Mu & Zhihao (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 699 (7 October 2025)

1. That the children shall spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with their expressed wishes and for this purpose:

(a) the mother will facilitate the children spending time with and communicating with, the Applicant father at all times as reasonably requested by the children; and

(b) the children spend time with the father within one hundred and fifty (150) kilometres driving distance of L Shopping Centre in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, unless otherwise agreed between the parents.

1. That where the father intends to travel to Australia:

(a) he shall provide to the mother written notice of such intention to travel, no later than sixty (60) days prior to said travel; and

(b) following the receipt of such written notice, the mother shall be obliged to provide the to the father a written proposal as to how and where the children should be available to spend time with the father, in Australia, with such written notice to be provided to the father no later than fourteen (14) days following the receipt of his written notice of intention to travel.

1. That during the times the children are in their care, each parent shall:

(a) not question the children about matters concerning the personal life of the other parent;

(b) speak respectfully about the other parent; and

(c) not denigrate the other parent, their partner or their family to or within the presence or hearing of the children and remove the children in the event that someone in their household or presence is denigrating the other parent.

(a) inform the other of any changes to their home telephone number and/or mobile number and/or email address within twenty-four (24) hours of any such change;

(b) notify the other parent as soon as practicable, and within two (2) hours, if the child requires urgent medical attention, is admitted to hospital or otherwise suffers any significant health issue or illness whilst the child is in their care; and

(c) keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any and all medical practitioners or other allied health professionals who are involved in treating or caring for the child.

1. That this Order is sufficient authority to enable each parent (at their own expense) to:

(a) obtain copies of all school reports, photographs, and any other documents relevant to the child's schooling; and

(b) contact any medical practitioner or other allied health practitioner who is treating the child to release and provide to each parent any information or documents they are legally able to provide as that parent requests from time to time, with the cost of provision to be borne by the parent requesting the information.

1. That each parent, Ms Mu, born 1979, and Mr Zhihao, born 1972, their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the child, Y born 2012, from the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of three (3) years AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the said child on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child's name on the Watch list for the said period, or until the Court orders its removal.
2. That pursuant to s 11(1)(a) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the parents' consent to the children having or being issued with an Australian travel document.
3. That following the three-year period as set out at Order 8 hereof and pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and this order, the children are permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia using an Australian travel document.
4. That pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the mother is permitted to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia during the time the children are living with or spending time with her.
5. The parents shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary, within seven (7) days of a written request received from the other parent, to make an application to the Australian Passport Office (or such other department or instrumentality administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth)) to enable the children to be issued (and if requested, re-issued) with an Australian travel document.
6. That if a parent refuses or neglects to sign any document necessary to issue the children with an Australian travel document, such refusal will constitute sufficient special circumstances for a party to seek that the Minister administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) give consideration to issuing an Australian travel document pursuant to section 11(2)(a) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).
7. That in the event the Minister administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) refuses to exercise their discretion to issue a travel document for the children pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph of this Order, and either the mother and/or the father continues to refuse and/or neglects to sign any document necessary to implement Order 13, then:

(a) a Registrar of this Court is hereby appointed (pursuant to the provisions of s 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) to execute documents in the name of the mother and/or the father and do all acts and things necessary to implement this Order; and

(b) the execution of such documentation by a Registrar of this Court have the same force and validity as if the document had been executed by the parent who refused to sign the child/ren's passport application to cause the issue of the Australian travel document for the child/ren.

1. That when the children are not travelling overseas, the mother will hold the children's passports.

1. That pursuant to s 114(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), leave is granted to the parents and their legal representatives to provide a copy of this Order to:

(a) any school, education institution or care provider for the children;

(b) any treating medical practitioner, hospital or health care professional for the children; and

(c) any government department or instrumentality.

1. That the mother be granted leave to rely on the second further amended Initiating Application filed 11 April 2025.
2. That all outstanding applications are dismissed.

1. That in the exercise of her ability to make sole decisions concerning the children, the mother will endeavour to keep the father informed of any major long-term decisions made in writing as soon as reasonably practical and where reasonable will consider any views expressed by the father in relation to those decisions.

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 the pseudonym Mu & Zhihao has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The parenting dispute between the Applicant mother, Ms Mu, and the Respondent father, Mr Zhihao, relates to what orders are in the best interests of their children who currently live in Australia: X, born 2008 (now aged 17 years) and Y, born 2012 (now aged 13 years). As the Reasons will reflect, the conduct of the final hearing of this matter occurring on 1 September 2025 was shaped by the continued failure, of the father (who resides in Country B and does not have legal representation) to properly engage in the Court process.
2. When the matter was mentioned on the first morning of the trial the Court was required to deal with an application in a proceeding filed by the father on 27 August 2025, in which he sought the following orders:
   1. The Respondent father be permitted to attend the trial listed on 1 - 3 September 2025 electronically.
   2. A [K Language] interpreter be made available for the Respondent father for the duration of the trial.
   3. The Respondent father is to file his Case Outline by 28 August 2025.
   4. In the alternative, if Order 1 is not granted, the trial listed on 1 - 3 September 2025 be adjourned to a date to be fixed, and the Respondent be granted an extension of time to obtain legal advice and file his material.
   5. Liberty to apply on 3 days' notice.

1. For Reasons which were published (see Mu & Zhihao [2025] FedCFamC1F 630), the Court decided it was appropriate to proceed on an undefended basis because of the father's failure to comply with directions made by the Court and in reliance upon the power to proceed on an undefended basis, pursuant to Rule 10.26 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). Those Reasons provide the procedural and other history of difficulty that persuaded the Court to proceed on an undefended basis, and having then made that decision, why the Court refused the father's application for an adjournment. Despite the late notice from the father as to his desire for a K Language interpreter, one was provided to him at the cost of the Court, although the interpreter, efficient though she was, had the slight impediment of appearing also by video during the course of the trial.
2. I am satisfied that the father was given a fair opportunity to participate in the hearing, and as I note, he was given an opportunity to file written submissions in response to the oral submissions at the conclusion of the case made by Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"), Ms Chesterman, and solicitor advocate for the mother, Mr Gittoes-Ceasar. The transcript will reflect that the matter proceeded with the father having leave, which he exercised, to cross-examine the mother (as did the ICL) and to cross-examine Ms J the author of the specific issues report prepared in relation to X and Y. Neither the ICL or the mother sought to cross-examine the father.
3. The mother and the ICL reached agreement as to what final orders should be made in the best interests of the children. They were marked as Exhibit One and are set out at Annexure A to these Reasons.
4. In final submissions, the ICL and the mother confirmed that they would not oppose an Order being included to the effect that: if the father gave sixty days' written notice to the mother of his intention to come to Australia, then the mother should be obliged to provide to the father, within fourteen days of such notice, a written proposal by the mother as to how and where the children would be available to spend time with the father in Australia.

1. It is fair to say that the father's trial material was haphazard, unsworn, reflective of a range of concerns and complaints about the progress of the matter, and at times, although in English, difficult to understand. He filed a Case Outline on 28 August 2025 that included submissions which I have considered. The Case Outline suggested he relied upon a significant number of YouTube video recordings that had no real context, but it seemed to me sought to demonstrate things such as:

(a) How happy the children were living in Country B;

(b) How the mother may have in 2010 orally "scolded" the children;

(c) The capacity of the children to speak K Language;

(d) A happy Father's Day experience for the children in June 2019; and

(e) Various other happy memories recorded of the children playing sport, engaging with friends or engaging with family.

1. The relevance of these videos is referred to later in these Reasons but it can be said that although referred to by the father, without context, I was prepared to accept that the videos reveal happy memories for the children in Country B earlier in their life.
2. The father's case outline identified at page 25 that his proposed orders were:

Responsibility for decision making

1. The Mother and Father jointly make decisions for major long-term issues concerning the children:

a. X born 2008

b. Y born 2012

Living arrangements

69. The children be returned to their habitual residence Country B.

70. The children live with the Father.

71. The Mother has reasonable access to the children.

Restraints

72. Parental Alienation by either parent.

73. Remove the children to other countries or places without written consent.

(As per the original)

1. Since 6 May 2024, the statutory pathway for parenting orders has altered. Now, there are just two objects in section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"):

(a) s 60B(a) is to ensure the best interests of the children are met; and

(b) s 60B(b) is to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

1. During my term as a judicial officer, I have navigated the changing landscape for parenting orders from s 68F through s 60CC of the Act, the additional and primary considerations, and now a new regime contained within four sections of a new s 60CC of the Act. The destination, however, has never altered. The question is, what is in the best interests of the children.
2. The very expansive section 60CC(2) and (3) which had primary and additional considerations has been very much shortened. I note as well that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility for long term decisions, no longer applies in parenting cases.
3. Section 60CC provides that when determining a child's best interest certain things must be considered.

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).

1. The general considerations contained in section 60CC(2) prescribe that, for the purposes of the best interests consideration, 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.

1. From the reasons delivered for proceeding undefended and for refusing an adjournment - it is clear that, and I accept, the father's complaint, that the mother did not fully disclose to the father her intention to leave Country B with the children in April 2023.
2. The mother gave evidence that when she left Country B with the children, they left that country on the basis that return airfares had been purchased and that the father could not have reasonably expected that the children would not return.
3. The mother says that her decision to remain in Australia was due to family violence issues perpetrated upon her by the father (which the father denies) and at least a real concern that the father would commence proceedings (as she says he had threatened to do) in Country B to restrict her removal of the children from Country B.
4. I find that at least, at one level, the agreement reached by the parents was that the children would be educated in Brisbane and that was the agreed purpose of the mother and the children initially travelling to Brisbane. The mother's decision to permanently remain in Queensland was a surprise to the father, and one that he has significantly opposed.
5. The result of the mother's actions were and continue to be, that the children have remained living in Australia in the primary and sole care of the mother, supported by her parents (the maternal grandmother and grandfather) since arriving in Australia in April 2023. The evidence is not disputed that apart from a visit to Australia by the father in November 2023 (when he says he was made aware of emotional difficulties relating to Y who was having suicidal attempts and/or thoughts), that the father has not returned to Australia now for nearly two years. Despite there being orders that permitted electronic communication between the children and the father, such time has not occurred.
6. The father says these difficulties reflect alienating behaviour by the mother.

1. To add to the confusion in this matter, the father, through the appropriate authority in Country B and as he was perfectly entitled to do so, caused the Central Authority in Australia to commence proceedings under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 ("the Hague Convention"). At about the same time, the mother commenced proceedings in Australia for parenting orders under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. As the reasons by Austin J (see Zhihao & Mu [2024] FedCFamC1A 228) reflect, the parenting proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were stayed because of the Hague Convention proceedings.
3. The progression to trial of those Hague Convention proceedings that were commenced by the Australian Central Authority in September 2023, was interrupted for several reasons which it is unnecessary to mention.
4. Importantly an order was made on 20 June 2024 by Williams J. On that date her Honour confirmed the decision of the Australian Central Authority, on 14 June 2004, to discontinue the Hague Convention proceedings, having filed a Notice of Discontinuance. Such Orders reflect that her Honour gave leave to the Central Authority to discontinue the Hague Convention proceedings and discharged all injunctions that had previously been made to preserve the status quo.

1. Some four months after such decision in June 2004, the father filed an Application in an Appeal seeking that he be granted leave to bring an Appeal out of time against those orders. That Application was actively resisted by both the mother and the ICL. Although not initially joined, the Central Authority elected not to participate in the proceedings.
2. After an Appeal Registrar dismissed the Application to bring an Appeal out of time, the matter was listed before Austin J. By way of an Application for Review, and as earlier indicated, Reasons were delivered by his Honour on 5 December 2024 dismissing the father's Application for Review. The point was succinctly made by Austin J, that the grounds alleged had no likely prospects of success for Reasons which he identified in the Judgment.

1. When the matter ultimately came before me for the first time on 27 February 2025, I ordered that a specific issues report be prepared by a Court Child Expert. My decision to do so, was so that I had current evidence available as to the children's wishes.
2. In that regard, the Court is aware that a Hague Report (pursuant to regulation 26 of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth)) was ordered by Williams J on 15 September 2023 and thereafter was published on 31 October 2023. No party relied upon that report and it was not read during the course of the hearing that was conducted by me on 1 September 2025.

1. It is somewhat uncertain what the state of proceedings are in Country B, although the father had previously provided a letter on 6 May 2025 which provided a copy of an Order made in the High Court of the Country B Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance by a Justice of that Court on [...] April 2025, in which the Court in Country B ordered:
   1. The Plaintiff do serve all documents relevant to the case herein to the Department of Justice ("DOJ") within 7 days from the date hereof;
   2. The [mother] do file and serve her Affidavit in Opposition within 14 days from the date hereof;
   3. DOJ shall attend the Next Hearing (as hereinbelow defined) to provide their views concerning the matter herein;
   4. The hearing of the Originating Summons be adjourned to [...] May 2025 at 10:00am for call-over hearing...
2. It seems to me, as best as can be determined on this inadequate documentation and evidence, that the father was seeking to uncover reasons why the Country B Central Authority, or the Country B Department of Justice, gave instructions, as they must have, to the Australian Central Authority to discontinue the Hague proceedings.
3. As earlier indicated, the father has always asserted that the children's habitual residence was Country B and that they should be returned to that country because of the mother's wrongful removal of the children from Country B.
4. The Court sought to explain to the father that, notwithstanding his significant grievance with the actions of, perhaps, the Department of Justice in Country B, the Australian Central Authority and or the ICL and the Australian Court system, the reality was that all actions under the Hague Convention have finished and that the Court is now seized of an Application for parenting orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
5. This past history is given so that the father is aware that this Court is not unaware of that history.

1. It was obviously a critical part of this case that the evidence of the independent Court Child Expert, Ms J, contained in a report dated 16 April 2025 be tested and it was tested by the cross-examination of the father with the benefit of a K Language interpreter.
2. In the report of Ms J the following matters of relevance are identified for these reasons:

(a) Ms J refers at the commencement of her short report, the material that she had reviewed which included subpoenaed material; and

(b) At paragraphs three to six of the report Ms J sets out comments and views expressed by the child X to her. X presented as slightly nervous, but friendly; open and polite; who had an understanding of the purpose of the interview and who engaged in conversation about her experience of living in Australia in terms of her life at school; friendships; school assessments; ambitions and wishes "in an open, articulate, and mature manner".

(c) In relation to her life in Country B, X explained that she had attended an international primary school but had been homeschooled in high school. She said that meant that she had lost touch with most of her friends from primary school, many of whom returned to Australia.

(d) X made some criticisms of her father, including:

(i) That he did not allow her to go out with her friends who were neighbours on the weekend or after school;

(ii) That "I don't really want to be with my father, I don't really want to have anything to do with my father"; and

(iii) That she explained quietly that her father "was really controlling and that she didn't feel safe with him" referring to an incident when she recalled her father was angry and did not let her, her brother and mother out of a car when he was driving really fast;

(e) Ms J records that X's demeanour changed when she was asked about how she would feel if she were required to return to Country B. She stated that living with her father "was really bad" and that she remembered being really upset and crying and feeling "really scared" when her father forced her and Y to stay with him overnight against their wishes. This needs to be seen within the context of an agreed fact that the parents separated in 2020 and remained living in the primary care of the mother until she came to Australia in early 2023. X stated "I don't want to go back to Country B, I would rather die than go back there.";

(f) At paragraphs 7 to 11 of Ms J's report the views and feelings of Y are recorded. It is to be importantly recalled in the context of the wishes expressed by him to Ms J that:

(i) It is not disputed that in August 2023 and November 2023 there were incidents relating to Y having suicidal ideation;

(ii) The mother's affidavit attaches medical reports (which were before the Court but were not the subject of cross-examination before me):

• (A) From a general practitioner, Dr M to paediatrician Dr N dated 2 November 2023 which included a referral for assessment of ASD; and
• (B) A letter dated 11 November 2023 (being at the critical time of some of Y's emotional concerns) from consultant paediatrician, Dr G to general practitioner, Dr G, a consultant paediatrician to Dr M;

(iii) The mother also attaches a letter dated 11 November 2023 (being at the critical time of some of Y's emotional concerns) to the general practitioner, Dr G, a consultant paediatrician. The brief overview provided within such correspondence revealed the impression of Dr G, which shows there might have been a cause for some of the child's expressed concerns; and

(iv) Y's expressed concerns were summarised in a further letter by Dr G dated 15 November 2023, directed to an occupational therapist, where Dr G opined "[Y] is having trouble with anxiety and poor self esteem on the background of likely ADHD, social isolation and generalised anxiety."

(g) Ms J identified that Y presented as a chatty, friendly and happy child in his interview, who described a wide range of interests and who had an understanding of the purpose of the interview. Very quickly in the interview he expressed the view that "I would like to live here" and spoke enthusiastically about the many aspects of living in Australia that he enjoys. Y added excitedly "I have also made lots of new friends here and I never expected to get so many friends.";

(h) Y became quieter when the conversation turned to his life in Country B and he stated "I don't remember much of it because it makes me sad to think about it." He said that the family "was basically stuck at home all the time and he was really bored." When reflecting on family members, Y said he only has his uncle and his father in Country B, that uncle being mother's brother. He further stated, "I don't really want to see my dad again" adding "once in the mall he gave me a forced hug and it kind of embarrassed me."

(i) A comment made by the child which caused the father some distress and was the subject of much cross-examination, was a comment made by Y, recorded in paragraph 10 of the report. At that paragraph, Y said he did not see his father very much when he lived in Country B (presumably post-separation):

... "because he was always at work". [Y] added that his father "used to give me a lot of stress, because we were doing a [maths] thing, and I forgot what I was supposed to do, and he was scolding me, and I felt really nervous, like a panic attack". [Y] said that his father was yelling at him, and stated, "I don't like that at all. I have this thing where I'm a bit perfectionistic, that's why sometimes I submit work late, because I always want to do the best I can" ...

...

[Y] said that he doesn't want to have any contact with his father, and his father doesn't try to contact him. When asked how he would feel if he had to have contact with his father, [Y] stated, "Just really nervous and kind of scared".

(j) Ms J, at paragraphs 12 to 23 provides her opinion as to matters relevant under section 60CC of the Act, the effect of which was that:

... the absence of a co-parenting relationship and the parents' polarised views around the children's living place and the time that the children should spend with each parent, renders the requirement for parents to consult each-other about major long-term issues, and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision almost impossible to realise.

...

Given the absence of a co-parenting relationship, if the children were to live permanently in Australia with their mother, the mother would be able to make decisions about the children more quickly, and with far less stress...

(k) When turning her mind to "the impact of relocation in [Country B]" Ms J expressed in her view:

...if the the children were required to relocate to [Country B], it is very likely that this would severely disrupt both children's sense of stability, safety, and control over their lives. In addition to the stress of an international move, relocating to [Country B] would cause the children to lose the support they receive from their friends, extended family, teachers, and the sense of security derived from living in an established home and community...

(l) At paragraph 19 Ms J relied upon the mother's information (which I accept to be true) that in January 2024 Y was diagnosed with level 2 Autism and has also been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder. The father was concerned by the comment made by Ms J that:

..As [Y] has planned suicide in the past, over social issues at school, I believe such a dramatic change in his life [moving to Country B] would prompt a similar crisis for him. [X], is almost at the point of 'launching' herself into adulthood, and appears to be blossoming, having acquired a wide circle of friends, and family who she feels supported by, and performing well at school, in pursuit of ambitions of a professional career.

(m) In the end analysis Ms J noted and expressed the opinions that "interrupting [X's] stability by forcing her to leave the environment that she felt safe enough to 'blossom' in, in direct contradiction to her express wishes, would be extremely distressing for [X]."

1. It was to be expected that Ms J's evidence (which the father found difficult to accept) would be the subject of cross-examination.
2. Before the father commenced his cross-examination (the mother electing not to cross-examine Ms J) the ICL elicited further evidence from Ms J that the Court would need to be cautious about making any prescribed time orders because it could be counterproductive to any ongoing relationship in the future between the children and the father. Ms J indicated that if there is no evidence of the father returning to Australia that it would not be appropriate to have a prescribed time order.
3. The father, doing the best he could as an unrepresented litigant; and with the assistance of a K Language interpreter appearing remotely; raised a number of issues in his brief cross-examination, which I refer to now:

(a) Ms J indicated when referring to paragraph six and 10 of her report about the expressed concerns of the children:

(i) That the children appeared to be reliable witnesses and that she could not find any evidence in her observations to support a view that the children were being coached or influenced by the mother's position;

(ii) Ms J acknowledged that the children would be aware of the mother's position; and

(iii) When the father sought to obtain evidence from Ms J as to why the children would talk about being "scolded orally" when the mother gave evidence under cross-examination by him, and that the mother said she had never witnessed this scolding, the father was reminded that Ms J could not, in the circumstances, make a finding of fact. I find, it was at least open on the two versions (that of the mother and of the children) that if scolding had occurred, it occurred in a limited way, but in the absence of the mother;

(b) Ms J sought to explain to the father that her assessment was that the children are established at this time in their life in Australia and their happiness was expressed both openly and spontaneously. They appeared very unguarded and honest;

(c) When asked to explain what were the "social issues" referred to in paragraph 19 of her report, Ms J confirmed that she did not explore those issues further but anticipated it was something to do with the school environment and adjusting to something (which on the evidence from her current assessment, noting that those events occurred nearly two years ago) had been overcome with both the children progressing well at school, being happy at school and having many friends;

(d) When the father directed Ms J to his exhibit "MM10", Ms J indicated that on her recent assessment of the children, Y has adapted to life in Australia and he seems quite happy here.

1. One might have thought that the father could have found the evidence of Ms J, an independent expert, of some comfort as to how well his children have settled in Australia and how happy they are. As I will explore in the latter part of these Reasons that was not the father's position and it seemed to me at least, to a large degree, that the father's view of this parenting case is shaped by what he sees as the very unfair and unlawful removal by the mother of the children from what he regarded as a settled, habitual lifestyle in Country B in early 2023.

CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS UNDER SECTION 60CC(2)

1. Having earlier identified the legislative pathway, based on the evidence, much of which was unchallenged, I make the following further findings:

(a) I am satisfied that the children are expressing independent and strongly held views that they wish to remain living in Australia. It seems to me that, in respect of these children, this is not a position adopted in some contrary way against the father. Rather they reflect how the children feel more settled here at school and with friendships, and no doubt, it seems to me, supported by their mother and the maternal grandparents who live in the same house with them (s 60CC(2)(b));

(b) The children have a strong, I find, relationship with their mother who has been their primary carer up until separation, since separation and through their journey after moving to Australia. The mother says the children have a good relationship with their grandparents but there is no real evidence before me that could test that assertion. Sadly, the children's relationship with the father, to a large degree, is estranged to the extent it has deteriorated since the children left Country B. That relationship is difficult to assess because of the father's failure to engage with the children and to take opportunities to come to Australia to see the children (s 60CC(2)(e));

(c) I do not disregard the fact that the father has, as a result of the mother's actions, not had an opportunity to participate in decision-making related to the children since they have been in Australia, and that spending time with the children in Australia has been difficult. However, it seems to me that the father has not adequately explained his failure, despite coming to Australia once in November 2023, why he has not come back to spend time with the children. The only evidence he gives is that he cannot do so because of his care responsibilities for his elderly parents (s 60CC(2)(d)) and;

(d) The change which the father seeks the children undergo in order to return to Country B would be a likely significant change for the children and contrary to their best interests. In particular, it is difficult to advance any case to suggest that X, at her age, should be required to go to Country B. Her refusal to go, means most likely it would involve a separation of siblings, which would be contrary to the best interests of both X and of Y (s 60CC(2)(c)); and

(e) The mother gave evidence that if the children were required to live in Country B she would eventually go there, such that children living with the father in Country B would not be a proposition that the Court could support or would need to support. There could be a lag in time between the mother moving to Country B. That would have a significant effect upon the children, in my view (s 60CC(2)(f)); and

(f) It is important to give weight to the children's wishes that are expressed, in my view, with a mature understanding of the differences between living in Country B, with or without the father and in the mother's care, and what they have experienced from April 2023, living in Australia; in the care of their mother; supported by the maternal grandparents and attending school regularly (as opposed to homeschooling, as was occurring before leaving Country B) which has allowed these children to be immersed in appropriate peer and other relationships (s 60CC(2)(b) & (c)); and

(g) There is nothing in the evidence that would support a finding that the mother does not show appropriate parenting attitude or the capacity to parent. She was previously in Country B a professional with her own practice with the father working for her. Although some disputes as to that practice were evident on the material that is not a matter for me (s 60CC(2)(d)); and

(h) The mother works in Australia but that has not prevented her from meeting the financial needs of the children and to be available for them as they are required, although to be frank, X's need for support has minimised because of her age; and

(i) It is apparent from the way that the father has presented his case that his desire for the children to return to Country B (although he might say it is based on what he believes is their best interest) is in many ways a reflection of his strongly held and understandable view that the mother tricked him into allowing the children to go to Australia and then the Australian Central Authority and Australian Courts have facilitated the mother's perceived unlawful actions by the discontinuance of the Hague Convention proceedings. Frankly, I have formed the view that there is no evidence that the father could or was prepared to accept, about how well the children are going, through the focus he had of his own hurt stemming from the actions that the mother took in removing the children from Country B (s 60CC(2)(f)).

1. Apart from his Case Outline I gave the father an opportunity to make written submissions after being provided with a transcript of the oral submissions made by Ms Chesterman of Counsel for the ICL, which were supported without much variation by the solicitor advocate for the mother.
2. For completeness, and to hope to demonstrate to the father, that I have considered his written submissions filed on 29 September 2025 and I make the following observations and/or findings about those submissions:

(a) The father urges the Court to "restore stability, integrity, and above all, the safety of the children" and look "past procedural difficulties and focus on the children's right to safety (s 60CC(2)(a)). The time to make an assessment as to "stability" to is - not at the time the children left Country B. I find the children are happy and stable now in Australia.

(b) It is not permissible to now seek to adduce new evidence (see submissions at paragraphs 5; 35; 56; 83; 85 and 97);

(c) I agree that the Court should not reward the mother's unilateral removal of the children, but such actions need to be assessed in context;

(d) The submissions at paragraphs 33 to 35 refer to happy occasions in 2014 to 2016. I have already noted the fact that before separation there is evidence of the children being happy living in Country B - as an intact family;

(e) The mother denied under oath, the father's assertion that she had prevented the father from engaging with psychologist Ms D and social worker Ms C. The fact remains that the father was in Brisbane from 18 November 2023 until 2 December 2023 - when he returned to Country B and has not returned. His interactions with Y's therapist was limited;

(f) The father concedes he was aware, through the Hague proceedings, that Y had seen Dr O in January 2024 and although he now seeks to challenge the opinions of Dr O (submissions at paragraphs 41 and 42). I do not make a finding that Y's suicidal thoughts were related to the father's trip to Australia in November 2023;

(g) At paragraph 48 the father submits that Y's situation "is in the dark". I do not agree. The evidence of Ms J is able to be relied upon to challenge the father's concerns;

(h) At paragraph 50, the father says the school records reveal 20 days absence in the first term of 2025. The father had the opportunity in cross-examination of the mother, to seek any clarification he wanted, but did not do so;

(i) I do not accept, on all the evidence, that Y's "anxiety and depression has subsisted for 2.5 years since his removal to Brisbane" and that the child's "safety is really at risk" (paragraph 52);

(j) I do not accept the father's submission at paragraph 55 that Y's views as recorded by the expert "has at times been coached or influenced, and does not align with his lived reality". This is contrary to the clear evidence of Ms J, which I accept.

(k) The father, who has made little recent efforts to contact Y, submits the son is "unable to contact the father" with disastrous effect (see paragraph 58). I disagree;

(l) I do not accept the father's contention for the reasons he sets out at paragraph 61 to 62, that the mother was not "concerned about the son's life";

(m) Whilst the father says, and I am sure he honestly believes it to be true, that Y "has a very close bond with the father" (paragraph 68), the whole of the evidence does not support such a finding at this time;

(n) I accept the evidence in the subpoenaed records might have revealed that Y at times had arguments with his mother and the maternal grandmother in the past however, the evidence now establishes, the mother has been proactive in arranging therapeutic support for Y, and the happy way he presents to Ms J, suggests Y is now better dealing with some of the adjustments he initially had to confront;

(o) At paragraphs 73 to 77, the father's submissions, he says, leads to the certainty that Y "is currently extremely unhappy and depressed in Brisbane. However, he was unable to express his real feelings to the Court Child Expert." I do not accept this submission, on the whole of the evidence. The speculation at paragraphs 79 to 82 is not evidence, and those inferences are not open on the evidence.

(p) At paragraph 83, the father says that "While the son was in Country B, he had no record of ASD". It is to be recalled Y was 10 years old when he came to Australia in early 2023. There is no evidence sufficient to contradict the diagnosis made at Annexure "MM-12" of the mother's trial affidavit. I do accept that it is almost impossible for the father (being in Country B) to offer support physically to Y, who lives in Australia.

(q) At paragraphs 86 to 91, the father seeks to attack the evidence of the Court Child Expert. Of course, the Court is not bound to merely accept the evidence of an expert (see Hall & Hall (1979) FLC 90-713) but where the evidence of the expert is not seriously damaged by cross-examination and is in many ways consistent with other evidence, the Court is entitled to give weight to the expert's opinions. In this case, I can comfortably do so;

(r) At paragraphs 92 to 92, the father sets out reasons the Court would not accept the ICL's submissions (many in the ICL's Case Outline). I have explained why, in may ways, I am satisfied the ICL's submissions are founded on the evidence, which I accept;

(s) The father, as paragraphs 99 to 100 engages with the concerns raised in the evidence, of the effect particularly upon Y of being separated from his sibling X. Whilst it is true, as the father contends, "there is no rule that siblings cannot be separated" however, on all the evidence in this case, it is not in the interests of either X or Y to be separated from their sibling;

(t) The father at paragraph 103 to 115 seeks to establish a foundation for his submission at paragraph 116 that "the mother's credibility is undetermined by repeated inconsistencies between her affidavit evidence and oral testimony, including contradictory statements about separation, financial matters and living arrangements". I had the opportunity to observe the mother under cross-examination - including by the unrepresented father - and my view is that she was a credible witness and a honest historian. This is not to say, her recollection was always perfect, a standard few witnesses can achieve, but on the critical issues relevant to the issues this Court must decide, I regard her evidence as reliable; and

(u) I do not accept, for the Reasons advanced in this Judgment, the concluding submissions of the father at paragraphs 117 to 123, or that the relief the father seeks at paragraph 124 is in Y's best interests. I do observe that it seems implicit that the child X will remain in Australia as the father seeks no orders in respect of that child.

1. In my view the Orders proposed by the ICL and the mother are clearly in the children's best interests. They include the mother having sole decision-making for major long-term decisions which she has undertaken since April 2023.
2. It is worthwhile to note that the father does not, apart from feeling disenfranchised by the mother's conduct, actually seriously criticise any of the decisions made by the mother in terms of supporting the children's health needs, their schooling or other factors.
3. The point was made to the father during oral submissions with Counsel for the ICL and the mother's solicitor advocate, that I would not make an order that the father spend no time with the children. I am not satisfied on all the evidence that a risk has been established about the father's relationship with the children.
4. In the end result my assessment is that the children hold a fear in view of the recent history that if they were in the father's care they could be removed from Australia and taken back to Country B. Such has been his persistence with that being the outcome he desires which they know about (probably more from the mother's comments than anything the father has said to them to date). Whether or not X and/or Y could begin repairing their relationship with their father could only be tested if the father came to Australia, thus demonstrating his commitment to them and to having a long-term relationship with them. Of course, X will soon be an adult and can make decisions of her own. Y has some years before he reaches that decision-making capacity.
5. It is to be hoped that the father will, on reflection, consider the orders made and the reasons of this judgment and find a way to come to Australia to at least begin to repair a relationship with his children. Although the children have expressed some negative views about the father, they do not appear to me, on the face of all the evidence, to be of such a treacherous nature that they would not, at some way and at some level, engage with the father if he can demonstrate his concern to them and their life in Australia by actually coming to Australia to see them.
6. For the Reasons which are expressed the orders which appear at the commencement of these reasons are in the children's best interests.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.

ANNEXURE A

Responsibility for decision making

1. The mother solely make decisions for major long-term issues (as defined in section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975) concerning the children:

(a) X born 2008; and

(b) Y born 2012.

Living arrangements

1. The children live with the mother.
2. The children spend time and communicate with the father in accordance with their expressed wishes and for this purpose:

(a) the mother facilitate the children spending time and communicating with the father at all times reasonably requested by the children; and

(b) the children spend time with the father within 150 kilometres driving distance of L Shopping Centre in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, unless otherwise agreed between the parents.

Restraints

1. During the times the children are in their care, the parents shall:

(a) not question the children about matters concerning the personal life of the other parent;

(b) speak respectfully about the other parent; and

(c) not denigrate the other parent, their partner or their family to or within the presence or hearing of the children and remove the children in the event that someone in their household or presence is denigrating the other parent.

(a) inform the other of any changes to their home telephone number and/or mobile number and/or email address within 24 hours of any such change;

(b) notify the other parent as soon as practicable, and within two (2) hours, if the child requires urgent medical attention, is admitted to hospital or otherwise suffers any significant health issue or illness whilst the child is in their care; and

(c) keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any and all medical practitioners or other allied health professionals who are involved in treating or caring for the child.

1. This order is sufficient authority to enable each parent (at their own expense) to:

(a) obtain copies of all school reports, photographs, and any other documents relevant to the child's schooling; and

(b) contact any medical practitioner or other allied health practitioner who is treating the child to release and provide to each parent any information or documents they are legally able to provide as that parent requests from time to time, with the cost of provision to be borne by the parent requesting the information.

1. Each party, Ms Mu, born 1979, and Mr Zhihao, born 1972, their servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from removing or attempting to remove or causing or permitting the removal of the child, Y, born 2012, from the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of three years AND IT IS REQUESTED that the Australian Federal Police give effect to this order by placing the name of the said child on the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia and maintain the child's name on the Watch list for the said period, or until the Court orders its removal.
2. Pursuant to section 11(1)(a) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) the parents' consent to the children having or being issued with an Australian travel document.
3. Pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and this order, the children are permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia using an Australian travel document.
4. Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the mother is permitted to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia during the time the children are living with or spending time with her.
5. The parents shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary, within 7 days of a written request received from the other parent, to make an application to the Australian Passport Office (or such other department or instrumentality administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth)) to enable the children to be issued (and if requested, re-issued) with an Australian travel document.
6. If a parent refuses or neglects to sign any document necessary to issue the children with an Australian travel document, such refusal will constitute sufficient special circumstances for a party to seek that the Minister administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) give consideration to issuing an Australian travel document pursuant to section 11(2)(a) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).
7. In the event the Minister administering the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) refuses to exercise their discretion to issue a travel document for the children pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph of this order, and either the mother and / or the father continues to refuse and/or neglects to sign any document necessary to implement paragraph 26, then:

(a) a Registrar of this Court is hereby appointed (pursuant to the provisions of section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) to execute documents in the name of the mother and/or the father and do all acts and things necessary to implement this order; and

(b) the execution of such documentation by a Registrar of this Court have the same force and validity as if the document had been executed by the parent who refused to sign the child/ren's passport application to cause the issue of the Australian travel document for the child/ren.

1. When the children are not travelling overseas, the mother will hold the children's passports.

1. Pursuant to section 1140(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), leave is granted to the parents and their legal representatives to provide a copy of this order to:

(a) any school, education institution or care provider for the children;

(b) any treating medical practitioner, hospital or health care professional for the children; and

(c) any government department or instrumentality.

1. The mother be given leave to rely on the second further amended initiating application filed 11 April 2025.
2. All outstanding applications are dismissed.

1. In exercise of her ability to make sole decisions concerning the children the mother will endeavour to keep the father informed of any major long-term decisions made in writing as soon as reasonably practical and where reasonable will consider any views expressed by the father in relation to those decisions.