Molloy & Keylon [2025] FedCFamC2F 1267 (1 September 2025)

(a) Any school, day care or kindergarten X may attend;

(b) Any medical or allied health professionals that X might attend upon.

1. All extant applications be and are otherwise dismissed.
2. Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and those particulars are included in these Orders.

1. The Father did not attend Court this day, did not respond to calls outside the courtroom at approximately 10.15 am and 11.35 am, and was unable to be contacted by his counsel.

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

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

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

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

1. These are the settled reasons of a judgment delivered ex tempore. These reasons were delivered orally. These settled reasons have been corrected from the transcript where appropriate to correct grammatical errors, to add citations, passages of authorities and evidence, to add observations inadvertently omitted due to the pressure of time and to attempt to make the orally delivered reasons easier to read. The substance is unchanged.

1. In the matter of Molloy & Keylon, the matter comes before me listed for a final hearing on Monday, 1 September 2025. The parties, including the Independent Children's Lawyer ('ICL'), appear by counsel. When the matter was called at 10 o'clock, Mr Burns, counsel for the applicant Father, Mr Molloy ('the Father'), advised that he had not been in contact with his client that morning and did not have any explanation for the Father not attending court. His counsel told me that he had been in contact with the Father over the weekend and, as a result of that weekend contact, counsel had expected him to attend the court well before 10 o'clock this morning.
2. I stood the matter down after some discussion and proceeded with the other matter that was listed before the Court, also listed for final hearing. This matter resumed at a little after 11.30am and by this time, the Father had still not provided any explanation for his absence or attended court. The Father is the applicant in the proceedings and seeks orders for supervised time with his child. In all of the circumstances, but particularly when he cannot get in touch with his client, counsel for the Father, retained pursuant to the section 102NA scheme, was in the position of being unable to either consent or oppose any application, and I permitted counsel to effectively withdraw from the case.
3. I requested counsel for the Father to remain at court until 1.15 pm, just in case there was some further communication with the applicant Father, or he attended court. I now acknowledge his assistance to me and indicate that he can leave. I give these orders and reasons commencing at 1.15 pm.

1. The parents commenced a relationship in 2011, which endured for about 12 months before the first separation was in place, and the parties resumed a relationship in about 2015, before separating again and on a final basis in 2018. It appears that the Father is now unemployed. The respondent Mother, Ms Keylon ('the Mother), is self-employed, running a home services business.
2. The Father commenced these proceedings in March 2024 where he sought orders to spend time with his son, X, born in 2016. It is common ground that the last time the Father saw X was January or February 2023, save for some very limited time thereafter.

1. In this case, I proceeded on what is known as undefended in the circumstances of the following rules of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 ('the Rules'):

(1) For the purposes of rule 10.27, an applicant is in default if the applicant fails to:

...

(e) prosecute the proceeding with due diligence.

Rule 10.27 Orders on default

(1) If an applicant is in default, the court may order that:

(a) the proceeding be stayed or dismissed as to the whole or any part of the relief claimed by the applicant;

...

Rule 15.19 Failure to attend a court event

(1) If a party to a proceeding is absent from a court event (including a first court date), the court may do one or more of the following:

(c) if the absent party is an applicant--dismiss the application;

...

(e) proceed with the hearing generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding.

1. I determined that it was appropriate to have regard to the Father's material and that there were exceptional circumstances permitting me to do so. Those being, the Father had participated in the family report as recently as June 2025, conferred with his counsel over the weekend, had filed an affidavit of evidence-in-chief and an amended initiating application on 6 August and an outline of case on 25 August 2025.

1. The Mother relied upon the circumstance that back on 3 September 2024, at a time when the Father was not seeing X, he had been ordered to undertake hair follicle tests as follows.
   1. Within 30 days of the date of these Orders, both of the parties each undergo hair follicle drug and alcohol testing and to facilitate same:
      1. The Applicant and Respondent make an appointment and attend for hair collection at an Australian Workplace Drug Testing Services (AWDTS) Clinic or nominee for hair drug testing purposes. Collection is to be conducted by a qualified and certified collector...

...

1. Within seventy-two (72) hours of the date of these orders, the Applicant and Respondent are required to make an appointment with AWDTS by telephoning [...] for the purpose of providing a hair sample for hair drug testing purposes;

...

1. The Applicant and Respondent are to attend at an AWDTS Clinic or nominee and submit to the supervised collection of a hair sample from the relevant party at the earliest available appointment time within 28 days of the date of these Orders;

...

1. That between 3 February 2025 and 3 March 2025, the Applicant Father undergo hair follicle drug and alcohol testing pursuant to the conditions detailed in order 10(a)(i) -(iv) of these orders.
2. The Applicant Father forthwith provide to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the Respondent Mother's Solicitors the results of the Hair Follicle Test he undertook pursuant to the Orders made in these proceedings on 14 May 2024.

1. The results of the test thought to exist, referred to at order 12, arose because the Father had alleged that he had, in fact, undertaken a hair follicle test for illicit substances on 14 May 2024, but neither the ICL nor the Mother or her lawyers had seen those results. The Father did not provide the results of a hair follicle test undertaken within 72 hours, and he did not provide a further hair follicle test meant to be undertaken between 3 February and 3 March in 2025. He still has not provided any hair follicle test to the Court, to the ICL or to the Mother's lawyers. As will be seen, the issue of the Father's consumption, and continuing consumption, of illicit substances has contributed to complete chaos in the Father's life, chaos in his relationships with his son, chaos in his relationship with his son's Mother, and significant interaction with, and sanctions from the criminal justice system.

1. The long and the short of the Father's trial affidavit, which I had regard to, was that he simply did not understand all the allegations the Mother makes against him. I have taken into account the Mother's trial affidavit filed on 5 August 2025 and hence, I infer, available to the Father to deal with when he filed an affidavit on 6 August 2025, and if not, he could have filed a responding affidavit. The Father's affidavit was late, and I place little weight on that in the circumstances of the general chaos in the Father's life.
2. The Mother's affidavit asserts significant violence, including the following:

19. During the relationship with [Mr Molloy] I experienced the following:

a. Controlling behaviours;

b. Intimidating behaviours;

c. Physical violence;

d. Emotional abuse;

e. Behaviours designed to socially isolate me;

f. Verbal abuse;

g. Sexual abuse.

I will describe select incidents that demonstrate [Mr Molloy]'s behaviours

towards me during the relationship below

...

1. Throughout the relationship if [Mr Molloy] was frustrated, he would grab me tightly by the arms and shake me whilst saying "you're fucking crazy." He would continue to shake me as he held me tightly by the arms. [X] witnessed [Mr Molloy] shake me in this way on more than one occasion. [X] did not witness every time it occurred.

...

1. In 2017 I recall [Mr Molloy] and I were out with [B], [C] and [X] at [D Play Centre, Suburb E]. [Mr Molloy] started to abuse me in front of [C] and [X], screaming at me while we were inside the [...] centre. I do not recall everything that [Mr Molloy] said, but I remember [Mr Molloy] telling me I was 'embarrassing him' and [Mr Molloy] telling me to 'go clean yourself up in the bathroom' which I did. I recall I started to cry and [C] and [X] stared at me, looking frightened and sad. I could see other people at the [...] centre looking at us as a result of the commotion. [C] and [X] chose prizes at the end of our visit and [Mr Molloy] became angry. I believed he wanted the children to hurry up so that he could return home to smoke marijuana. [Mr Molloy] became more abusive. This was one of the first times [Mr Molloy] loudly abused me in public. It made me fearful for what I might experience when we returned home. When we were outside the [...] centre [Mr Molloy] threw my car keys into the bushes near the car. I had to get down on my hands and knees on the on the ground to find my car keys. [C] and [X] were completely silent as we travelled home... This incident made me feel extremely embarrassed as well as anxious and fearful.

2. In 2018 [Mr Molloy] continued to be physically abusive of me. He would grab me by the arms... and shake me, causing injuries and leaving mark on my upper body. I took some photographs of these injuries and attach them below.

...

1. On 11 June 2019 [X] was returned to me from [Mr Molloy]'s care with significant bruising to his face. I could not understand what had happened to [X] to sustain the injury. I approached [Mr Molloy] on multiple occasions to ask how [X] had sustained the injury, but [Mr Molloy] would not discuss it with me. I took a photo of [X]'s injury on the day he returned to my care after spending time with [Mr Molloy] in order to document the injury.

...

1. In 2019 [Mr Molloy] was incarcerated in [...] Prison for a period of four weeks for the charges in relation to breaching the IVO. During the time [Mr Molloy] was incarcerated I felt like a massive weight had been lifted from my shoulders that I had not even realised was there. For the first time in several years I felt as though I did not have to 'look over my shoulder' to remain safe from harm.

2. In 2020 I continued to have significant concerns about [X] in [Mr Molloy]'s care. The family violence I had experienced from [Mr Molloy] post separation had been relentless.

...

1. I attempted conversations with [Mr Molloy] about the impact his time with [X] was having. [Mr Molloy] was not open to discussing how his behaviour was impacting [X]. On 11 July 2022 I suggested to [Mr Molloy] via a SMS message that [X] return to my home on Sunday nights and not spend an overnight with [Mr Molloy]. I explained to [Mr Molloy] that [X]'s behaviour changed after time with [Mr Molloy] after spending time with [Mr Molloy]. [Mr Molloy] dismissed my concerns, calling them 'bullshit', suggesting I was raising them to 'suit my needs', and referring to [X] as a 'mummy's boy'.

2. If I tried to raise [X]'s behaviour with [Mr Molloy], [Mr Molloy] would become aggressive towards me. He swore. He would say I was trying to 'control his life'. He made me feel guilty when I mentioned [X]'s behaviour to him. [Mr Molloy] refused to acknowledge [X] was experiencing any distress after spending time with him.

3. In February 2023 I decided to suspend [Mr Molloy]'s time with [X] altogether. I had observed [X] would appear distressed and his behaviour would change following any time he spent with [Mr Molloy]. He would be distressed, angry and upset. He would throw items. It would take approximately one week for his behaviour to calm down.

...

1. After a while of spending no time with [Mr Molloy] I noticed [X]'s behaviour improved. It took some time, but I noticed [X] was less anxious. He did not display aggressive behaviours. He continued to improve as time went on. I could see how well-behaved [X] became, and importantly I noticed [X] just seemed so happy

1. I accept the Mother's evidence in regard to those events.

1. The Mother has been seeing a psychologist, Ms F. A letter has been obtained from Ms F which is admissible by reason of the rules against hearsay not applying in this matter. I accept some of Ms F's evidence. Ms F has seen the Mother from way back in 2009, and more recently, over 2024 and 2025 on 10 occasions.
2. Ms F opines, or alleges, the following matters:
   1. More recently, this Practitioner has met with the Applicant on the following dates 18/9/24, 4/10/24, 19/11/24, 12/12/24, 7/3/25, 20/3/25, 25/3/25, 2/4/25, 28/4/25 and 24/7/25... Her mental health has been effected in the form of post traumatic stress reactions because of her fear of her ex partner and the threat that he may again cause harm to her and her son.
   2. This Practitioner finds [Ms Keylon] to be a strong and resilient individual who under normal circumstances works hard and supports herself and her children. She has a range of personal resources that she draws on to cope with her particular life challenges however, because of this history of family violence and the impact on her mental health and coping patterns, [Ms Keylon] is drawn to men who are at first strong and protective but then can become violent and abusive. It is a complex relationship pattern that typically leads to many episodes of escape and recovery.
   3. She is struggling at this time and is extremely fearful that her ex partner will somehow, through this Hearing, again terrorise herself and her son.
3. I accept that evidence.
4. Further evidence before me is the observations of Mr G. Both the Mother and the Father attended Mr G for psychological evaluation. In regard to the Mother, Mr G asserted as follows:
   1. [Ms Keylon] disclosed a history of two abusive relationships, notably with an individual named [Mr H], whom she was involved with following a brief separation from [Mr Molloy] in 2014. The relationship with [Mr H] was marked by repeated instances of verbal, physical, emotional, and financial abuse. A particularly severe incident involved [Mr H] holding a firearm to her head, which led to the implementation of a Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) against [Mr H], effective until 2057.
   2. [Ms Keylon] met [Mr Molloy] in 2012, cohabited with him starting in 2015, and separated from him in 2018.
   3. The relationship with [Mr Molloy] was characterized by pervasive family violence, predominantly perpetrated by [Mr Molloy]. [Ms Keylon] described him as consistently aggressive and jealous throughout their relationship. She reported multiple instances of physical abuse, including an incident of strangulation, which ultimately led to their separation. The violence was reported to law enforcement on multiple occasions.
   4. [Ms Keylon] reported that [Mr Molloy]'s substance use, particularly chronic cannabis use, was a persistent issue throughout their relationship. She indicated that his withdrawal symptoms frequently manifested as irritability, exacerbating his aggressive behaviours.
   5. Following their separation, [Mr Molloy] breached the intervention order that was issued after the strangulation incident, resulting in his incarceration. After his release, [Mr Molloy] was subsequently charged with stalking [Ms Keylon].
   6. Due to the criminal charges against [Mr Molloy], [Ms Keylon] ceased contact between him and their son, [X].
   7. During the clinical interview, [Ms Keylon] was transparent regarding her history of mental health challenges, which include a history of anxiety, depression, and a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This PTSD diagnosis is linked to a traumatic incident where a previous partner broke into her home...
5. I do not accept the assertion of paragraph 103 because it conflicts with the Mother's affidavit, the evidence of which I accept. Little turns on that, and the disparity between the two accounts is really a matter, I suspect, of some miscommunication. Mr G was troubled by the Mother's past drug use and recommended that she undertake a hair follicle test. She did. That test was satisfactory and is in evidence. Mr G also made the following recommendation about parenting time:
   1. Parenting Time: There is insufficient evidence to support the restriction or limitation of parenting time for [Ms Keylon]. It is recommended that she continue to have regular, unrestricted access to her son, [X], provided that she continues to engage in the recommended mental health and substance use interventions.
6. In regard the psychological assessment of the Father, I refer to the following paragraphs from Mr G's report:
   1. [Mr Molloy] presented to the clinical interview 45 minutes late, appearing dishevelled with bloodshot eyes, and exhibiting psychomotor agitation throughout the session. His mood was predominantly irritable, especially toward the end of the interview. Although he was generally cooperative, his narrative focused on a perceived injustice in the legal process, reflecting a sense of victimization. He appeared confused about the specific allegations against him and displayed a defensive posture when discussing them. His speech was tangential, and his thought processes were largely preoccupied with defending himself, making engagement challenging.
   2. [Mr Molloy]'s developmental history was characterized by unstable and dysfunctional relationships, particularly with his Mother, who unexpectedly left the family when he was 10 years old. He reported having a good relationship with his Father, despite describing him as "angry", and noted positive relationships with all of his siblings. Of particular concern is his early initiation into substance use, beginning cannabis consumption at the age of 8, with regular use from age 12 until 2019.

...

1. He described his relationship with [Ms Keylon] as polarizing, with significant conflict arising from his "anger" and her "drinking." He alleged that [Ms Keylon] consumed two bottles of wine nightly. [Mr Molloy] admitted to two incidents of violence toward [Ms Keylon], which he claimed were in response to her physical aggression. He expressed regret over these incidents, one of which led to their separation and the issuance of a family violence intervention order.

...

1. After these incidents, [Mr Molloy] claimed that he and [Ms Keylon] were able to co-parent effectively, following an informal parenting plan in which he had [X] on alternate weekends. However, he expressed confusion about why [Ms Keylon] withdrew [X] from his care in February 2023. This confusion may indicate a lack of insight into the impact of his behaviour on others, including his child.

...

1. [Mr Molloy] has a long-standing substance use disorder involving cannabis, which has contributed to symptoms consistent with Cannabis Withdrawal and antisocial personality traits. These symptoms likely contribute to his irritability, anger, criminal behaviour, substance use, violence, consistent irresponsibility, impulsivity, and restlessness all of which are critical areas that remain unaddressed through current interventions.

2. The absence of targeted intervention for these symptoms is concerning, as they likely exacerbate his difficulties in maintaining stable relationships, adhering to legal requirements, and providing appropriate care for [X].

...

RECOMMENDATIONS

...

1. Supervised Visitation: It is recommended that [Mr Molloy] be granted supervised visitation with [X] for a period of 6 months. During this time, [Mr Molloy] should demonstrate substantial progress or at least reasonable efforts in the areas outlined below. At the end of the six-month period, an observational report should be conducted to assess whether a gradual increase in unsupervised time with [X] is appropriate.

2. Cannabis Prescription Management: [Mr Molloy]'s General Practitioner, who is currently managing his cannabis prescription for pain, should be made aware of the findings in this report. The GP should consider [Mr Molloy] age 12, when making informed decisions about his ongoing prescription and monitoring his symptoms.

...

1. I do not accept Mr G's recommendation about the Father having supervised time for a period of six months and then, there be a review. In any event, that was a recommendation made back on 21 August 2024. I otherwise accept that evidence.

1. Also in evidence is the Family Report, I refer to and recite some of the relevant paragraphs of that report.
   1. [Ms Keylon] said [Mr Molloy] "choked" her on several occasions, physically assaulted her whilst [X] was present, sexually assaulted her, threatened to kill her and to kill himself. [Ms Keylon] described family violence of varying nature and severity during the relationship and after separation. [Ms Keylon] said a family violence service assisted her to safely separate from [Mr Molloy] in 2018. [Ms Keylon] said [X] "held his hands over his eyes", that [C] and [X] cried and stayed silent during various incidents of family violence...

...

1. [Mr Molloy] said the reported family violence is "a load of shit" and denied he has used family violence. [Mr Molloy] said the allegations of stalking are "lies", that he was "putting the bins out" at a changeover and was not looking in the bins, further he denied accessing [Ms Keylon]'s social media to track her activities. [Mr Molloy] said [Ms Keylon] deliberately "antagonises" him, obtains Intervention Orders for "her gain" such as obtaining "money" from him and recent criminal charges against him "were dropped' by police. [Mr Molloy] said he was incarcerated in 2019 because [Ms Keylon] "lied" saying he assaulted her.

...

1. [Mr Molloy] said he "never put" [X] "in harms way" and denied any abusive behaviour.

...

1. [Mr Molloy] said he uses medical cannabis daily to manage chronic pain caused by a vehicle accident and that the medical cannabis is prescribed and dispensed from a clinic in [Suburb J]. He appeared unable to recall the name of the clinic. [Mr Molloy] said he can "function well" on prescribed cannabis and denied any problems with using cannabis, a drug he has used illicitly. [Mr Molloy] said he continues to use ICE at least one day per week and he is "trying to cut down". [Mr Molloy] said he commenced using ICE aged 18 and the longest he has abstained is five years. [Mr Molloy] said prior to [X]'s birth he was a "heavy user" of various illicit drugs. [Mr Molloy] said he contacted [K Centre] (drug and alcohol service) a few months ago, that he has not completed an intake or intervention and has only engaged in conversations about "harm minimisation". [Mr Molloy] said illicit drugs are his "escape" as he struggles to cope with having his time with [X] reserved.

...

1. [X] described his Father as "brutal and violent" and that his Father "went to jail" for hurting his Mother. [X] said he does not want to spend time with his Father, that he "remembers dad" was "hitting mum" and "mum crying". [X] indicated he remembers his Father has "hit" him and said that he fears his Father. [X] appeared unable to recall positive memories of his Father. [X]'s demeanour changed, he did not maintain eye contact, his voice lowered and he jiggled his legs and tapped his hands rapidly.

2. [X] reiterated he did not want to spend time with his Father, he may send his Father the occasional text message however he does not want phone calls or video calls.

...

1. [X]'s parent child relationship with [Mr Molloy] appears insecure, he indicated resistance talking about his Father and [X] strongly express his wish is to spend no time with his Father. [Mr Molloy] presented with little insight into [X]'s needs nor the consequences of child abuse, family violence and unsafe parenting for [X]. It is strongly suggested that the parents and Court place significant weighting on [X]'swishes.

...

1. [Mr Molloy]'s narrative denies the family violence reported by [Ms Keylon], he denies using family violence in other contexts and he claims [Ms Keylon] used physical and verbal family violence against him...

...

1. It is a complex dilemma to make recommendations for a Final Order when a parent poses a dynamic risk to the safety and wellbeing of their child requiring ongoing professional intervention and monitoring. It seems apparent that [Mr Molloy] poses a dynamic risk regarding his mental health, drug use, perpetration of family violence and antisocial behaviours with over a decade of chronicity. He is currently using ICE, he is currently using medical cannabis to function and his mental health appears unstable. [His] housing appears unstable and unpredictable and his proposal for shared living arrangements indicates he has little insight into [X]'s needs for routine, predictability and structure. In considering [X]'s wishes, the chronicity and severity of the risks posed by [Mr Molloy] and his apparent failure to engage in recommended treatment the writer respectfully recommends that [Mr Molloy]'s time is reserved indefinitely. It does not appear that supervised time with [X] can be safely managed as [Mr Molloy] continues to pose risks that are unlikely to be mitigated in a contained supervised environment.

...

1. It is highly likely that drug use, homelessness and mental health instability are precipitating and perpetuating risk factors for [Mr Molloy]'s reported use of family violence and generally problematic behaviour. The cumulative risk posed by [Mr Molloy] to [X] and to [Ms Keylon] is of significant concern and until such time as these risks are addressed even supervised time does not appear in [X]'s best interests. The consequence of destabilising what appears [X]'s fragile emotional stability, of triggering trauma whilst he is engaged in therapy and destabilising his education and social world appears too great.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information gathered in this assessment and unless evidentiary material should indicate otherwise the following is recommended:

1. [X] lives with [Ms Keylon]
2. [X] spends no time with [Mr Molloy].
3. [Mr Molloy] is restrained by Order from attending [X]'s home, school and places he frequents.
4. [Mr Molloy] is restrained by Order from attending [Ms Keylon]'s home, employment and places she frequents.

1. In the very sad circumstances of this case, I accept the report writer's views and Ms Keylon's case and evidence.

1. I now turn to the criminal history.
2. Pages 8 to 22 of a tender bundle, being the Father's criminal history, was tendered into evidence as 'M1'. A brief history is as follows.

1. Back in 2007, that is some four years before this relationship, the Father was convicted of driving in a manner dangerous, unlawful assault and assault in company (mid-2007) and was placed on a bond for threat to kill and damaging property (mid-2007).

1. Criminal charges that relate to the Mother include in mid-2012, where the Father was convicted and fined for contravening a family violence order against the Mother.

1. In 2013, the Father was sentenced to imprisonment, but the sentence suspended for resisting police and assaulting police on duty. He was convicted and fined for using threatening words in a public place.

1. The Father was convicted and placed on a community-based order in late 2014, and it was asserted from the bar table that that was probably in regard to the Mother, but I am unable to reach that conclusion. However, I rely upon counsel's diligent work of trying to put together the criminal history together with other known events. It is apparent that on that day, the Father was convicted and fined, for contravening a family violence order for the protection of the Mother.

1. The Father was then arrested in 2015 for contravening his community corrections order, and on the same day, in late 2015, for contravening a final intervention order that was for the protection of the Mother.

1. The Father was convicted in 2016 for an incident involving an emergency worker on duty.

1. In 2019, for contravening an intervention orders and acts against the Mother, the Father was sentenced to imprisonment for persistently contravening a family violence order (late 2019) and was sentenced to time served, as well as another community corrections order.
2. The criminal history notes that was the Father's first time in custody. On the same day (mid-2019), the Father was convicted of stalking the Mother and contravening an interim family violence order.

1. The Father was convicted of contravening a family violence order for the protection of the Mother.
2. Although a summary, it is unnecessary to recite all of the Father's criminal history. Much of the Father's criminal history relates to non-compliance with community corrections order and driving matters. That is not to excuse them, but there are so many court events in regard to the Father's criminal history that it is unnecessary to recite them all.

1. I now turn to matters under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'). Section 60CC is as follows:

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

Determining child's best interests

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and

(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child--also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

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

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

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child...

1. In all those circumstances, and taking into account family violence to which the Mother has been subjected and the family violence orders, the requirement to consider orders that would promote the safety of the Mother and child, I am not satisfied that any orders that I can make for the Father to spend time with X would (as I am commanded in section 60CC), promote the safety of X and the Mother.
2. The Father's continuing drug use is a matter of significant concern and, of itself, a matter that contends against the safety of X or his Mother in either supervised or unsupervised time. Drug use indicates substantial risk of lack of attention and care of himself and X as well as a greater risk if harm when the drug use is disinhibited.

1. I take into account but give very little weight to the views expressed by X. The time he spends with his Father is a matter to be determined by the adults in his life and in default of agreement, the Court. The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child.
2. I must take into account the developmental, psychological and emotional needs of X. At the moment, X's major developmental, psychological and emotional need is for some peace and harmony in his life, I am not satisfied that attempting to reintroduce his Father to his life would assist that need.

Capacity to provide for developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. I am not satisfied that X's Father has the capacity to provide for X's developmental, psychological and emotional needs.

Benefit of a relationship with the child's parents & other (significant) people (if) safe

1. Sadly, at this point in time, in all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that there is no benefit to X having a relationship with his Father because that relationship cannot be enjoyed in a safe manner. I do note that X expresses a fear of his Father, and I am satisfied that is real.

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

1. Further, the other matter that is relevant is that there is a significant risk to the Mother's welfare and X's welfare because of the history of family violence the Mother has endured, as well as the Father's denial that it has occurred. In all of those circumstances, the orders as sought by the ICL and the Mother, are in the best interest.
2. I will mark that minute of orders A, noting that it is substantially in the same terms as the Amended Response.
3. Those are my reasons.

I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy.