised time per week with her father. X's time with her father had not progressed since Orders were made on 5 October 2023. At the conclusion of the trial, the parties consented to interim Orders which increased the father's time with X to consecutive daytime Saturdays and thereafter, in early 2025, to each alternate weekend from Saturday until Sunday. In accordance with the interim Orders, X is currently spending time with her father on each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school Friday until Sunday at 5.00pm.
The gravamen of the mother's case is that the father poses a risk to X of continuing enmeshment. She says that the father lacks insight, is unable or unwilling to support X's relationship with her and prioritises his own needs over X's. She says he has a disordered personality style (narcissism). At the conclusion of the case, counsel for the mother made it clear that the mother was no longer running an unacceptable risk case, however the father still poses some risks to X with respect to her healthy attachments and independence. The father denies he poses any risk to X and points to a number of support services he has engaged with to improve his understanding of X's needs.
The father alleges that the mother has perpetrated family violence against him. He does not go so far to say that the mother poses any risk to X.
The mother proposes that the parents have joint decision-making authority, save that she should have sole decision-making authority with respect to X's health and medical concerns. The father proposes joint parental responsibility for decision making in relation to major long term issues.
X is represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer's ('ICL') and their position is that there should be a specific order in relation to X's medical needs.
At the commencement of the trial the father's proposal was for frequent and regular time. At the conclusion of the hearing, the father sought orders for blocks of time with X. Counsel for the father ultimately put a proposal that the father have five nights a fortnight with X as he recognised such an arrangement would be workable between the parent's (having moved from the father's initial position that X spend time on a week-about basis with each of her parents). By the end of the case, the father's proposal was aligned with the Independent Children's Lawyer that the father's time with X should ultimately move to five nights a fortnight.
Initially the proceedings included the parties' outstanding property issues. Those proceedings resolved by consent on 7 February 2024.

[40]

(1) On parental responsibility and decision making: -

(a) The mother initially sought sole responsibility for decision making in relation to all long term-issues for X and to notify the father after she had made the decision. She amended her position at conclusion of the hearing and sought sole responsibility for making long term decisions in relation to health and medical (including psychological) matters concerning X. Insofar as X's health and medical matters, the mother was to notify the father of any medical appointments for X and provide information about the reason for and outcome of the appointments.

(b) The father's position remained the same throughout the proceedings in seeking orders for joint responsibility for decision making in relation to major long-term issues for X.

(c) The Independent Children's Lawyer held the view that the parents were unable to cooperate to make long-term decision for X such that it be allocated to the parent who has primary residence.

(2) On spend time and communication: -

(a) The mother initially sought that X live with her and spend supervised time with the father for one and half hours per week with additional supervised time on special occasions. Her proposal was adopted by the Independent Children's Lawyer. Following the evidence of Dr E and my preliminary indications she made changes to her proposed orders and, at the conclusion of final hearing, sought orders providing for X's time with her father to gradually increase such that from August 2025, X spend time with her father on a fortnightly basis from the conclusion of school Friday until the commencement of school Monday, with an additional fourth night in the event of a long weekend and a build up to half of all school holiday periods.

(b) At commencement of the hearing, the father sought orders for X to spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis such that after approximately nine months, X live week-about between her parents. His final proposed minute sought orders providing for his time with X to occur in a block period gradually increasing to five consecutive nights, from the conclusion of school on Thursday until the commencement of school on Tuesday and each alternate week thereafter.

(c) The Independent Children's Lawyer initially sought final orders in line with Dr E's Updated Family Report recommendations. At closing, the Independent Children's Lawyer sought orders providing for X's time with the father to gradually progress, to alternate Wednesday night and each alternate week from Wednesday to Friday from 2026 onwards. Which I think is a typographical error and should have read Wednesday to Monday as it was the Independent Children's Lawyer position that the end point for X be a 5/9 regime in the mother's favour.

(3) On school holidays:-

(a) On a final basis, the mother sought orders providing for X to spend half of each school holidays between her parents but that this commence from 2028 onwards.

(b) On a final basis, the father sought no orders for school holidays until 2025/2026 and thereafter that he spend six consecutive nights and from 2026, that X spend half of the school holidays with each parent.

(c) The Independent Children's Lawyer proposed that X's school holidays in 2025 extend her weekend time by one night and thereafter in 2026, she spend half of the school holidays and long summer school holidays between her parents.

[42]

The parents met in February 2002, when the mother was 18 years old and the father was 36 years old. At that time the mother started working in his business, which I understand to be a company that organises large events in major Australian cities for which the father was largely responsible. The business has now become defunct which was a source of contention between the parties.
The parents commenced cohabitation on 1 February 2004. The mother continued to be employed in the father's business and her hours increased to full-time.
On 1 April 2007, the parents separated for the first time but resumed their relationship long distance on 1 June 2009 while the mother resided in Sydney.
In February 2010, the father relocated to reside with the mother in New South Wales.
The parents married in 2011.
In 2015, the mother fell pregnant with X via in vitro fertilisation. X was born on in 2016. Following X's birth, the mother spent 10 months on maternity leave with X.
In mid-2016, the mother moved to Melbourne with X who was an infant at the time and lived with her family for a month. She later returned to New South Wales to reside with the father and at the end of 2016 the family relocated to F Street, Melbourne, however the mother and father slept in separate bedrooms from that point onwards. The mother returned to work in early 2017 and both parents were employed full time until March 2020.
Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, the father's business failed, and he became unemployed. From January 2020 to April 2023, the mother became the sole income earner for the household and the father stayed at home and became X's primary carer (although the mother disputes this).
From March 2020 to June 2020, the parents converted the third bedroom into a home office so that the mother could work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. The father said that the mother removed his bed from this room and the mother told him to sleep on the spare trundle in X's room. The mother said that she objected to the father sleeping in X's room. As this disputed fact is a matter which is relevant I should note that I do not accept the mother's evidence on this issue.
In December 2021, following months of negotiations to re-open his business, the father sold a property he owned in Suburb G for $2.9 million, and the proceeds of sale were utilised to discharge business debts and avoid bankruptcy. In January 2022, the father borrowed further sums from the paternal grandmother.
On 6 May 2022, the mother and father both facilitated X's initial attendance on her first psychologist, Dr H for psychological support and intervention regarding restricted food intake.
On 10 December 2022, a family violence incident occurred in which the parents had a verbal argument that the father recorded. The audio recording has been tendered into evidence as Exhibit F1. The father says the recording is demonstrative of the mother's demeanour during the relationship whereby she perpetrated family violence against him. He deposed to verbal and physical abuse, including threats to kill. The recording does the mother no credit at all, and on numerous occasions during the recording she did threaten to physically harm the father, including a threat to murder him and to throw him off the balcony. That recording belies the mother's contention that she was the sole victim of family violence perpetrated by the father and although with such recordings one must always be cognisant of the fact that the person recording is aware of the fact of the recording, it does seem that the relationship was at the very least toxic and tumultuous and in this particular instance the argument took place with X in the room. The father alleges that this is not the only time that the mother has threatened to kill him, for instance he said the mother made similar threats in January 2023.
The mother contends that the parents formally separated in March 2023. The father says separation occurred on 10 May 2023.
In April 2023, the parents came to an agreement about X's Term 1 school holidays where they each spent one day on each weekend with X. The mother took an additional five days of leave to spend time with X over the school holidays.
The father deposes:
1. In the 8 months leading to separation, and particularly the last 4 weeks, [the mother's] behaviour had deteriorated. [The mother] was coming home drunk more frequently and committed family violence against me, including in the presence and hearing of [X]. These incidents led me to attend the Police Station to apply for an Intervention Order.
The mother was issued with a Family Violence Safety Notice in mid-2023 which resulted in her exclusion from the matrimonial home. An Interim Intervention Order was subsequently issued the following week listing X and the father as affected family members. X was aged 7. On that same date X and the mother had a Facetime call.
The mother says she had no communication with the father or X until the FaceTime call. Following that, the mother says X placed several calls to the mother between 16 and 20 May 2023. On 20 May 2023, the mother spent 4 hours of unsupervised time with X. The mother says X placed a FaceTime call again on 24 May 2023.

[51]

The above orders were made by consent on 5 October 2023 and followed the release of the Family Report by Dr E, as well as the reports of Dr K and Dr L.
On 10 October 2023, after the release of the Family Report, the father enrolled in a Men's Behavioural Change Program ('MBCP') due to commence in January 2024 (however he did not complete the program after being informed, he says, that it would be inappropriate for him due to his experience of family violence).
On 12 October 2023, the father commenced attending upon a psychologist (Mr O). He attended 35 sessions between 12 October 2023 and 11 June 2024. The psychosexual assessment, psychiatric assessment and Family Report were released to Mr O in November 2023 (after four sessions with the father had been completed).
In accordance with the Orders of 10 October 2023, the parents engaged Family Contact Services to supervise time between the father and X, commencing 28 October 2023. The father deposes that time generally went well, there being 24 supervised visits in the period 28 October 2023 to 11 April 2024 (before time was further reduced). Throughout this period the parents agree that X texted the father on multiple occasions and the father did not reply (pursuant to the interim Orders). Time was spent at a Contact Centre until 23 December 2023, when it was moved to the father's rental accommodation in P Street, Melbourne following a successful safety inspection. Time was supervised by Ms Q from 28 October 2023 until 23 February 2024.
On 6 December 2023 the matter came before a Senior Judicial Registrar and the court ordered that the interim parenting orders of 5 October 2023 remain in full force and effect and that the father spend time with X on Christmas Day as directed by the supervisor. Further orders were made in relation to spousal maintenance and property matters. Final property orders were made by consent on 7 February 2024.
On 23 February 2024 and 28 February 2024, the mother, father and X attended on Dr E for the purpose of an Updated Family Report.
On 25 February 2024, the mother raised concerns with Family Contact Services about the supervisor Ms Q and the supervisor was changed to Ms R.
On 15 March 2024, Dr E's Updated Family Report was released and recommended a further reduction of supervised time between X and the father.
On 19 March 2024, the father commenced a full-time job which saw his time with X, then on Fridays, to be moved to Saturday mornings.
On 9 April 2024, X attended upon Dr D, psychologist for the first time.
On 18 April 2024 the matter returned before a Senior Judicial Registrar and the court ordered by consent and until further order, that prior to changing X's school or psychologist the mother provide the father with 30 days' written notice of the proposed change and the reasons for the change. X continued to live with the mother. The court further ordered by consent, until further order, that:-

[64]

The mother is 41 years old and was born in 1983. She is engaged in full time as an Executive at V Company earning approximately $450,000 per annum. She presently resides with X in a two-bedroom apartment in Suburb C. She has not re-partnered. The mother deposes to being in good health save for being diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ('ADHD') for which she is prescribed Vyvanse. She experiences stress associated with these court proceedings.
In her evidence, the mother was inflexible, evasive and at certain times, prevaricating. I observed her to be overly critical of the father and, at times, I do not think that criticism was justified.
In cross-examination, the mother answered questions tangentially and was often redirected to the questions put by counsel. In closing submissions, counsel for the mother sought that I take note of her ADHD diagnosis which may have impacted the manner in which she gave evidence. I do not accept this submission as I have no knowledge about how ADHD may impact someone and the way they give evidence, nor can I presume how it might impact the mother personally. No supporting evidence was adduced from any experts to support the submission.
The mother characterised the parents' relationship as one that involved many arguments, particularly after she fell pregnant with X and when, she says, the father started verbally abusing and berating her. She says the father would fixate on her weight and make comments about her physical attributes whilst pregnant. She deposes to multiple incidents following the birth of X where the father was critical and demeaning of her role as a mother, and sometimes those incidents happened in the presence of X, friends and family. She says the verbal abuse escalated to the point where she moved back to Melbourne (from New South Wales) for one month in June 2016 so she could escape the father.
The mother recalls their relationship became further strained from around 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic when she noticed the father develop a "highly unusual and emotionally co-dependent relationship with [X]". It was suggested to the mother in cross-examination that there was no evidence to indicate she had any concerns, and, in fact, she was more than content to leave X in the care of the father while she travelled for work during their relationship. The mother disagreed, stating she did not do enough to report her concerns to police or other authorities at the time.
As I said earlier, there was the incident between the parents on 10 December 2022 which was recorded by the father. That recording was provided to the police and used in evidence in an application for an Intervention Order granted against the mother in May 2023. At paragraph 42 of her trial affidavit, the mother expressed: -

[70]

I do not accept that the mother was a demure victim of family violence perpetrated solely by the father against her. In my view both parents have participated in a family violence dynamic to which X has been exposed. I also do not accept that the mother's behaviour in this insistence was a mere aberration but rather is symptomatic of the way the parties interact with each other. I am concerned in this matter that the mother focuses on blaming the father for his perceived weaknesses whilst failing to reflect on her own behaviour and how that might also impact on the parental dynamic and in turn on X. The mother is quick to blame the father for X's presentation while failing to reflect that X went from what I find to be the primary care of the father to very minimal time with him (albeit that the mother was supported by Dr E and Dr K).
The mother said that following the Orders of 29 June 2023, when X commenced spending six nights per fortnight with her, that she found X's presentation concerning and observed X to be extremely stressed and emotional. The implication in that statement is that it is the father who is responsible for that presentation. That is an oversimplification for what was likely occurring for X at that time. X had been exposed to family violence and arguments and then her parents separated. It is just as likely that X was reacting to her parent's separation.
The mother also says following the Orders made on 5 October 2023, when the father's time was reduced and restricted to three hours of supervised time per week, that she observed "significant improvements in [X]'s general health and wellbeing" save for X's presentation before and after the supervised visits with her father where she described X presenting as irritable, angry with the mother, withdrawn and exhausted after the visits. I note these descriptions covered much, if not all, of the mother's observations of X before and after her supervised time with the father. Subsequently, X's supervised time with her father moved to afterschool on Fridays from 9 February 2024 owing to her participating in extracurricular activities on Saturday mornings.
Again, I note that the movement in X's time with her father would likely have had a dramatic impact upon her sense of stability, predictability and would have been confusing in terms of the dramatic reduction of time X spent with her father. I am not surprised that X experienced the supervised time as confusing and stressful in circumstances where she previously had such a strong relationship with her father, so strong in fact Dr E described it as being emmeshed and this dramatic reduction in his time with X was required to break the cycle.
In her affidavit, the mother responds to an observation in the Family Contact Service Report which relates to X's disclosure to the supervisor about an incident involving an older child '[W]', the son of a contractor hired to paint the mother's home, kissing X. She described X's account as inaccurate but does not deny that she told X to not tell her father. Specifically, the mother deposes at paragraph 159 of her trial affidavit, that:-

[72]

Again, when the incident was brought to her attention at the Updated Family Report interview with Dr E, the mother provided further context as to the incident, X's disclosure to her mother and how the mother acted following the disclosure, such that she reported the incident to the other child's father, who advised her that X had instigated the kiss. It was reported by Dr E that the mother agreed with her suggestion that X reported to each parent something different. This appears to be a common explanation the mother adopts to explain conflicting accounts of what X has said.
During cross-examination by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the mother said that X rarely raises with her that she wants to spend overnight time with the father. This contradicts what X said to Dr E however the mother insisted that X only reports to her that she wants to live with the mother and not see her father. She says X is a very confused and vulnerable child and often "says one thing to [her] and something else to others."
A considerable amount of time was spent in the proceedings, exploring what the mother outlines in her affidavit surround her increasing concerns as to what she perceived as the father's overmedicalisation of X. She accused the father of taking X to many of medical appointments, often without her knowledge or consent and further, that the father made it difficult for her to be involved in X's health care. Given this allegation it was necessary to traverse numerous medical records. The careful and skilled cross-examination by counsel for the father made it clear that the medical appointments attended by X with the father were largely if not totally necessary and regularly at the recommendation of medical practitioners.
The mother said that the father reported to doctors that X had an eating disorder and that she had tracheitis, which was incorrect. She even went so far as to suggest that the father had somehow deliberately caused those conditions. The mother found it alarming that the father was taking the child to see his own GP, his previous GP and psychologist. Notably, the mother's answers to questions suggested to her in evidence regarding overmedicalisation of X manifested or, more accurately, revealed an underlying fixed belief that the father was causing X to fall sick. For example, when commenting on the frequency of medical attendances in 2023, the mother stated that: -

[74]

When the mother was asked to clarify the basis for her statement that the father was making X sick, she responded that she believed the father was causing X so much stress, that he was giving her gluten, he was not feeding her appropriately, that X did not have a routine, she was barely eating nutritious food and she had lost weight. The mother reiterated that the father was to blame as he was "putting a lot of stress" on X. She later expanded and said that it was in addition to the "psychological control [X] was experiencing" that led to X's gluten intolerance which explained why she reported to Dr K (in July 2023) that X's coeliac disease was not particularly severe. She denied trying to minimise X's condition to Dr K.
At multiple stages in cross-examination, she accused the father of not allowing her to attend any of X's medical appointments or be involved at all to assist X. The medical appointments she took issue with surrounded X's attendance upon Dr U, which is the father's current General Practitioner ('GP'). The mother says Dr U falsely reported on X's health as she was aligned with the father and there were also appointments that she did not consent to and of which she had no knowledge of, because of the father. I do not accept the mother's case that the father, or any of X's treating practitioners at that time, prevented or obstructed the mother from participating in X's care nor was I taken to any evidence to establish same.
In evidence, the mother was invited to comment on the basis for her concerns about X attending upon Dr U. She responded that there was a series of "enmeshment and manipulation and using medical professionals over a longer period of time to discredit me as a mother and as an individual". She however could not provide any particular incident where Dr U discredited her and simply said she felt "uncomfortable" and referred to the notes where the father reported that she had narcissism to Dr U. She says she found this alarming and concerning behaviour from the father as it took place in front of X.
Counsel for the father cross-examined the mother extensively on concerns about X attending Dr U. The mother's evidence is that she was not aware the father was facilitating X's attendance upon Dr U in relation to her vaginal irritation in August 2023, until she received the GP records (produced on subpoena) and following her interview with Dr K. To challenge this assertion, counsel put correspondence from the father dated 2 August 2023 sent to the mother which referred to the vaginal rash (exhibit F6). The mother distanced herself from her earlier statement to clarify that she was not aware of X's related complaints in 2022 (not August 2023) until she received the GP subpoena records. She blamed the father for not telling her about X's vaginal rashes she experienced in 2022 which resulted in two related doctor visits on 9 March and 14 November 2022. The mother agreed with counsel that this event influenced her belief that the father had some perverse reason for taking X to the doctor about her vaginal rash. When further pressed, the mother's complaint became broader - that the father had an impact on X's health whilst she was in his care and that he was the source of her sicknesses.
Another complaint the mother held was in relation to X attending upon a new paediatrician, Dr Y, in August 2023, and that in doing so the father breached the Orders of 29 June 2023 restraining the parents from engaging further medical professionals for X. She complained that she had no knowledge of this appointment and then commented that this was another case of the father facilitating X's attendance on unnecessary medical appointments and alleged he engaged in "ongoing medicalisation of her". When again pushed as to what was the basis of this complaint, the mother answered: -

[79]

(a) Whereas the previous day in evidence the mother had indicated that she had been advised by Dr AA at Z Medical Centre there was no requirement for X to see a dietician there was nothing in the medical notes to indicate that had been said at all by either Dr AA or any other doctor in the clinic. When pressed the mother bluntly conceded that she had lied to the court previous day.

(b) The medical record in January 2024 the mother told Dr AA: -

(i) There were difficulties with the father taking X to see multiple GPs (not borne out on the evidence and the findings in this hearing).

(ii) That the father thought X had an eating disorder, but the mother did not think she had an eating disorder (which she confirmed in her evidence). The clear inference from those statements was that the father was incorrect in his position that X had an eating disorder and yet the mother failed to mention to Dr AA that X had been diagnosed with an eating disorder by Dr H much earlier and was being treated for the same.

(iii) That the father was having three hours supervised time with X per week with the clear inference that the father presented as a risk to X.

(c) The mother omitted to tell Dr AA that X had seen a gut psychologist (to whom the mother objected) in 2024, had been taken to see another psychologist but refused to engage (Ms BB) and had an appointment with a further psychology practise which the mother failed to follow up (DD Medical Centre). This occurred at the same time the mother was seeking a new mental health plan for X from Dr AA. It seems to me that such information would have been valuable to the doctor for X's ongoing treatment. It also occurred in the context of X wanting to re-engage with Dr H which the mother objected to.

(d) The mother told Dr AA that X was a seven-year-old who was survivor of narcissistic and emotional abuse from her father and there had been extensive reports compiled by psychologists and psychiatrists that outline the impact this has had on X. That statement was clearly wrong as at that time there were two reports from Dr E in relation to X which had been prepared for court and were untested. Although it is clear that Dr E thought there was an enmeshment dynamic between the father and X this statement by the mother seems to be designed to either paint the father in the worst light or to promote the mother's superior parenting capacity to Dr AA.

(e) The mother told Dr. AA that X's eating behaviours had been pathologised with clear inference that the father was responsible for that, notwithstanding X's diagnosis of coeliac disease and ARFID.

[82]

The evidence surrounding X's medical needs presents somewhat of a conundrum. On the one hand, Dr E was clear that part of the difficulty of the enmeshment dynamic between X and the father was not so much that she saw the doctors too often but rather her self-perception as a sick little girl. Ultimately the mother seems to have adopted that as her concern although her evidence did vacillate between frequency/lack of necessity concerns and the former. On the other hand, it is concerning that the mother has misrepresented the true nature of X's state of health to Dr AA. The reason for the conundrum is that on my assessment the father, prior to October 2023 seemed to be well able to care for X's health needs and was very familiar with those needs whereas, and there is no criticism intended in this comment, the mother assumed the role of primary breadwinner, worked full time and was a more absent parent than the father in the period before separation. It is the proposal of the mother that she have sole responsibility for decisions relating to health and medical decisions (including psychological decisions) for X (with ameliorating notification style clauses). She otherwise proposes joint decision making responsibility for other long term decisions. The Independent Children's Lawyer took the view that the parent with who had primary care should have decision making responsibility.
The father argued that the mother could not be relied upon to present an accurate medical picture of X's needs and there is some force in that submission however I am equally of the view that joint decision making responsibility for medical issues is untenable due to the high level of parental conflict and the risk (as I assess it) that X and the father may revert to a dynamic surrounding her medical needs where it is seen to be attention seeking behaviour rather than just a fact of life for X which needs to be dealt with. This is part of the enmeshment dynamic identified by Dr E. Although I am satisfied that the father has developed some insight into the issue he has not been involved in X's medical care for some time and there is a risk that X will revert to the previous attention seeking behaviour she exhibited as she associates the father taking her to the doctor as her being a very sick child.
In order to deal with the possibility of the mother misrepresenting matters to medical professionals as I have set out, and in addition to the suite of orders for notification and input from the father with respect to medical matters I will make an additional order that the father be permitted to consult with X's treaters in her absence and at his own expense to provide and receive information only. He shall not be permitted to direct treatment and nor should he seek to consult with any one treater more frequently than once every six months (unless specifically requested to do so).
When it was suggested to the mother that she has a tendency to criticise the father for alleged inappropriate behaviour around X such as patting her head, holding her hand in the back seat, wearing the same pyjamas and sleeping in the same bed the mother disagreed that she characterised these acts as sexually perverted behaviour. Subpoenaed medical records were produced (exhibit F7), being notes made by Dr U were put to the mother about X's comments about the mother's friend, Mr CC. Is said she had to sit on his lap and Mr CC would kiss her on the forehead. The mother denied the events occurred and instead accused the father of coaching and blamed him for accusing her family members of being "paedophiles" and "acting inappropriately around [X] so that she was fearful of them."
While the mother denied that she believed X was at risk of "sexual grooming" by the father, she said she had concerns about "emotional and psychological grooming", accusing the father of grooming the child to "control how [X] thinks, and feels and what she does."
The mother's attempt to retreat to emotional and psychological grooming as stated above, struck as disingenuous. I am not convinced that she has completely abandoned her view that the father might present as a person that is capable of engaging in paedophilic behaviour with his own daughter. To avoid all doubt I am not persuaded that the father presents as an unacceptable risk of harm to X regarding sexually inappropriate behaviour.
The mother was invited to comment on the impact on X when her time with her father was reduced to supervised only with cards, letters and gifts sent to X. She says that X may have been upset early on, but the cards, letters and gifts of teddy bears were inappropriate and "overtly, way too emotional" and accused the father of having "enmeshment with teddy bears". She says X was overwhelmed and the further restriction in supervised time and restriction on cards, letters and gifts improved X's emotional stability. When X's time with her father occurred during basketball training, the mother says she observed a reluctance in X to attend and accused the father of not being supportive of X playing sport.
During cross-examination by the Independent Children's Lawyer, the mother described the relationship between the father and X as a spouse-like relationship and that she still believes that the grooming behaviour exists. She was invited to comment on whether the father had developed any insights following the first Family Report of Dr E. She answered no and said this was because the observational reports show that he does say appropriate things to X and that it clearly depicts the father to be not respecting X's boundaries, not respecting her wishes, and not being supportive of the mother-child relationship. Dr E did not observe any negative or damaged relationship between the child and the mother at the first family report observations, such as to support such allegations. The mother conceded that both parents contributed to the damage to her relationship with X but disagreed with the suggestion that there should be some acknowledgement or bearing of responsibility on her part for her mistreatment of the father and discussion and handling of X's health.
The mother was asked about how she responded to X expressing a desire to choose who she lives with when she turned 15, as was reported to Dr E. The mother said she did not respond directly to X but said words to the effect that she does not want to engage in a discussion where X feels like she has to choose between her parents and that there were a lot of professionals involved to help make a decision on behalf of the mother and father because they cannot agree. When it was suggested to the mother that these comments may be confusing for X and impact her presentation and engagement with professionals and internalise some level of guilt, the mother responded that she reinforced to X that it was not her fault and asserted that X was traumatised by the seven-week separation from her in mid-2023.
The mother was challenged as to why there was a need to change X's schooling when the mother reported to Dr E that X was progressing well in school and was reported to be expanding her social network and re-establishing previous friendships. The mother said that X was happy but had friendship struggled with one or two children and some of her teachers asked her about her parents despite the mother requesting this not be done. The mother said she wanted a smaller school for X and that X is very excited about commencing at B School. The mother said that in Term 2 2024 she decided to change X's school and notified the father of same. It was suggested by the Independent Children's Lawyer that throughout 2024, X experienced a massive decrease in her time with her father, a change in medical practitioners and a change to her schooling, and that this may have contributed to a sense of uncertainty and difficulty with dealing with change. To some extent the mother acknowledged the difficulty but responded that X saw the changes as very positive.
In closing submissions, counsel for the father urged the court to conclude that the mother was an unreliable witness, to the extent that she lied in cross-examination on multiple occasions (i.e. her knowledge of X's cough, gut health and eating disorder and medical advice received). Counsel submitted that the mother was a "belligerent witness" who made no concessions and on occasion, forced her own answer. It was submitted that only when she had absolutely no choice, the mother would concede on important points with respect to medical records. I also observed the mother had great difficulty with making concessions and instead frequently answered questions saying, "it is complex" and only agreeing "in part".
In closing submissions, counsel for the mother stated that the mother, at all times, followed expert advice and remained child-focused in her proposed parenting arrangements for X. Counsel submitted that the mother's proposal changed following my preliminary indication which demonstrated that the mother promoted the relationship between the father and X, as noted by Dr E. Counsel submitted that, on the contrary, the father's proposals were not child focused.
On balance, I found the mother to be an unimpressive witness and less straightforward than her presentation to the experts. She struck me as angry - not just due to the relationship breakdown and care arrangements - but also disgruntled that she was the primary income earner and the father was at home with X during the relationship, and the consequential closeness of their bond. At one instance during cross-examination, the mother accused the father of deliberately not finding employment when asked questions about X's medical appointments while the parents were still living together.
On other occasions, the mother accused the father of deliberately undermining the mother-child relationship, however later failed to acknowledge, when given the opportunity to do so, that the allegations were unfounded. Having regard to the mother's written and oral evidence, I found the mother to have a fixed negative view towards the father and her answers to questions put to her in cross-examination further demonstrated that this view is deeply embedded and rigid. The mother engages in vituperative criticism of the father, and it is likely that X will become more and more aware of that attitude as she gets older.
In my view, there was a tenor in the mother's evidence which suggested that part of her concern regarding the father's relationship with X arose out of the fact that he was the stay-at-home parent, and she was primary bread winner spending a good deal of time out of the family home. Although abandoned at the conclusion of the case, her assertion that the father engaged in the overmedicalisation of X is symptomatic of that. Of course it was the father that engaged in the medical treatment and appointments as he was available to do so. The mother spent a great deal of time away from the family home, which was understandable given her corporate role and level of earnings. In my view, the mother must have been feeling insecure regarding the nature of her relationship with X and the breakdown of the marriage. I am not suggesting that the father does not suffer from the vulnerabilities identified by Dr K and Dr E in terms of the way he was behaving with X, but that issue and the mother's attitude regarding the father and X's relationship are not mutually exclusive propositions. There is a far more complex dynamic in this family, than simply diverting all blame to the father.

[83]

The father is 60 years old and was born in 1965. He resides in a two-bedroom rental apartment in Melbourne. Following a period of unemployment as a result of the closure of his business during the pandemic. The father now works as a Manager at EE Company on a full-time basis. He has type 1 diabetes and has limited pancreatic function but is otherwise of good health.
In cross-examination, the father was taken to the reports and recommendations of Dr E. He said that he accepted the opinions expressed by Dr E and has sought assistance from professionals to address the concerns Dr E had in relation to his insight and parenting capacity. He says he took on board the vast majority of Dr E's recommendations. I accept that the father has done a great deal of work to address what were very confronting recommendations for him at the time.
In cross-examination, the father clarified that his engagement with Mr O (registered psychologist) was not recommended by his lawyers (as suggested in Dr E's updated report), but instead by his GP, Dr U, after 5 October 2023. The father feels he has addressed the issue of enmeshment with Mr O.
The father has completed both the Parenting After Separation and Tuning into Kids parenting courses as he was required to do pursuant to Court Orders. He began attending on his psychologist, Mr O, around a week after the release of the first Family Report. In his affidavit he records:-
1. I have continued to attend on [Mr O] as directed by him. Since 12 October 2023, I have attended on [Mr O] for 35 sessions as at the date of filing this Affidavit. I also have a further session booked with [Mr O] on 13 June 2024. I intend to continue to work with, and attend upon, [Mr O] as directed by him.
2. I have had regular appointments with [Mr O]. In my sessions with [Mr O] I have reflected on the loss of my business and my grandparent's home that I worked to purchase in [Suburb G], the need for me to rebuild my sense of self, my feelings of failure, self-concept and identity with the collapse of ABS as this work was a significant source of pride for me.
3. Whilst continuing to attend [Mr O] I have also completed parenting courses, had regular supervised time, resolved property matters by consent with [the Mother], prepared the [F Street property] for sale, relocated to [P Street] and obtained employment.
In his affidavit, the father expresses regret that X had been exposed to his "distress" and the impact that had on her. He said that Mr O has assisted him with reflecting on the Family Report, enmeshment and parental boundaries. He says he now refrains from discussing his health (he has diabetes) and health matters generally with X. He says he encourages X's independence and growth. The father conceded in cross-examination that there were areas in which he had "overparented" in the past. He says he believes he has now addressed all the areas of his behaviour that Dr E commented upon in her reports.
In respect of the mother, the father denied ever belittling the mother's ADHD diagnosis.
There is a sense in this case that the mother holds a continuing view that when she commenced the relationship with the father and having regard to the age difference (the mother at 18 and he at 36), that there was something inappropriate about the age difference. I got the distinct sense that the mother felt that she was being groomed by the father at that time. It was also suggested to the father that he often asked the mother to work late and perform personal errands for him when she first started working at his business, again suggesting that the father was preparing the mother at her relatively young age to enter a relationship with him. The father denied these allegations and denied requiring the mother to stay in the same hotel room as him when travelling interstate for the company. He further denied asking the mother to wear her hair or clothes in a particular way, the implication being that with an aged based power imbalance and possibly an employer - employee power imbalance that the father was attempting to control the mother.
It is difficult to see how there was not a power imbalance in the circumstances and that the parents' relationship dynamic commenced on that basis. Clearly as their relationship evolved, the mother matured and became a successful corporate employee in her own right this would have shifted the power dynamic between the couple. The evidence falls far short of a serious finding that the father was grooming the mother at that time. The age difference while large, particularly having regard to their ages at the time when they commenced their relationship, is not unheard of. People make decisions in their lives in respect of how they feel at the time. I cannot ignore the fact that the mother returned to the relationship, following periods of separation and in terms of the mother's allegations as I have set out, I formed the view that the mother was to some extent recreating history with the benefit of hindsight after what clearly has been an unhappy relationship and relationship breakdown.
Various allegations were made to the father during his evidence with respect to verbal abuse, name calling, yelling and other family violence. There were certainly some terse and demanding text messages sent by the father to the mother which are exhibited in the proceedings as exhibits M9 and M10. However, I have little context surrounding those text messages and they do seem to be at the lower, but nevertheless rude, level of family violence.
It seems to me that given the parties respective proposals as I have set out, these issues have largely fallen away, and the real question in this case, is whether the father has made sufficient improvements with respect to the concerns of Dr K and Dr E to allow him to parent X in a way that does not engender the enmeshment and alignment that had been identified.
For the sake of completeness I note the father:-

[87]

I have previously referred to the events of 10 December 2022 and the recording of the same. I do not regard recording as being ideal but I cannot ignore that the mother made serious threats to the father to his health and welfare in the presence of X although she was asleep. The father stated that he took the mother's death threats seriously and it was not the first time she had made a threat to kill. I accept his evidence when he said he was afraid that evening, and I do not accept the mother's evidence that her statements were mere puff. When listening to the recording the mother was angry and abusive and even if she did not mean the threats in a literal way in my view they were sufficiently assertive to engender fear.
There are various other allegations of arguments and verbal abuse, threats and in particular an argument on 19 April 2023, where the parties had an argument about the amount of time X was spending with the mother's family. Voices were raised, threats were made_._ The father said "Just you wait, this is all going to come out, a judge is going to decide what's going to happen to you, and [X] will need her own lawyer too. Game on." All of which occurred in front of X who became distressed. In an overall sense, I am satisfied that X was exposed to arguments, parental conflict, and in general terms the toxicity that arises at the time when the relationship was breaking down. It will be important for X moving forward that that behaviour ceases no matter who is responsible for it.
I am also concerned that in line with concerns regarding the father's inclusivity with X, that he went to the police in mid-2023 because X had expressed to the father that she didn't want to be in the family anymore and "you promised me that you would stop Mummy yelling at me". He says that "broke my heart". In his affidavit, he records: -
1. On 7 May 2023, [the mother] took [X] to her sister's home. During the visit, [X] called me. I deny [X] was calling me to check if I was ok. [X] told me that "mummy is yelling at me" and asked if I would pick her up. I replied that I wasn't able to pick her up, that I loved her and would see her at home soon. When [X] got home, I noticed that she was crying inconsolably and she ran straight to her bedroom yelling "I can't do this anymore, I want a new family." [The mother] and I then stood outside [X]'s bedroom. [The mother] started to yell at me "look what you've done, you're turning my daughter against me". [X] refused to let us into her room saying "do not come in". [X] let me go into her room about an hour later. During the conversation [X] said she hadn't wanted to go with [the mother] but that [the mother] said she had to go because her cousin had been diagnosed with a brain tumour and she had to go and see them. [X] said [the mother] had yelled at her on several occasions, including when [X] refused to eat pizza for dinner.
It should be noted that this occurred around Mother's Day. The father denied going to the police out of spite, to punish the mother or for tactical reasons. I am not convinced. In my view at least part of the reason for the father's attendance on police was to improve his position post separation. The father says he did not respond to the mother's text messages once he went to the police on the advice of the police. He repeated he did this to protect X and denied he had planned it to impact Mother's Day plans. He repeated it was not planned at all, but that this was the final straw.
Following his attendance on the police, the father says he took X to see the psychologist Dr H immediately after school. There is no record of this. The father says he was not charged, and it was an emergency after hours appointment.
The father was shown a card written by X for her mother, the week after the father reported to police. The card was very positive. The father agreed it did not read as if X was scared of her mother.
It seems to me that the father did lack insight at the time in the way he dealt with X with little or no understanding that X had been a child exposed to the discord between her mother and father. I would hope that the father's engagement with Mr O and continuing engagement with Mr O gives him an independent source by which to test his theories and with a person removed from the fray, to explain that children will sometimes say things on the spur of the moment which are not necessarily correct. I suspect that the father's anxieties surrounded the mother and X's statements regarding her mother fed into the father's anxieties.
I also accept that in the early days of the litigation evidenced by the correspondence by the mother's lawyer and his own lawyer to organise time between X and the mother that there was an element of parental gatekeeping by the father and he was trying to link financial disclosure with parenting arrangements. The father said that he now realised such conduct was not child-focussed and said that he was acting on advice from a lawyer who was a friend.
On the father's second day of evidence, the father was taken to his orders sought in his Response to Final Orders dated 14 June 2023 which sought sole parental responsibility, X live with him and supervised time only between the child and the mother. The only interlocutory order sought was for spousal maintenance. The father agreed that was the advice he received and orders he sought.
There was some concentration surrounding financial issues, and the father was taken to the Australian Bridal Solutions website which is apparently still online. The father also agreed that he does not contribute beyond the assessed child support to X's expenses, although I do note that he bears the cost of 50 per cent of the supervision expenses.
Much of the cross-examination descended into a great deal of detail, which in terms of determining the overall dispute is of little assistance. For instance, he was taken to a screenshot of text message from 20 January 2020 (exhibit M26) where he had lied to airport staff to get a more convenient flight home to look after X. It was a text message sent before separation, and in a trying time for the father but I do not take it to be an example of a personality flaw of the father as imputed by counsel for the mother. The father would not be the first, and will not be the last, person to try garner an advantage at an airport.
I accept the evidence of the father that he had not slept in the primary bedroom for twelve years and that he slept in another bedroom (which became the study in April 2020, and the father began to sleep in X's room). It was suggested to the father that he continued to co-sleep with X even after the mother left the home which he denied saying that he slept in the primary bedroom. He did acknowledge that on occasion X would sleep in his bed. Nevertheless, when I gave an indication that I would likely make an order that there be no more co-sleeping with either parent, the father with that. I shall make an order that neither parent co-sleep with X. By this I mean that if X hops into bed with them, the parent can stay for a short period to comfort her swaddle her and be affectionate. But neither parent should be sleeping with her for the whole evening. I would think a reasonable period would be for no more than one hour. Similarly if there is a nap during the day this order should not be seen to prevent a lie down with each other for a short period.
Surprisingly this order has troubled me as it is so glaringly simple but to deprive X of physical comfort that she may seek from either of her parents, provided it is in a developmentally appropriate way, could not be in her interests. It will be up to the father and the mother to ensure that if X seeks physical affection like this in a way which promotes her ongoing healthy development. As X matures this sleeping issue should become less relevant.
The father was taken to the following paragraph of the Dr K report:-

[89]

The father attended this interview on 18 July 2023 which was approximately two months following separation in circumstances where he alleges he was subjected to significant family violence with the mother as perpetrator. I am quite satisfied that he presented to Dr K with a negative and critical attitude at that time and his presentation to Dr E as described in her first report was similar. It therefore does not surprise me that in the early days following separation the father failed to make a positive impression on the experts.
I am also satisfied that the father was observed to be overly inclusive with X during supervised visits. He told me that he agrees that he whispered to X telling her that he loved her and conceding that he said, "I am fighting to get you back". He justified that behaviour on the basis that he felt X was distanced from him, did not see him as a father anymore and during his evidence he acknowledged that at least in relation to the later statement he should not have said it.
The father's overinclusive characteristics was also evidenced in his choice to personally consult with X's psychologist Dr H, as that immediately created a perceived conflict. On that basis there was an agreement that the Independent Children's Lawyer would nominate a new psychologist for X. There was a significant delay in the nomination, such that the father indicated, and I accept, that he complained directly to the Independent Children's Lawyer about the delay. The father agreed in evidence that once the Independent Children's Lawyer had nominated a psychologist that he rejected the nomination because there was an agreement that the psychologist would be chosen after a consultation with Dr H about appointing a specialised psychologist in gut disorder. The Independent Children's Lawyer acknowledged that in their reply. I agree with that evidence, and it seems to me that although the father's choice in attending Dr H himself was dubious, the sequalae to that as set out was also a result of the actions of the Independent Children's Lawyer and not the father. It is most unfortunate, but it seems to me that X has not been particularly well served by the Independent Children's Lawyer in this case and there should have been a lot more attention to detail for her benefit.
The father was permitted to correspond with X by way of cards during the period when his time with X was initially curtailed. He told me that he sent two cards a week between the first and second Dr E reports. In 30 days following the second Dr E report he sent a further three cards but then ceased corresponding by card when mother's solicitor wrote to father's solicitor objecting to the same. In her second report Dr E recommended that the father desist in communicating with X outside of time spent including the sending of cards. This followed her observations at paragraph 223 and 224 of her report that:-
1. Cards: It was recommended in the previous family report that the father could maintain contact via the giving of cards or letters in between visits. This was recommended, in good faith, in attempts to reduce the negative impact of the abrupt change in residence for [X]. This change has now occurred.
2. At the time of the updated family report, the father had given approximately 40 cards to [X] (a rough estimate on average of two cards per week since the change in residence). This means [X] has continued to have four points of contact with/from the father each week. This is saturating [X]'s time with the mother, and likely impacting the speed and/or extent with which she can reestablish the relationship with her mother, independent of the father. The contact via cards no longer appears special to [X], and a strong relationship between her and the father remains. There should be no further contact via cards/letters etc between visits. It is important that, moving forward, [X] have the opportunity to continue to develop her relationship with her mother, without such regular interruptions from the father.
It is quite clear that the recommendation of Dr E was that the father should desist from that behaviour and although the father had given evidence that he had complied with the recommendations of Dr E quite clearly in the 30 days following receipt of that report that was not entirely correct. With some lack of insight the father said he did not think three further cards was unreasonable and that he was not obliged by any court order to desist from sending cards (which is correct).
Turning again to medical issues, the father was challenged as to his consultation with the mother with respect to medical information for X after an order was made on 29 June 2023. At that time the arrangements for X's care were for a shared care regime where X was living with the mother six nights a fortnight and with the father eight nights per fortnight. The father said that he complied with that order. When challenged on the lack of communication vis-a-via medical issues prior to the order, in a dissembling fashion he explained there was an intervention order in place in an attempt to justify the lack of information including that he had not told the mother he had taken X to the emergency department after hitting her head on one occasion. When challenged that both he and the mother had solicitors at this point who could communicate, he said he further did not see it was necessary at the time to communicate a visit to a general practitioner although agreed that he should have told the mother about the visit to the emergency department but he made the decision "based on what I was going through at the time."
Turning then to the mother's vacation of the home, she was required to leave because of the safety notice, however the father told me that he did leave for two days to allow the mother to remove her personal items provided the police were present. In terms of how he explained this to X he said that he told X that her mother was gone at the moment, but she would see her soon and he took X to speak to a psychologist. He said that X did not ask any questions.
Regarding his consent to shared care on 29 June 2023, I formed the distinct impression that the father regretted that decision, as he told me that he thought shared care was the right thing to do but that he was extremely confused and distressed at the time.
In the immediate period after separation, that the father was emotional and his emotions would have had impacted X; a concept he agreed with. He also agreed that when X commenced the shared care arrangement that X seemingly coped well ("she was fine") and the only complaint was the necessity to carry an extra overnight bag.
In terms of how his time with X played out when time was reduced to minimal supervised time, the father observed that during a period of that duration with another person present that all he could be was a person who played with X and that impacted on their relationship. He said she was less affectionate and "does not see me as a father anymore". He said that he was restricted in the ability to have conversations on certain topics with X including not being able to ask about her school where it might be contentious, not being able to discuss food issues with X or to give her food and not being able to discuss medical issues with her. He was also, in his view not permitted to ask about X's life with her mother. Although at that point, he had agreed to supervised time (see the orders of 5 October 2023) based on the recommendations of Dr E in her first report he suggested that it was Dr E's observations and recommendations in that report that restricted his ability to talk to X during supervised time which he did not agree with. The father complained he had very little information about X's new school at B School and had not received any information from the school. The father said X does not talk much anymore at the supervised visits and that he believes the mother is implicated in that circumstance telling X not to say anything. The father said that after the initial supervisor, Ms Q, was removed, X's personality changed, she became withdrawn, less physically affectionate and did not say "I love you" and that had been going on for a period of four months. On occasion, X brought up these proceedings and he said he did not respond. That is corroborated by the supervision reports.
It is clear that the father had a negative view of the mother in the immediate aftermath of separation. For instance, he was taken to the first family report :-

[92]

Regarding Dr K's report the father was asked about what was said to be Dr K's diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. At first instance I make the point that he did not in his report diagnose the father with having narcissistic personality disorder, rather he says at page 9 of his report that the father's presentation was consistent with a narcissistic personality disorder.
In his evidence Dr K suggested that the father did have a diagnosis of a narcissistic personality disorder which he seemed to attach to the notion of narcissistic wounding, at least partly associated with the loss of his business. The father does not believe that he fits the criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder and that was confirmed with Mr O who confirmed in his view the father does not suffer with narcissistic personality disorder. Mr O has conducted testing to see if the father fits the diagnosis and he does not. Dr K is a psychiatrist who commonly gives evidence in parenting proceedings. He is a psychiatrist of great experience, however in this instance, although I accept that the father may have presented with narcissistic traits, I prefer the evidence of Mr O, even though he is clinical psychologist and not a psychiatrist. As a treater and having undertaken the various formal personality assessments I think it is more likely that he can assess the father in a more realistic way. I note that Dr K saw the parents in the more structured court expert environment for a short period of time. He saw the parties on 18 July 2023 (father) and 19 July 2023 (mother). No diagnostic testing was undertaken by Dr K, and I note that this occurred approximately two and a half months after separation when the father was presenting at his worst. Furthermore, Dr K agreed that the father does not necessarily fit into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for a narcissistic personality disorder and said words to the effect that his assessment was based on his experience and assessment rather than necessarily as a reference to criteria.
In terms of the father's attitude to parenting the father said that X needs loving and caring parents who support her in every aspect of her life. At the hearing he presented as having developed some insight and recognition that his past behaviour and the disruption to X's life was wrong and was devastated with what she has had to go through in the litigation process. He said that X had lost her father, and it was hard to be with him to be with her for only 90 minutes per week. With some level of emotion, I observed the father to become quite emotional during this line of questioning. He said for him seeing X was good, but it was not right for X to be restricted in her relationship with him to that extent. I regarded the father's evidence in that regard as genuine and I have formed the view that the father has acknowledged his behaviour and more extreme responses regarding the mother in the past have been dealt with by him. He said they had a bad marriage, he would not continue that behaviour in the future and would do anything to give X her family back. I accept the father's evidence in that regard. He struck as genuine in his contrition and remorse, and although I cannot be certain that he will not continue to exhibit narcissistic traits as described by Dr K and Dr E, in the future I am satisfied that he has developed a sufficient level of insight to shield X from those traits.
He also struck as genuine in his desire to co-parent with the mother but was concerned that the mother was unwilling to co-parent with him and that the communication lines between the two parents were currently not open other than regarding medical information. He wanted to be involved in all aspects of X's life and wanted to be involved via a structured mode of communication.
The father said he will continue to see his psychologist into the future and that he finds the weekly sessions helpful. He acknowledged the benefits of ongoing psychological support. Although it is not warranted to order the father to continue those supports (Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200) I accept that he will do so.
In his evidence, the father struck as intelligent. He was at times animated, especially when discussing his former business and family finances, and spoke very quickly. He presented with a degree of arrogance and became exasperated when repeatedly challenged. However, his evidence demonstrated an ability to reflect on his own conduct and behaviour, take onboard legal advice and recommendations (some of which were unfavourable to his case). He has demonstrated, on the evidence, that he has done the hard yards. That is reflected in his presentation in court and, to some extent, supported by the evidence of the experts.
Towards the end of his evidence, I indicated to the father that my initial view was that this was not a case in which the parents or X would be best served by an equal time or a shared care model. I asked him whether he would be able to put the disappointment aside if he did not achieve his ideal outcome. He stated that neither he or the mother deserve less time with X. This comment is consistent with the view of Mr O as to how the father might react to such disappointment. I asked the father if I could be assured he would continue with the improvements and insight he had demonstrated in the period since Dr E's first report. He said he would never go back to the way it was before, and he had never intended to undermine X's relationship with her mother. Although I am not satisfied that the latter proposition is correct with the time immediately following separation, I am satisfied that the father will now apply himself to simply parenting X rather than seeking to influence X's wider life with her mother.
In closing submissions, counsel for the mother conceded that the father did demonstrate a level of improvement as to insight including, in respect of his past conduct and the impact on X. It was submitted that the court should err on the side of caution noting the father has a history of engaging in positive impression management as reported by several experts. I accept that there were times during the father's evidence that I observed him to engage in positive impression management, however I do not accept that the court is obliged is to err on the side of caution. The function of the court is to make an assessment as to what is in the best interests of X. To protect her safety a court cannot entirely eliminate risk but in doing so but assess that risk with all of the other factors in the case including the benefits of the child in having a relationship with each of their parents in a meaningful way.
Whether the father's attempts to "change" are merely performative for the purposes of a more favourable outcome in the proceedings or are indeed an attempt to become a more responsible and child-focussed parent in the context of a high-conflict former relationship, it nevertheless seems to me that his motivation to engage in "change" is out of love for X and a genuine attempt to improve their relationship, rather than to "get back" at the mother or undermine her own relationship with the child.

[95]

Dr E evaluated X as being precocious and prone to hyperbole, articulate and somewhat parentified. Dr E observed:
1. Whilst [X] was observed to share a strong relationship with both parents - there was clear alignment in interviews to the father and his views, and she was rejecting of her mother's involvement with certain activities (without contextual explanation nor congruence). Similarly, whilst she worried about both parents, she was particularly concerned about her father. Interview indicated resistance to the concept of significant time with her mother (again, in the absence of age-appropriate context as to how/why she'd formed such views). Furthermore, this view appeared inconsistent with, (i) relationships observed, (ii) her response to the gap in contact with her mother, and; (iii) her previously expressed desire (to her teacher and to [Dr H]) of an equal care arrangement. It appears clear that [X] feels she needs to choose between her parents.
Dr E noted that X had previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, possible neurological condition or conversion disorder (by her former psychologist Dr H and Coeliac's disease. Her observations of X were that she was easily engaged, articulate and expressive (somewhat theatrical) with strong themes of medical and health related matters, and with a sense of identity that had a basis in these issues:
1. With regards to her food/diagnosis, it was clear that this was part of [X]'s identity. She exclaimed "I have an eating disorder!" and also had coeliacs and would exclaim this empathically at times (i.e., by sitting up tall, slapping her palm against her chest, stating with emphasis). (...) She was asked again what made this a 'disorder', and she expressed that it was because most people have fruits and vegetables in their lunch box. She preferred her father's lunch boxes over her mothers. Her father would typically cook her eggs, pizza, or pasta. She felt that her friends judged her for her lunches, and think she is a "freak" and a "weirdo"...
The report writer described X as having an "atypical for age ability to engage with adults" and as being confident in her expression. X expressed to the report writer her view that she had "stuff I can tell you to make it back to normal" and identified "normal" as going back to her old psychologist, Dr H. One of her three expressed 'wishes' was for Dr H to return. X expressed to the writer that she had a rare condition called "tracheitis" and the related coughing is "stressful for me". She expressed that her father was kind, and "makes things happen" but that she did not like when he was "stressed". X said her mother "always does fun activities with me" but did not like when her mother was on work calls or away for work. She worried about each of her parents missing her when she was in the care of the other. She described co-sleeping with both parents but preferring the father as her dad's house felt safer. She said her father only wiped her bum "with permission" but that she did it by herself at school and at her mum's house.
It is clear from the comments recorded by Dr E in this first report that X had been exposed to parental conflict. She expressed worry for her mother and father. She expressed that: "Usually...Sometimes...what I want to do is not spend equal time together. Mum has me for some Fridays and weekends but Dad have me all the other time......I don't want Mum to drop me off on Monday" but X was unable to express why this arrangement was important to her. She told the report writer that her father did not tell her to say anything particular in the interview with Dr E and that she "had a thought about it all night and it's my decision!". She expressed concern to Dr E that her mother was "looking at private emails" between her and her father and expressed being "scared that I don't have my privacy", that her father was also concerned about this, and that they must "figure something out" and "fix that" (to address this issue). She also expressed that she wanted to be in control of the phone calls and stop the scheduled 6 o'clock calls.
Dr E met with X's classroom teacher, Ms JJ, who noted that X had a high absenteeism rate which Ms JJ records is a worry as X was not academically at a level where she could afford to miss large amounts of school. Socially, Ms JJ observed that X could initiate and join play but tends to "guilt" friends into playing with her and can perceive herself as the victim at times. X would typically only play with one other child. Ms JJ's impression of the mother was that she was child-focussed and proactive. Her impression of the father was that he was distressed (presenting as "hysterical" at the last parent-teacher meeting), with difficulties focussing on X and somewhat preoccupied with his own difficulties and mental-health. She experienced the father as lacking boundaries and understanding her role as teacher. She said had sought support from her superiors in that regard.

[97]

Dr E recorded that the father presented as loquacious, with pressured speech, and was at times fixated on his former business, attempting to impress a sense of importance and status. Dr E records that at the time of the follow-up call, the father was more frantic, and he shared his negative opinion of the Dr K psychiatric assessment. The father sent Dr E a follow-up email containing a copy of his complaint to the Court and response letters from his GP and psychologist refuting Dr K's diagnosis.
Dr E noted that the father spent time in the interview going through the allegations he made against the mother including telling the report writer that he thinks the mother suffers from psychotic breakdowns. The father expressed to the report writer that X was not negatively affected by the no/limited contact period with her mother from 20 May 2023 to 22 June 2023 and was 'totally happy', however later advised the writer that X had told him "mummy was taken away coz I was a bad girl".
The father told the report writer that the 8-6 care regime in place at the time of the first report was "forced upon" him by the Independent Children's Lawyer and that he did not consent of his own free will. He told the writer that the resumption of face-to-face contact with the mother after the month-long break resulted in X being "out of control" with vomiting, cramping and headaches.
Dr E records her view that the father was minimising the mother's importance to X through comments such as "she [the mother]'s hardly been around" and "[X] is not her priority".
Dr E recorded that the father described X positively and said that she has an eating disorder and ARFID, with a diet consisting mostly of vegemite toast, corn chips, tv snacks, wafer biscuits, pretzels, pizza, chips, and popcorn. The father told the report writer that the reason X does not have play dates often is because the mother has spoken negatively about him to other parents, and that X does not attend birthday parties as the concept of birthday party food makes her upset as she cannot eat it due to her coeliac's disease. As to X's health and medical appointments, the father told the report writer that X experiences further health issues (beyond eating issues) including warts on her legs, bile/vomit in her mouth, and a red vagina to which she can self-apply medication but that she avoids it.
I record the following extract because it requires specific comment:
1. ... [The father] offered the assessor a handwritten note that he described [X] to have written, asking him to give to "[Mr KK]" (father's barrister) to give to the Courts, saying words to the effect of "fuck you, If I can't see Dr H [psychologist] then I will fuck you all. You have fucked it", and drew a picture of a face with long hair (presumably a female) with a X and a picture of a face with short hair (presumably a male) with a tick.
The father told the report writer that all changeovers were problematic, that the mother often brought support people to changeovers, and the writer records the father said to her "she [the mother]'s horrible. She will kill me".
Dr E concluded with respect to the father that:
1. The father appears to have significant difficulty in supporting the mother-child relationship. He struggles to facilitate [X]'s independent relationship with the mother, and his behaviour and decision-making in this regard, is significantly lacking in child-focus. He appears to possess a contemptuous attitude toward Court Orders aimed to assist the relationship (e.g., telephone contact). It is possible that the father perceives [X]'s relationship with the mother as threatening, and has sought to minimise this - to [X]'s detriment.
2. If the mother's evidence regarding the father's parenting behaviours is, largely, accepted by the Courts, then it is clear that the father has a range of parenting deficits: He possesses poor parental boundaries (physically and emotionally), deficits in his ability to be sufficiently attuned to [X]'s needs (and to understand her as a child in her own right), difficulties implementing an age-appropriate routine, and possesses a limited parenting repertoire, oscillating between treating [X] as a peer/partner, and at other times, infantilising her, and ensuring her ongoing reliance on him, failing to allow [X] sufficient autonomy and independence. He has made attempts to control her social network, her health, and her relationship with her mother. His needs are prioritised, at the cost of [X]'s. Information obtained over the course of this assessment (including from collateral sources), and [Dr K]'s Psychiatric assessment of the father would, largely, support the mother's allegations in this regard.

[100]

By consent, X moved into the mother's primary care on 5 October 2023, the same day the first family report was released to the parents.
The second family report was dated 15 March 2024. Interviews were conducted on 23 February 2024. X was 8 years old.
In the time between the family reports, the father underwent therapeutic work with a clinical psychologist and there had been several supervised visits. The mother's position was that the time with the father remain supervised, and the father sought a 50-50 care arrangement without supervision.
With respect to X, Dr E observed that for this second interview, X presented as a more typical child for her age, was calmer and more settled and less theatrical. X told the report writer she previously had tracheitis but now did not suffer from the condition. She volunteered that she was aware of the dispute between her parents regarding this issue. She told the writer she wanted to live with her dad but had to live with her mum and that she was sometimes lonely at her mother's house. She said that she asked her mother why she had moved and that her understanding of the response was that "it's because Dad's not safe and a psychopath". She expressed that her worries about doctors' appointments were getting better. She said she often worried about "what ifs" and would previously go to her doctor with all her worries.
Again, X had a clear understanding of parental conflict:
1. She raised the concept of overnight time with her father, and stated "I know it's not gunna happen", and how her mother has a form from the police to say that she'll live with the mother always, and described how her mother did this to scare her, and how she'd lost trust in the mother [FN: Because her mother stated that she'd get square eyes if she watched too much television, and she did and her eyes did not become square]. She described how her father thought an overnight was "a good idea...he says maybe it will happen, it's up to some other people". She offered "I think [Ms Q] thinks it's a good idea.....[Ms Q] thought the pool was a really good idea" ([Ms Q] being the initial supervisor for [X]'s time with her Father)
X told the report writer that she liked video calls with her father as she got to see him and they were only once a week. She said receiving cards "feels good" but didn't give further information. Dr E records that:
1. It was put to [X] that her Mum was concerned that she might think she has to choose where to live, and [X] explained that she thought it was the Courts decision. She was asked if this was okay with her, and she said "half yes, half no" and when asked why it (half yes) should be the Courts decision, she advised "because I don't know" (where to live).
Dr E asked the mother if she thought it was likely X tells each parent something different, and the mother responded "yes, absolutely" and gave an example. The father was also asked if it were possible that X may report one thing to him, and one thing to the mother, and that these may at times be different. The father advised that this was not possible in X's case with the things that she has reported, describing that he believed the things X said to him, as reported, were true. When asked about this in cross-examination, the father said he explained that his view was that the supervision reports were true. He clarified he now believes that X could say different things to each parent.
Dr E carried out psychometric testing which showed X as being in the clinically significant range for Atypicality, Social Stress, Anxiety, and Interpersonal Relations, and in the at-risk range for Depression and Sense of Inadequacy. She fell within the average range for Attitude to school and Teachers, Locus of Control, Attention Problems, Hyperactivity, Self-esteem, and Self-Reliance. She was within the Average Range for Relationship with her mother and her father. She felt that her mother trusted her, was proud of her, likes to be with her, and listens to what she says. She felt that her mother liked her friends. She felt her mother was easy to talk to and liked going places with her mother. She felt that her father trusted her, was proud of her, likes to be with her, and listens to what she says. She felt that her father liked her friends. She felt her father was easy to talk to and she liked going places with her father.
Dr E spoke with X's new clinical psychologist, Dr D, on 29 February 2024 who had yet to meet X.
Dr E observed the mother to present similarly as at the first assessment. The mother told Dr E that the first week of primary care of X following the October 2023 orders was "tough", but things are were remarkably good. The mother said that her view was that X was calmer, regulated, less reactive and eating a broader range of foods. She had become more independent and had attended three birthday parties and two independent sleepovers. She had engaged a new GP who held no concerns regarding X's physical health. She said X had made positive progress in sleeping independently. She further told the report writer that X would become angry, agitated and aggressive in the lead up to supervised time with her father and that after visits she often presented as exhausted and seeking control, including one instance of a nightmare of being abducted. The mother reported that X had asked that there be an Apple Air Tag put in her backpack prior to the fourth visit with the father. The mother raised numerous concerns about the supervisor and associated processes (her view being the supervision was not vigilant enough) with Dr E which are recounted at paragraph 53 of the updated Family Report. The mother told Dr E that X would receive up to three cards per week from the father, totalling more than 40.
On 27 February 2024, Dr E had a telephone conversation with the mother's clinical psychologist, Mr FF who had seen the mother on 19 occasions. Amongst other things, he told the writer his view was that the mother did not present with any symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder or ADHD but had some symptoms of anxiety.
The father advised Dr E that the first Family Report had been shocking and unexpected for him. He said that his view was that the recommendations were based on inaccurate information including that X had only seven days off school in Semester 1 2023 (not 20), and 14 GP visits in 2023 (not 28 however Dr E records these visits occurred in 2022). He reiterated throughout interview that he had never sought to control X's relationships.
With respect to enmeshment, the father told the report writer that he can see that there are situations where boundaries were blurred and acknowledged that he could have handled differently. He had undertaken two group programs (Tuning into Kids and Parenting After Separation) and had decided not to partake in the Men's Behaviour Change program as he was advised by his psychologist, he may find it triggering due to his own abuse. The father expressed to Dr E that he consented to the changed arrangements as he was shocked by the Family Report and had poor legal advice.
The father told Dr E that the supervisor had been changed from Ms Q to another worker, and that while the agency stated that he was perhaps "enmeshing" the worker, the mother had told the supervisor at pickup "you can't supervise my child" and the supervisor had then informed him "your wife just yelled at me". He said that X had told him "Mummy hates [Ms Q]" and expressed concerns in the change in X's presentation with the new supervisor. He further raised with Dr E his concern that the mother was not supporting the father-child relationship including specific statements from X.
Dr E read the affidavits of the father's psychologist Mr O and spoke to Mr O on 26 February 2024. I will not repeat Mr O's affidavit evidence here except to say that Dr E includes in her report this paragraph:
1. With regards to his relationship with the mother, [Mr O] advised that [the Father] presents as understanding and supporting the importance of the role of [X]'s mother in her life, and that he has no will to undermine the relationship.
With respect to the telephone call, Mr O told Dr E that the father now presented with a good theoretical understanding of enmeshment. He expressed that the father was previously making decisions from a point of stress, with positive intentions (i.e. preserving the family unit), and he was confident that, behaviourally, the father would be aware of such examples in the future, although future time between X and the father would be useful to better understand this.

[101]

Dr E again observed X and each of the mother and father. X presented with difficulty initiating play, requiring much structure from her mother with regards to activities. X was observed at times to be bossy (i.e., telling her "Shh" when she was talking), or rude (i.e., ignored a question of the mother's). She rushed the mother in her turn, and the mother placed a boundary (i.e., saying, "don't rush me"). Dr E did not record conclusions with regard to the father's observation time with X. Having read the summary of the time I note that it appears X was more physical with the father and intruding on his space on multiple occasions but that he did not encourage inappropriate behaviour.
Dr E recorded that whilst there remained themes of illness / poor health and of X being a victim, this was interspersed amongst multiple other themes, including some that were more typical and appropriate for her age. Dr E concluded that X possesses:
1. ...high-levels of psychopathology, including, for example, social stress, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, anxiety, and atypicality, and has symptoms of depression and a sense of inadequacy (despite presenting as superficially conceited at times). She has difficulty with independent play. She remains highly focussed on adult expectation/perceived adult expectation, particularly that of her father's. She can experience confusion and overwhelm at times.
2. [X] remains presenting as highly aligned with the father, and continues to share an abnormal relationship with him. She remains aware of his views and opinions, with behaviour remaining organised around pleasing him. There remains ongoing evidence of an enmeshed father-child relationship. Furthermore, if the mother's evidence regarding [X]'s presentation pre- and posttime- spent is accepted, it is clear that [X] finds the time-spent with her father overwhelming, confusing, exhausting, and stressful. This remains despite the reduced time with her father, and the fact that it is supervised.
3. Moving forward, [X] requires greater development of intrapsychic boundaries, independent of others, particularly that of her father's (i.e., ongoing development of her independent identity and boundaries in thoughts and feelings of hers and of others). She requires ongoing assistance with interpersonal relationships (including social skills), and emotional regulation. She remains requiring a caregiving environment that is able to allow her to assume a more typical developmental trajectory. Despite some positive gains for [X], there remains a requirement for significant development in these areas in order for her to assume a more normative developmental trajectory. This development will not be possible with substantial time with the father.
Dr E said that "whilst [X] superficially reports wanting to reside with her father and spend increased time with him, it should be duly noted that such (conscious) reporting lacks reliability in this case, and little weight should be placed on her explicitly expressed views."
Dr E's view of the supervision notes was that there were multiple omissions from the notes and that X was aware of the supervisor's opinion at times. Her view on reading the material was that there remain indicators of an enmeshed father-child relationship and indicators that the father had not developed insight.
On this basis, Dr E recommended a further period of supervision. Dr E did not agree with informal supervision on the basis that "(i) there is a lack of objectivity and impartiality with informal supervision, in a case where alignment and enmeshment are existing key features, (ii) there is evidence (from both the mother and [X]) of at least one [of the father's family members (who would potentially be in a supervising role) being unsupportive of the mother-child relationship...and (iii) a further period of professionally supervised time may be of further assistance to the Courts and/or further Family Report assessments...".
Dr E highlighted the following factors as of particular importance in her report:
1. [X] continues to organise her behaviour around pleasing the father, and has learnt that such comments (i.e., negative about the mother) will receive a reaction from the father that is (psychologically) pleasing for her. Her brain/body rewards her for making such comments in the father's presence.
2. There is evidence that she continues to be reinforced by the father, ongoing, for making such comments.
3. In addition, the hypothesis that [X] has also learnt what to say to please the supervisor cannot yet be ruled out. There are multiple pieces of information to indicate that the supervisor has blurred boundaries, with [X] aware of her opinions. [X], with limited intrapsychic boundaries is highly dependent on, and sensitive to, the views of others, and she will continue to preference this over her own independent views until sufficient intrapsychic boundaries have been developed. This was evident throughout assessment.
4. When such comments are made, there is little further context or substance provided by [X] regarding such comments.
5. Information was obtained over the course of the assessment that demonstrated that [X] had told untruths about her mother's behaviour.
6. [X] is smart, and she appears aware that what she says likely impacts her living and time-spent arrangements at this point in time.
Dr E concluded that the father had not demonstrated suitable development to address concerns raised, with his parenting abilities remaining impaired and continuing to lack insight. Dr E concluded that time-spent should be further reduced to 1.5 hours weekly, with increased supervision and with bi-weekly inclusion of an activity that allows the father to be in a parenting role (i.e., an extra-curricular activity). She recommended there be no video calls and no cards. She further recommended that a moratorium of time be considered if there is evidence of X not coping with time-spent or failing to progress adequately.
I clarified with Dr E in evidence, whether her recommendations (provided for in the Updated Family Report) were for an indefinite period of time and she responded as follows:-

[113]

Dr E's reasoning for not recommending the parents go to an independent practitioner with respect to the diagnosis of eating disorder and instead recommending sole parental decision-making authority with respect to health to the mother was that "I didn't think that it was helpful to rush into [X] being seen by another treating professional". She explained that she did not view that there was any urgency around clarifying this diagnosis in circumstances where X was being treated by a gastroenterologist.
During the course of these proceedings the mother sought to change X's school (and ultimately did). When asked about the impact of that change on X Dr E said that "a change in school can have both positive and negative effects on one's friendships, of course". She disagreed that her comments about X's school attendance were critical of the Father and was not a reason that led to her recommendations for reduced time.
Dr E's conclusions and recommendations were tested in light of the evidence that emerged at the hearing. For instance, it had emerged that X had not been taken to her doctor 28 times in 2022 and that although X had numerous medical appointments, they were necessary and often at the request of the general practitioner (a fact which was ultimately conceded by the mother during the hearing). Dr E agreed that the father could not be criticised if that were the case.
When it was suggested that Dr E was critical of the assessment that X had ARFID and she had engaged in an attempt at fact finding with respect to that issue she denied.
Paragraph 50 of the first Family Report makes it clear that the mother had some concern about sexual grooming. Dr E said that the mother's concern about sexual grooming was not a salient feature of the conclusions drawn and recommendations made.
Dr E was resolute in her conclusion that X's presentation was aligned/ enmeshed with the views and wishes of the father including negative views of the mother held by the father. Although in that context X had said that she wanted to spend time with the mother and was not entirely positive about the father either. When asked (by me) whether this was consistent with alignment Dr E clarified that she was of the opinion X was aligned but had some independent thought. I raised whether this was just because the child had been under the father's primary care for a long time (even before separation). Dr E said that the difference was that X didn't understand that her mother is a capable parent and that a relationship with her mother is acceptable to the father.
I asked Dr E about her recommendation to curtail time to supervised time, which I noted is only usually used in high-risk parenting cases. Dr E replied that it was her opinion this case presented a high risk of emotional abuse, and that her assessment was that X was a "disturbed little child". When asked why she still held the view time should be further reduced at the time of the second report, while there had been some progress on reducing X's alliance with the father, Dr E replied that "my concern at the point of the second updated report was that despite the independent assessments that have been put to the father and the presence of supervision, there were issues of boundary breaches and - and an enmeshment ongoing through the supervised time." She conceded that the recommendation was "probably outdated".
On the second day of her evidence, Dr E was further cross-examined. She clarified her concern was not so much about the father's support of the mother-child relationship (or lack thereof) but that this was a symptom of the enmeshed relationship including her concern about the impact of that relationship on X. Counsel for the father moved to the second family report. Dr E conceded she did not give the father any credit for his consent to the time arrangements recommended by her.
In a tense and challenging cross-examination Dr E was cross-examined for the entirety of the next day. All manner of matters were put to her in what I perceive to have been an attempt to challenge not only her methodology and conclusions but also to establish that her impartiality was compromised insofar as the father was concerned. For instance, it was suggested that:-

[114]

(a) She failed to consider that the mother might be controlling X's relationship with the father in her stipulation that he was to cease taking food and gifts for X during supervised time (except for Christmas and birthday gifts). Dr E said that did not seem unduly restrictive to her at the time;

(b) She gave X's desire to spend more time with the father little if any weight at all. Although she said she had considered X's views she said, "I wasn't sufficiently content that [X]'s views had been developed with sufficient autonomy, given the issues of enmeshment" and that "I wouldn't make recommendations solely off a child's expressed view of, you know, where they want to live. That's an adult decision and beyond what a child can make."

(c) She had failed to read Family Contact Service's handbook regarding their policy of no discussion about court matters during supervised time an yet was critical of the father about how he failed to respond to a question from X about wanting to spend more time with him, stating he could have alleviated X's concerns and that he had difficulty understanding and responding to her needs;

(d) She had failed to properly consider evidence which suggested that the mother was undermining X's relationship with the father. For instance, after the release of the first supervision report and at the next occasion of time X was heard to say, "Please do not tell anyone what we talk about here." When asked why, she said that she would get into trouble."(which is suggestive of the mother referring to the content of the report with X). There was further evidence that X had said to the father "when will we be living together?" to which he responded, "hopefully soon". That response elicited the following statement from X; "It will never happen because Mummy has a letter from the court.". That is also suggestive of the mother involving X in adult matters in an inappropriate manner. There was a further issue where X said, "that the mother said she didn't like any of the things the father gave her, especially the bear that she got for Christmas". In this latter example I am less sure that the mother actually said that as X was saying different things to different people about the teddy bear at least. Nevertheless, it is evident that X is alive to the parental conflict and the antipathy held by the mother for the father.

(e) She failed to give weight to a dynamic emerging in X's presentation where she was starting to feel the need to keep secrets. For instance, surrounding the incident where X was kissed by the painter's son in the mother's home X said she was not to tell because "the court will give me to my dad, and my mum does not want this". Dr E recorded that she was concerned about the incident itself, and X's perspective of a need for secrecy. She considered that one hypothesis would be that the mother told X directly not to share the story with her father.

(f) She failed to consider the numerous other examples of X saying and doing things which suggest the mother was denigrating the father to X such as "Daddy do you know Mummy says not nice things about you? She says it a lot." and X being apprehensive about taking an old diary of the father's she had decorated during supervised time the week before because "she was scared the mother would get angry".

(g) She gave little weight to indications that X was developing anxiety around disclosing certain things to the father and was developing a level of secrecy surrounding her life with her mother.

(h) Perhaps most significantly that Dr E placed very little weight on X's deep desire to spend more time with her father which struck, not only as an expressed view but on many occasions provoked anxiety and uncertainty surrounding her relationships not only with the father but with the extended paternal family.

[115]

It is quite clear that Dr E premised her recommendations on her view that the relationship between father and child was unhealthy and thus needed to be curtailed. Whether this was right or wrong at the time the reports were prepared is somewhat of a moot point now, as the time was curtailed and if any emotional or psychological detriment to X occurred as a result that does not change the current position.
It was pointed out to Dr E that the father had attended parenting courses in between the first and second family reports. Dr E said that she did not see any indication in the supervised notes that he had learnt the key concepts and was able to apply those key concepts to his time with X. Dr E said that at the time of her assessment "...with the evidence that was put before me, I wasn't sufficiently satisfied that the father was able to demonstrably show the changes, if there were any, the changes that were made."
Dr E commented that she was concerned that the supervision notes seemed to be missing a lot of potentially pertinent information and was unsatisfied with their objectivity. She was asked to give examples of significant omissions and pointed to one example about swimming in the pool and another of X kicking in the presence of the supervisor. She said there were other examples but only provided vague comments, stating her main concern was the actual supervision. Dr E said it was clear that the supervisor had had an emotional reaction in the child's presence in relation to X's disclosures as to being kissed by the painter's son. Dr E said the look of shock from the supervisor was inappropriate.
Dr E was taken to Exhibit F13, which was a card drawn by X. Counsel put to Dr E that it was an unremarkable drawing. Dr E responded that it had features suggestive of an enmeshed relationship such as that the cartoon of X was large, and a child would usually depict themselves as smaller.
When cross-examined by counsel for the mother in the afternoon of her second day of evidence the following exchange occurred:

[127]

COUNSEL: [Dr E], credibility wise, I say your Honour should have very little regard to [Dr E]. It is unfortunate to say, in my submission, that someone who is an expert - and a single expert in this case, presented as so one-sided and so biased. She fought almost every prospect I put to her. She refused to answer questions directly. She was deliberately difficult. She monologued on her own views - which were very seldom in answer to questions that I put to her - to better emphasise what she wanted the Court to understand, which was her point of view, rather than to acknowledge and answer questions that went to the weaknesses in her processing.

She was argumentative and, at times, deliberately so. She had clearly chosen the side of the mother. And one need only look at the difference in the way she responded to the questions I asked, to those of my learned friend Mr Schmidt who - one would have been forgiven for thinking was in fact re-examining his own witness. As he rolled questions to her, and she just simply said "Yes" to all of them. I think the only thing she might have taken issue with was splitting birthdays. And I don't wish to undersell the importance of judicial opinion, but [Dr E] had clearly - in whatever way she formulated her opinion, clearly formed the view that my client was a significant risk.

So significant that three hours supervised - and I don't need to re-emphasise how rare that sort of limitation is - was proved in half - and arguably more limited because one of those one and a half hour sessions had to be at a sports event - on nothing more than a statement that your Honour has given an indication she was prepared to go, "Yeah, three nights is fine". Didn't quiz about what had changed, didn't quiz about - didn't express her own reservations. And it really was one of the many times that I say there was a real logical disconnect between the facts that [Dr E] saw, and the conclusions [Dr E] reached.

One other point I will draw to your Honour's attention about the difference in the way [Dr E] presented between my questioning and my learned friend, Mr Schmidt's [Counsel for the Mother] questioning. During his re-examination - actually, during my cross-examination, I had tried very hard to get [Dr E] to accept she gave no weight to the repeated expressions by the child, in all of the supervisors reports, of her desire to spend more time. And she kept saying to me, you know, "Oh, no, I gave it weight". I would say to her, "How could you say you gave it weight, when you pruned the time in half". And Mr Schmidt tried to give her that opportunity, as one would do with their witness. No, you were cut off with - by Mr Robinson, when he was asking you about weight, "Can you please take the opportunity now to explain how you gave weight to the child's views?" And I recorded it - because it was the with no small amount of schadenfreude that I heard the answer. Her answer was direct, pithy, and to the point, "I gave no weight to her views".

[...]

...[Dr E] chose when she wanted to enter into the argument about evidence, or not. I found it striking that she devoted part of her report to making sure [Dr H] and his treatment of the child for ARFID was roundly criticised. And she goes so far as to say, "Oh, I had a look at, you know, the basis for it, and it is weak. And I don't think it is there". Which was never part of her remit. But she didn't hesitate to do it. But where things fell, shall I say, on the contrary side of the ledger - things that were critical of the mother - she didn't weigh them at all, and she simply said, "That is a matter for the court".

[130]

Counsel for the mother submitted that Dr E's letter of appointment dated 14 February 2024 did not make clear that the report was to be a final family report and that the recommendations made by Dr E were not final recommendations - they were interim recommendations for an interim hearing, explaining why the recommendation for supervised time did not stipulate an end-date. Further, counsel submitted that Dr E is eminently qualified, and when given the opportunity to fully articulate herself, gave cogent answers. Counsel clarified that the mother's case is that enmeshment existed and Dr E's report is useful evidence in making that finding.
In considering the evidence of Dr E and her Family Reports and the weight given to them, I am concerned as to the reliability of the Family Reports insofar as they appear to be partisan to the mother and fail to identify and consider risk factors with respect to the mother. In addition to her reports, Dr E's oral evidence further demonstrated a critical view of the father and the risk he posed to X. While I note that it may have been appropriate to reduce the father's time following the release of the first Family Report in September 2023 such as to reduce the child's enmeshment with the father, the drastic reduction in the father's time with X, as recommended by Dr E in her second report, has set the scene for what has occurred up until the final hearing.
I cannot completely disregard the evidence of Dr E but there is some force in the submissions made by counsel for the father.
I did form the view that Dr E was highly critical of the father and took a blinkered approach with respect to the deficits of the mother. For instance, she found it difficult to accept that the radical reduction in X's time with the father could have harmed their relationship although she ultimately did concede how difficult the situation was for X.
In an overarching sense I gained the impression that in Dr E's view the father could do little to improve his position with X and even what might be thought to be positives were turned into negatives resulting in reductions of time; time and time again. For instance, and this is but one example, under the most difficult of circumstances where X moves from primary/shared care to three and then one and a half hours a week, the fact that the close relationship between X and the father endures is used as a further indication that the enmeshment continues unabated.
Conversely, in instances where the mother can and should have been criticised; while acknowledging the deficits of the mother, such issues did not detract from the critical focus on the father and that X's time with him should be whittled down and diluted by activities.
I am not suggesting that the problems identified by Dr E did not exist however I am of the view that the "fix" was radical, risky and distressing for X.
It is clear that the father did not present well to Dr E and Dr K, with respect to his attitude towards the mother. That presentation appears to have coloured the way they have perceived and assessed him with on an objectively reasonable basis. They have also assessed the mother as being reasonable and measured in her approach. On my assessment the mother did not present as well in the hearing as she did with the experts and the father presented better in the hearing than he did with the experts. I told Dr E that it was my preliminary view that the father had made changes in his behaviour. Dr E replied "well, it sounds like he has, your Honour... If that's the evidence before the Courts, that's great."
In her approach to the father obtaining psychological treatment Dr E was critical of Mr O (the father's psychologist) stating that "...it's like treating appendicitis by only seeing the head" and that he was seeing the father in isolation. Her view is that "[Mr O] doesn't even believe that enmeshment exists, so I'm not sure how it can be treated". It was suggested to Dr E that she did not make a recommendation that the child be treated by the same specialist as the father in the form of dyad therapy. Dr E said she did, but it was suggested to her that the only reference to dyad therapy was the following statement which did not use the term explicitly:

[135]

In cross-examination by counsel for the father, Dr K was asked to detail the criteria the father met for narcissistic personality disorder. Dr K responded that "[the father] was tortured, deeply hurt. He clearly had a sense of narcissistic wounding" ... "[h]e had a clear sense of a narcissistic wound, that is, that - something that went to his core. It was something that he demonstrated to me he couldn't get beyond and that the hurt and so was visible at the time of the assessment." Dr K conceded that in his initial assessment of the father, he presented no threat to X but after he had interviewed the mother, he formed a different view. When challenged as to whether he had accepted everything the mother reported as true, Dr K said he accepted some of it but found her account and presentation to be more far more forthright than the father's.
In his assessment of the mother, Dr K reported that the mother presented as straightforward and disclosing in her account and assessed there were no symptoms attributable to borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. He noted that the mother was anxious as to X's wellbeing but did not present with symptoms of a psychiatric condition.
Having interviewed both parents, Dr K viewed the father's presentation as concerning and throughout the interview observed the father as heightened and difficult to control. Dr K noted that "it was clear [the father] holds [the mother] with a sense of contempt if not hatred and used the interview (as noted by a previous Psychologist he attended) as an opportunity to vent his anger and resentment of her throughout the interview." In contrast, Dr K described the mother's account as detailed and compelling and noted that the mother acknowledged an early history of sexual abuse albeit appropriately sought treatment and did not present as deregulated, or with a disordered personality.
Dr K ultimately considered that it was likely the allegations the father raised regarding the mother pertained more closely to himself. He noted that if in fact it was the case that the father had been taking X to various mental health and medical practitioners, then "the clinical picture which emerges can be likened to a Munchausen's by Proxy set of dynamics." When challenged as to the basis for this assessment in cross-examination by counsel for the father, Dr K considered that but for the mother effectively expressing same, it was the matter of degree in which the mother had acknowledged that X had some medical problems, however, it was her account of the level of involvement of the father and the frequency of the contact that X had with medical practitioners whilst in his care, which he saw was consistent with a form of over-medicalisation of her condition.
Having had the opportunity to hear Mr O's oral evidence, it was suggested to Dr K, by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer, to consider if, on his assessment, the father is working on addressing such issues as described by Dr K. Dr K was not prepared to compliment the father and stated he was not entirely reassured by the level of improvement and insight, citing his personality and his "wounded sense of self, which [the father] still carries". His current assessment of the father was that he still remained a risk to X however this is in circumstances where X has expressed her love for her father and a wish to have contact with him. He indicated that the father should continue to engage with Mr O.
In closing submissions, counsel for the father submitted that the Court should not have regard to Dr K's evidence about the father's diagnosis. Counsel described how Dr K's report contradicted all of the father's treating medical professionals, namely Mr O, who had not identified the issues.
Counsel for the mother urged the Court to accept Dr K's evidence, describing him as an impressive witness.
Having considered the report of Dr K and his oral evidence, I accept Dr K's evidence insofar as he assessed the parents very early on in the breakdown of their relationship where emotions ran high and the parents' view of one another was very negative. Counsel all conceded that a diagnosis of factitious disorder (Munchausen's-by-proxy) was not in issue, and this conclusion is consistent with mine.
It is clear that the father did not present well to Dr K, and I accept that Dr K is a witness of significant experience and expertise in this Court. However, I am concerned that the presentation of the parties at the time of their interviews has influenced Dr K's diagnoses and as I have said earlier that was not my impression of the parties during the hearing. This in it of itself suggests to me that the father has made improvements in his presentation between the date of Dr K's interviews and the date of hearing. I am also concerned that Dr K accepted the mother's views as to overmedicalisation of X which by the conclusion of hearing had not only been abandoned by the mother but established by the father that the allegation was incorrect. I therefore treat Dr K's evidence with a degree of caution and in being somewhat historical in the context of what should be the pathway moving forwards.

[142]

In evidence and when being cross-examined by counsel for the mother, the self-assessment tools reported by Mr O were challenged in that there was an incongruency with the father's answers at a time when X's time was reduced to supervised only with him. Mr O made an appropriate concession that at that time it appeared the father's testing results were inaccurate however explained that the questionnaires administered captured a snapshot of a person's current emotions at a place in time related to stress, depression and anxiety. When challenged as to the current accuracy as to testing results and observations, having regard to the previous inaccurate assessment, Mr O disagreed with that proposition.
In evidence Mr O confirmed that the father continues to attend sessions weekly and that since his most recent report in June 2024, Mr O was cognisant that the father had turned his mind to issues of enmeshment and boundaries. Having completed a total of 47 sessions with the father, Mr O said that he has seen progress in the father's attitude towards the relationship with his daughter and the mother.
Mr O conceded that at the time their sessions commenced, the father had a negative view of the mother. He portrayed their relationship as one where he was intimidated by the mother and exasperated by her. He also conceded that at the commencement of his sessions the father disputed the facts around Dr E's assessment and at times attempted to justify his past behaviour. In contrast, Mr O's current assessment was that the father had now realised that some of his behaviours were not appropriate and he had crossed some boundaries. He said the father displayed heightened responses to discussing behaviours around X that have been the subject of much criticism in the proceedings but recorded that he and the father were working through this in therapy and the father displayed some insight and was able to "check himself" and regulate. Appropriately, Mr O further reported that he provided ongoing support around grief and loss, and offered the father strategies to manage the consequences of a final Court decision.
I found Mr O to be an impressive witness who made appropriate concessions. For instance, when asked about a particular incident where the father was seen to have whispered into X's ear during supervised time and told there was an allegation that the father had said to X "I'm fighting to get you back", he acknowledged that if the father had said those words, that would indicate a lack of insight into parental boundaries and if the father did not raise this directly in their sessions, this also demonstrated a lack of insight. He was also able to understand that if the father was whispering into X's ear he may have seen that as an attempt to reassure X that he loves and cares for her in circumstances where the time between X and the father had been significantly restricted.
In regard to the father's proposal for equal time, Mr O was asked whether the father would cope should the result of the final hearing not aligned with his view of what is in X's interests mainly equal shared time. He was hesitant to provide an optimistic prognosis, saying that the father would have to overcome emotional barriers and conceded that it would be "very hard for the [father] to accept that decision and there will be a grieving process" but that "he will work through that".
A dispute arose as to Mr O's costs. In my view Mr O is one of the father's treaters and one of the father's witnesses and the father should be responsible for those costs. Overall, I found Mr O to be an impressive witness, who has had an ongoing relationship with the father, with a level of insight into the father's personality style, vulnerabilities and his strengths, I regard him as a significant asset to the father and I would hope that treatment between Mr O and the father continue for X's benefit.

[158]

As mentioned earlier, the father relied on the Observational Report prepared by Family Contact Service annexed to an affidavit filed on 12 June 2024. Family Contact Service were engaged following Orders made by consent on 5 October 2023, for the father's time with X to be supervised for 3 hours per week. The Observational Report is lengthy details a total of 33 supervised visits between the father and X from 28 October 2023 and 3 June 2024 (inclusive). The father relies on these Observational Report to demonstrate the close bond he shares with X, and that more than once, X had requested to spend more time him. They indicate that he engaged in the sessions in a child focussed manner (as observed by the supervisor) and that the visits were positive in nature and no issues were observed.
The mother has a different view of the success of the supervised time. During her evidence, whilst accepting that overall, the reports were positive of X's time with her father, following time she observed X to be a "mess" and that she would "kick the car, yell and scream" for several hours and did not talk to the mother following the sessions. The mother believed that the reduction in X's time in March 2024 to 90 minutes was to reduce her stress and improve her emotional regulation. She disagreed with the observational reports, stating that X was "not under stress" She felt that during the sessions "[X] was people pleasing" at the sessions with her father. However, she did make a concession that X's stress was not entirely caused by the father and recognised that X experienced normal "childhood challenges."
Several excerpts from the Observational Report were put to Dr E in cross-examination which I have dealt with previously. Counsel for the father, suggested that her recommendations effectively imposed restrictions on the father's time with X, such that it damaged their relationship. Dr E disagreed with this assertion and stated that she put forward recommendations, not restrictions but conceded that her recommendations would have an impact on the father-child relationship. She opposed that the father-child relationship was damaged without having been provided with evidence of the damage however stated that there was evidence of a "mis-attuned father."
An issue arose during the hearing, with respect to X making a comment during a period of supervision in February 2025 about an older child when his father was employed to do work in the mother's home. What is significant about this is that X said at page 41 of the supervisor's report: -

[161]

The Full Court has recently emphasised the need for caution in making family violence findings and in assuming that particular parties are or are not at fault. In Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 ("Pickford"), Their Honours Austin & Williams JJ said:-
1. However, in litigation under Pt VII of the Act, untested allegations of family violence are not proven facts. No court can prophetically know whether such allegations made by one party against another are true or false and, if false, whether the falsehood is deliberate or inadvertent. Disputed allegations of family violence must be subjected to the same forensic rigour as any other contested factual issue (Edinger & Duy [2023] FedCFamC1A 194; (2023) 68 Fam LR 55). The party alleging the fact bears the burden of proving it (Wallaby Grip Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd (2010) 240 CLR 444 at [36]) and the standard of the burden is the balance of probabilities (s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)). The same point was recently made by the Full Court, though perhaps in less robust terms (Leventis & Leventis [2024] FedCFamC1A 141; (2024) FLC 94-204 at [13]-[19]).
I have also had the opportunity to observe the parents give evidence. The Court generally avoids making adverse credit findings if a case can be otherwise decided (Adamson & Adamson [2014] FamCAFC 232; (2014) FLC 93-622, at [89]-[90]).
Having regard to all the evidence, both parents make serious allegations of family violence perpetrated against each other. I note that some of the incidents, such as verbal arguments throughout the parent's relationship, took place in the presence and hearing of X. I will not traverse every allegation but based on the evidence, I find that there was mutual family violence perpetrated by both parents against one another. The mother was verbally abusive on multiple occasions towards the father during the relationship. She denied physically abusing the father, but this allegation was not pressed. Likewise, the father was coercively controlling and engaged in emotional abuse of the mother.
The father presents a case which says he is the victim of family violence. I find that the parents dynamic was toxic albeit especially towards the end of the relationship and this dynamic has carried in the post separation relationship and their co-parenting relationship with respect to X. Although there is an 18-year age difference between the parents I do not accept that the father was grooming the mother. They entered their relationship when they were both adults. Separated once or twice and then reconciled at a later stage of their lives. I am concerned that the mother continues to raise this issue as there is inference that he will engage in such behaviour with X. Although not pressed by the mother I have the sense that her fear that the father might sexually abuse X lingers. For the sake of complete clarity I do not regard X as being at risk of sexually inappropriate behaviour or grooming behaviour directed towards her by the father.
I note the Intervention Order was granted in mid-2023 with the father and X listed as protected persons. The mother's evidence was that she consented to the order without admission and that as to the facts and matters that gave rise to the need for the intervention order. As I have discussed earlier, I listened to the recording of the incident in December 2022 and my impression was that the mother was the aggressor, baited the father into an argument and refused to desist. I also do not regard that incident in December 2022 as a one off. Her comments about the father struck as being common and familiar insults used by the mother to denigrate the father for his lack of work, appearance and care of X. I also do not accept that the mother's threats to kill during that incident were not serious or that the father should not have taken such threats seriously. In listening to the recordings, the mother's tone was angry and abusive. I do not accept the submission put by counsel for the mother that the father was not fearful or that his recording of the incident was merely a machination to obtain evidence to obtain evidence against the mother. The result of the intervention order which included complaint about this incident by the father resulted in the mother being excluded from the former matrimonial home.
In her evidence, I observed the mother minimised her behaviour towards the father on the night of 10 December 2022 (exhibit F1) including the verbal abuse (i.e. "fat pedo", "fat fucking idiot", "arsehole", "fat fuck", and "fucking loser") and the threats. I found her acknowledgement that her behaviour was embarrassing and inappropriate struck as hollow and at best, was an attempt to distance herself from a version of herself that detracts from her case by claiming it was a once-off heated exchange.
Having regard to all of the mother's evidence in both written and oral form it is clear to me that the mother holds a very negative view of the father both before separation and after. This negative view is projected in ways that did not serve the co-parenting relationship after separation.
Equally, however it is clear that both before and after separation the father has held negative views of the mother which is shown in his complaints of the mother to Dr K and Dr E. However, I have formed the view that the father's negative views about the mother have tempered in more recent times and that circumstances have likely been assisted by the counselling he has undertaken.
All in all, it is likely that the parents co-parenting relationship will never be completely resolved and that militates against an equal shared care arrangement. It would be impossible for these parents to negotiate the challenges that an equal shared parental arrangement creates especially having regard to X's ongoing health needs which add additional challenges over and above them simply negotiating everyday life decisions.

[162]

The parties sought to tender a report which diagnoses the child with Social Communication Disorder. X's attendance on her gut psychologist stopped in June 2023 and she engaged with Dr D in April 2024 X's health difficulties have also been referenced elsewhere in this decision. Additionally, X suffers from coeliac disease being diagnosed in 2021 and was consulting with her gut psychologist for issues surrounding avoidant restrictive food intake disorder ('ARFID') At one point suffered from tracheitis (although now that condition appears to have abated).
As the commencement of the hearing a significant portion of the mother's case centred around allegations that the father was overservicing X with medical practitioners and medical appointments, without notice to the mother and with the father preventing her from participating in the same. After lengthy cross-examination by counsel for the father, it became apparent that the vast majority of the medical appointments were necessary with only approximately two perhaps being unnecessary. I regard those two appointments as insignificant as many parents will act in an abundance of caution in respect of their children's health.
However, there are other aspect of the mother's allegations surrounding X's medical appointments. Firstly, there is a sense from the mother's material that the father was intentionally causing X to become ill by feeding her food which was not gluten free. The underlying implication was that the father suffered from some sort of factitious disorder. Secondly, when the mother discovered that the father had taken X for two medical appointments in 2022 for a vaginal rash her evidence suggested that she was concerned that this was inappropriate on the part of the father consistent with my concern of her lingering doubts as to X's safety in the father's care.
I have previously dealt with my view of the father not being a risk of sexually inappropriate conduct with X, but I take this opportunity to observe that I do not find that the father intentionally tried to make X sick and I find that he is capable and willing to follow X's special diet and will do so in the future.
It is quite clear that with respect to medical issues there is disagreement between the parties. For instance, even with respect to X's coeliac condition the mother reported to Dr K in July 2023 that the condition was not particularly severe. Even with something as simple as X's cough the mother thought it was a common cough not requiring medical attention, that the father should not have taken her to the doctor and she did not believe the condition was tracheitis (although the doctor did reference a "tracheitis like cough" as is evidenced in the medical notes).
In evidence, in relation to X's irritation around the vagina and the mother's knowledge of it in August 2023, the mother said: -

[165]

At the commencement of the hearing the gravamen of the mother's case, largely supported by Dr E, was that the father was influencing X to believe she was a sick child and actively forced her position of being a sick child following medical appointments. Dr E firstly accepted the mother's position that the father was overservicing X in a medical sense and although it is not completely clear that he was actively trying to make X sick. The first proposition was abandoned by the mother and the second I have found to be unlikely to be true.
I do accept the evidence of Dr E notwithstanding those difficulties that X's self-perception as a sick child was problematic and does suggest that X was enmeshed to some extent with the father during the relationship and following separation. What is difficult to accept especially in terms of how the evidence has fallen with respect to these issues, is reducing the father's time as recommended and adopted was the only way to address that circumstance. Nevertheless, whether it was right or not is less relevant to the consideration of how to move forward as it has already occurred.
In evidence the mother claimed she was unaware of the frequent appointments with the GP for X and continued to argue that X did not require ongoing medical appointments which is not correct. The father insisted the mother knew about every appointment and also had the benefit of having access to invoices directed to her from MM Medical Centre and the credit card bills. Regardless of whether she knew about the appointments or not it is clear that the medical appointments were necessary as conceded. I would not be surprised if the mother's knowledge of the intricate detail of X's need for medical attention was opaque. She was the primary bread winner for the family working in a top-level executive position. She was working full time and was busy and also conceded that as part of her employment socialisation with colleagues was advantageous. The father was primarily looking after X and the home. It is not unusual in that sort of family dynamic for one parent to be primarily responsible for a child's medical needs and in the dynamic that existed in X's family of toxicity and conflict I would not be surprised if the father avoided mentioning some aspects of X's care as it is clear that was another source of conflict between the mother and the father. I do not accept the father's evidence that the mother knew of each and every medical appointment but nor do I accept that mother was kept completely in the dark with respect to the same.
I note that it was the father who first raised X's health issues in his interview with Dr K which took place on 18 July 2023. Dr K's report was released prior to the first family report by Dr E dated 21 September 2023. Dr E amongst other things seized upon the medical issues/alleged medical overservicing following the mothers report of how the father dealt with X's medical issues. At paragraph 136 of Dr E's "It appears unclear to the reader from the medical notes why [X] was needing to be seen weekly and what the medical health concerns were to warrant such regular medical intervention" and later stating "a testing of the evidence of the medical records and opinions of medical doctors would need to be undertaken to better understand what if anything necessitated such regular appointments." In an overall sense it seems to me Dr E accepted the mother's narrative that the medical appointments were an overservicing, and it was not until the evidence was tested that it became apparent that that was incorrect. Although I accept that the father raised the medical issues at first instance the mother seized on the opinions of Dr K and Dr E and exaggerated the number of medical appointments that were being undertaken, including in her affidavit material. This contributed to the time between X and the father being drastically reduced.

[166]

The topic of enmeshment was traversed in detail in Dr E's evidence which I have referred to previously. I have also referred to the factual basis upon which Dr E formed her opinion which was not borne out on the evidence to the extent alleged by the mother. This included her allegation of over medical servicing of X and alleged large absences from school which I also find to be an exaggeration after the evidence is considered. On examination of the school records, there was insufficient evidence to validate her concerns insofar as X had missed roughly equal time (or thereabouts) of school in the care of each of the parents over an 18-20-month period. Counsel for the father submitted that the mother falsely used this information when presenting her narrative to the experts which in turn affected their views of the father and to support her narrative of enmeshment (although not identified by the mother as that condition until Dr E in a psychological sense coined the term).
Notwithstanding that there is some force in submissions for the father that in the reports there was incorrect information provided by the mother I am still of the view that Dr E was correct in identifying a dysfunctional dynamic of enmeshment between X and the father. I also accept Dr E's evidence that there were features of enmeshment between child and father including the note X authored in reaching her conclusions. That note is referred to in paragraph 69 of Dr E's first report of 9 September 2023. The context of that note is that X had stopped seeing Dr H and was aggrieved by that decision. The father gave Dr E the note X had written and had asked him to give the note to Mr KK (the father's legal practitioner), and the note reads "fuck you, If I can't see Dr H then I will fuck you all. You fucked it." The note also depicted a picture of a face with long hair (presumably the mother) with a cross over it and a face with short hair (presumably the father) with a tick. The concerns of Dr E were that X mirrored her father's presentation, insofar as she saw herself as a victim and blamed everybody else for her issues. It seems that X was wrapped up in her father's identity and viewed herself as a sick child.
In accepting that evidence however it must be seen that that presentation by X was at a point fixed in time, and a lot has happened since then. I am satisfied that the father has made improvements and has developed some level of insight with respect to the problem. He has made efforts to improve his position with counselling and although I accept that the father presented very badly to Dr K and Dr E he does present well to others. Although clearly stressed I did not observe those same features in his presentation in evidence.
I am also not of the view that the father intentionally created this enmeshment dynamic with X but rather that it evolved as a product of his personality style, described by Dr K as his narcissistic personality style. Nevertheless, with the orders that have been made it seems to me that the enmeshment dynamic between X and the father has been disrupted, and I note the father's observation that at the time of the hearing he did not have a significant or substantial relationship with X. I also note the comments of Dr D that X is likely to become aligned with whomever she is in the care of and keep this consideration in mind in making care arrangements.
Of course, the risk to X of returning to this enmeshed relationship with the father exists and it is not healthy for her if it resumes. This is especially so as she is fast heading to the developmental stage where she needs to become more independent and will start to form peer groups independent of her relationship with her parents which is an important developmental stage. The risk is not completely eliminated, but with the father's development of a greater level of insight as to what was actually occurring for X and why it was harmful in the initial period and beyond, in my view the risk can be monitored and the time has come for X's wishes to be respected but more importantly for her relationship with her father to become more regulated, lengthier and more in line with an arrangement that will ensure the father should be a significant person in X's life.

[172]

Having made findings that both parents committed mutual family violence against each other and, at times, in the presence or hearing of X, I shall now turn to the measures and arrangements which aim to promote X's safety.
I have regard to the current Interim Orders made following the conclusion of the hearing on 10 October 2024. Those orders were made by consent of the parties and effectively provide for a gradual progression of the Father's time from supervision to daytime periods and overnight time.
The parties agreed to those orders in circumstances where the mother had certainly not entirely abandoned her concerns about the father posing a risk of enmeshment to X and the associated risks as outlined by Dr E with that. Those risks are mitigated by the father's ongoing engagement with Mr O, and Dr E's opinion in her evidence that there should be a recommendation for an increase in X's time with the father albeit at a very gradual pace.
I have indicated previously that I do not consider an equal shared parenting arrangement as being in X's interests due to family conflict and a poor co-parenting relationship. That is not the only basis upon which an equal shared care arrangement cannot be supported. Although the fathers' evidence is that he has improved, I am not satisfied that he has been completely rehabilitated or that he has a level of insight sufficient to protect X from being drawn back into an enmeshed relationship if that level of care were implemented. I accept that ameliorating features are his continued weekly sessions with Mr O. He will need to do more work with Mr O following this decision and will have to deal with the loss of what he may perceive the orders that I make represent. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the time to be ordered is sufficiently contained to promote a meaningful relationship between X and the father, to which she is entitled, but will also ensure that X understands that she is in the primary care of the mother and that is the way her life shall move forward. I am also of the view that even if the father continues to have the deficits as described that with the shorter periods, he will be able to contain his behaviours having developed some level of insight as to what the behaviours are.
The mother has rigid views and an inherent distrust of the father. That is also a risk for X as it seems unlikely to me that the mother's views for the father will ever significantly change. This has manifested in their pre-separation dynamic which I have discussed and also in their post separation dynamic. Because of this it is likely that X will continue to be exposed to some level of family conflict. The mother appears unshakeable in her refusal to even contemplate evidence in favour of the father which establishes that the father has taken on board the concerns and made efforts to change.
I have regard to evidence that during the relationship, the mother was financially pressured and time poor. I accept Dr K's evidence that the mother used alcohol towards the end of the relationship which contributed to the toxic dynamic of the relationship. I am satisfied that this is not an ongoing risk.
X will continue to see her father in a block period every second weekend. Having made a finding that an enmeshment between the father and X once existed, with X now in the primary care of her mother and there being a gradual progression of the father's time moving forward, I am satisfied that the orders set out above will promote X's safety.
In circumstances where the interim orders by consent provided for a progression of the father's time to occur over the course of approximately 10 months, I am satisfied that an increase to the father's time to five nights a fortnight occur at the start of 2026 when X commences Grade 4. I am satisfied that this will enable X to settle into her father's care and enjoy gradually increasing time with her father and not feel overwhelmed by the changes.
I am satisfied that the proposed orders promote X's safety when in each of her parent's care.

[184]

(a) The discussion occurred in the presence of Dr D with whom X is very comfortable.

(b) The child had a good level of understanding of the role of the Independent Children's Lawyer and purpose of the discussion.

(c) Prior to the change of residence, X missed her mother, had a sense she was "out in the world somewhere". After the change of residence, she said she missed her father but "It felt OK. I missed him a little bit, but I needed time with my Mum".

(d) X told the Independent Children's Lawyer she liked things the way they "are now" (May 2024) (the time at the time was 90 minutes). She was aware of the concept of make-up time with the father if time was missed. X expressed that she likes to live with her mum, that (paraphrased) 'Mum knows how to feed me, helps me brush my teeth, I like it how it is'.

(e) X expressed some concern that she would get bored if time was increased with the father. The Independent Children's Lawyer flagged extra time might allow things like roller skating or going to the movies. X thought that might be OK but wasn't sure. X said that if she were spending time with her father overnight, he doesn't know what she likes to eat and she wouldn't have her belongings. Currently with activities, X said she initiates, and Dad follows along.

(f) When asked to place on a scale from 1-10 how she feels about spend-time, X said she felt 6/10 comfortable and 4/10 anxious about the spend-time of 90 minutes. If she had to do overnights, 8/10 anxious, if 4 hours 7/10 anxious, and without the supervisor 9/10 anxious. She was asked what her biggest worry would be, and she responded that she was concerned her father would lock the door, "no one would get me", and he would tell her things she is not supposed to know "like Court stuff".

(g) She said she thought the supervisor took up too much time talking to her father.

(h) X said that she would feel 9/10 worried if she only saw her father twice a year and prefers seeing him every week.

(i) X expressed that video calls could be annoying and prefers in person contact as she can give him hugs.

[185]

The Act specifies, under section 60CE, that it does not require a child to express views.
It is clear X has been exposed to the parental conflict and that the inability of her parents to shield her from this following their separation, places her in the difficult position of having to please both of her parents. This is manifested in her views expressed to the experts, medical professionals and her parents as well as through her presentation in losing a relationship with her father and the extended paternal family, as reported in the observational reports. I also note that X presented with an observable physical tic in May 2022, following her parents' separation albeit the mother says she did not observe this.
Over the course of these proceedings, X has also experienced significant changes in living arrangements between her parents, changes in medical professionals and a change in schooling. This can create confusion and uncertainty for any child and leave them wanting reassurance and comfort from their parents.
I am of the view that X's views of her father have been informed by the mother, particularly following the release of Dr E's Family Report. This is not healthy in circumstances where her attachment to her father, at least before the parent's separation, was strong. While her views have been mainly influenced by her mother, they have been further reinforced through the change in her time with her father such that it was restricted from a shared care arrangement to a supervised setting. Together with signals or messaging from her mother, X has internalised some level of discomfort in her father's care although not to the extent that he poses a danger to her. There remains a warm attachment to her father but an overall concern that if she were to choose one parent, she will lose the other.
Overall, I am satisfied that X's views now are such that she may prefer not to spend as much time with the father as I shall order. This is a significant change to the way she presented in the first three quarters of 2024 where she was continually demanding and expressing a view that she wanted to spend more time with her father and even equal time with her father. Her more recent expression of views as reported by the Independent Children's Lawyer suggests there has been a significant shift in her views and her desires but it seems to me that that circumstance has resulted from external factors most significantly the fact that she has not spent significant time with the father for a considerable time. The reduction of time as it occurred has placed the father, from X's point of view, as a warm and loving friend rather than the previous parent/ child relationship they previously had. This also accords with the evidence of the father who felt that the parental relationship had diminished. Although I do take X's views into account those views can only be afforded limited weight because of her recent lived experience in terms of her relationship with her father and the corresponding reliance on her mother as her primary carer.

[187]

X's psychological needs are the central concern as I have set out in detail. She is a child that is heading towards adolescence. As I have said earlier it is important that she be in a position to individuate from her parents. She is a child who is vulnerable to both parents' influence and actions, and she has endured massive changes in her life since separation which will also have impacted on her emotional and psychological state. Temperamentally it seems that X is a precocious child and whilst I am sure that is one of the most delightful parts of her personality it may also indicate a propensity to be more theatrical and be susceptible to external influence. As she continues to develop it is important that the parents turn their minds to ensuring X has consistency and stability in her routine to ensure that her developmental, psychological, and emotional needs are met.
X is currently engaged with Dr D for support as she deals with all the upcoming changes in her life, including her increase in time with her father. Both parents are engaged with this process and the mother's concerns about enmeshment are mitigated because she says Dr D is neither of the parent's treating psychologist. Having had four independent appointments with X, I am confident Dr D can appropriately support X to have an opportunity to develop healthy attachments and independence and am pleased that the parents are supportive of her treatment recommendations. This is a positive sign given the history. Given X has presented with a level of anxiety and uncertainty about what her living arrangements will be, it is imperative that she is supported to understand that moving forward, there is consistency in terms of who her primary carer is and what her arrangements will be between her parents. I propose to make orders for Dr D to explain the orders to the child and to this end, she shall be provided with a copy of my reasons.
Dr D suggested that any professional working with the parents be privy to information provided by Family Report writer and therapist. The Independent Children's Lawyer was reluctant to support such an order given the controversy surrounding Dr E's reports. Instead, I will order that any professional working with the parents may be provided a copy of these Reasons, which discuss the Reports in detail but against the broader context of this family.

[198]

A contentious issue to consider is whether the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and joint decision-making authority for all major long-term decisions for X. For reasons which I have already made apparent to the parents, I am not prepared to make that order in circumstances where the parents do not have an amicable relationship and where X has ongoing health and medical needs. The father concedes there are communication difficulties although does not accept that he is responsible for this. The mother blames the father for failing to notify the mother of medical appointments in the past and trying to exclude her from medical appointments. He denies these allegations but when put to the mother, she is unable to concede and instead accuses him of causing X's illnesses.
Having regard to the level of parental conflict that still exists, I must consider how this would impact X. X's health and medical needs have been negatively impacted because of her parent's disagreements. This has resulted in multiple changes to her medical professionals, medical diagnosis and advice received and delays in her engagement with medical professionals.
In the absence of any cooperation between the parents as to X's health and medical needs, the only option I have is to appoint one parent to have sole decision-making authority with respect to X's medical and health needs. I note that sole-decision-making to the mother is supported by Dr E having regard to the communication issues between the parents.
The mother has had sole parental responsibility for X's education, medical and health related matters (including psychological) since October 2023 and has had primary care of X since mid-2023. X is currently engaged with Dr D and both parents are engaged in this process. The evidence does not support a change in these arrangements with regard to medical issues.
As I have set out earlier, I am concerned that the mother at one point was untruthful in her evidence as to what X's needs were and later was misleading as to X's health history, when she attended to X at the Z Medical Centre. I shall make the suite of orders sought by the mother but with an addendum order that the father shall be permitted to attend on treaters (at his own expense and in the absence of X and at no more than six monthly intervals) if there is a need to obtain information as to X's medical and health presentation when she is his care. If there is an unsolicited request for his attendance or information (and I am thinking of Dr D in particular) this order should not prohibit him from participating. I make it clear that this order does not allow the father to direct or instruct treaters as to X's treatment as that responsibility lies with the mother.

Mireille & Peleus [2025] FedCFamC1F 800 (7 November 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (200 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (2)