Mulryan & Mulryan [2025] FedCFamC1F 676 | Case summary

Mulryan & Mulryan [2025] FedCFamC1F 676 | Case summary | Zoe

[19]

The applicant mother ("the mother") initiated this proceeding on 26 August 2024, after the child, the subject of the proceeding, X born 2014 ("the child") had been effectively withheld by the respondent father ("the father") since July 2024. At the time of the effective withholding, the child was aged 9 years. The child at trial, was aged 10 years.
Prior to this proceeding, the parties had an extensive history of litigation. After separation in October of 2016, when the child was aged approximately two years, the father retained the child in his care, without the consent of the mother. The mother was required to make a recovery order application which was heard and determined in the City D Magistrates' Court in Queensland in December 2016. Magistrate Smith made interim orders for the child to live with each of the mother and the father in a week-about arrangement. The matter was otherwise transferred to the then Federal Circuit Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Divison2)) for further adjudication. That live with arrangement continued for approximately 12 months.
In December 2017, Judge Cassidy made final parenting orders permitting the mother and child to relocate to City E; for the child to live with the mother; and for the child to spend time with the father relevantly, for four nights a fortnight upon the father relocating to City E, which he did not do until November 2020 ( alternate orders made provided for some limited time whilst he remained residing in City F). The final parenting orders as made by Judge Cassidy remained in operation until February 2025, when many of them were suspended in their operation in the factual circumstances described hereafter.
In February 2025, the parties conveyed to the Court that they consented to a reconsideration of the final parenting orders as made in December 2017. That brought into operation s 65DAAA (3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). It was the Court's view at that time, and on on the evidence before it, that the Court should so reconsider the earlier final parenting orders made.
As at the time of trial in late July 2025, the child had remained in the father's care and not spent time with the mother since July 2024, save for two occasions when the mother attended upon the child's school. The father's failure to abide by the existing parenting orders caused the mother to initiate this proceeding in August 2024.
No co-parenting relationship exists between the parties, and nor could it be said that had been the case at any time since the parties' separation.
The father alleged, in this proceeding, as he had in an earlier, unsuccessful proceeding, that the child had been exposed to physical abuse in the mother's household, and sexual abuse as perpetrated by the mother's partner, who resides in the mother's household. The mother denied the allegations of the father, as did her partner.
At the commencement of the trial, the mother asserted that there was no present possibility of her having a relationship with the child, whilst the child spent any time with, or communicated in any way with, the father, and that the absence of such relationship with her, was highly emotionally and psychologically damaging to the child.
The mother sought orders that she have sole decision-making responsibility for the child, that the child live with the mother, and that the Court order a 12-week moratorium period in which the child shall spend no time with the father. On the last day of the trial, a Minute of Amended Orders, consented to by the mother and Independent Children's Lawyer, was handed up to the Court, which amended the moratorium period as sought from 12 weeks to six months. The mother and Independent Children's Lawyer sought that during the moratorium, the father be restrained from being in the presence of the child, and from communicating directly with the child by any means, save with the mother's consent, and that following the moratorium, supervised time be facilitated between the father and child, initially for a period of six months of a minimum of two hours per month, and thereafter for a greater period of supervised time. A recovery order was also sought by the mother (if necessary) together with further and other ancillary and injunctive orders.
The father sought orders including that he have sole decision-making responsibility for the child, that the child live with the father, and that the child's passport be handed over to the father and remain in the father's possession. He sought further and other ancillary and injunctive orders.
The Court has concluded that the child is enmeshed with the father, and that the father engages in a process of alienation of the child from the mother, and for the reasons as set out below, the child has no prospect of having any relationship with his mother, nor of further reinstating and developing his long-standing attachment to her, whilst the child continues to reside with the father. Further, as set out below, there is no risk to the safety of the child in the mother's care. There is such risk to the child, in the care of the father. It is a significant risk.
The Court shall make orders as sought by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer with some slight variation, for the reasons which follow. These reasons support the making of final orders (being Order 2 and Order 3) of the orders made 24 September 2025, and the further final orders made this day.

[23]

In 1970, the father was born. He was aged 55 years at trial. The father lives at Suburb H, in City E. The father (at trial) was employed as a process worker, working between the hours of 7:00am and 3:00pm five days a week. He had commenced that employment some five weeks earlier. It was his intention to cease that employment within three to four weeks. The father had before this, last worked in 2020.
In 1989, the mother was born. She was aged 36 years at trial. The mother is of Country K heritage. She is engaged in home duties. The mother and her partner and their child, live in a two-bedroom residence at Suburb J, 9.7 kilometres from City E. The travelling distance between the parties by motor vehicle is approximately 15 minutes although can increase to 30 minutes dependent on traffic.
In 2011, the parties commenced cohabitation. At this time, the mother was 22 years of age, and the father was 41 years of age. The parties cohabitated for five years.
In 2013, the parties married. The parties originally lived together in City E and later relocated to City F.
In 2014, the child was born in City E. He is the only child of the parties' marriage. He is currently in Grade 5 at L School. He is a child of a mother of Country K heritage and Australian father. He speaks both English and Country K language, and understands both languages save for, as his mother said in evidence, in respect of the Country K language, "if not too difficult a word".[1] I observe that by the conclusion of the trial, the father indicated his agreement with the mother, to the child commencing, in 2027, as a student at B school. This secondary school is a public school that has a Country K program which includes language and culture. The father, however, would not consent to such an order, because the child's wishes may change, he asserted, and he proposed to send the child to a school that the child wished to attend, regardless of the mother's views.
In July 2016, the parties relocated to City F.
In October 2016, the parties separated. The mother moved into a women's shelter. The father retained the child in his sole care until around December 2016. The father would not make the child available to the mother. The child was just two years.
In November 2016, there was a Legal Aid family dispute conference. No agreement was reached between the mother and the father regarding the care arrangements for the child.
In December 2016, and as referred to above, the recovery order as sought by the mother was heard and determined in City D Magistrates' Court.
On 6 November 2017, the matter proceeded before Judge Cassidy. The mother sought orders that the child be at liberty to reside in City E with her; that she have sole parental responsibility; that she be allowed to travel to Country K for up to four weeks each calendar year with the child; and that the child spend time with the father for a two-night block each week, together with some holiday periods. The orders that the father sought were essentially that the then current orders (week-about arrangement) remain in place. The father opposed the mother's travel to Country K with the child, until the child was eighteen years, and he sought a restraint on the mother moving the child's residence more than 30 kilometres from the City F Town Hall.
On 12 December 2017, final orders were made by Judge Cassidy relevantly to the facts of this proceeding, and for convenience restated here, for the child to live with the mother; with permission for that to be in City E; for the child to spend time with the father being four nights a fortnight upon the father relocating to City E. There was also provision for extended school holiday time for the child to spend with the father upon his relocation to City E, which in essence totalled six weeks per annum, together with special occasion times for each parent. Each party was permitted to take the child out of the Commonwealth of Australia during their time with the child, subject to certain obligations as set out in the orders. In particular, the mother was permitted to travel to Country K as follows:

[26]

Additional to the above, changeover was specified to occur during school days at the school and otherwise changeover was to take place all other times (including days when the child was sick or absent from school) at the McDonalds Restaurant closest to the mother's residence. I note further that these orders also made provision for the child's time with the father (before he commenced school) when the father was living in City F to be: up to 10 days during the Christmas school holiday period in odd numbered years; and up to 10 days during the Easter period in even numbered years; and up to 10 days on three separate occasions each calendar year (excluding the Christmas holiday period in even numbered years including Christmas Eve and New Year's Day and the Easter holiday period in odd numbered years).
Following the making of the final orders in 2017, the mother relocated from City F to City E with the child. Whilst Judge Cassidy had made provision in her orders for the father to spend additional time with the child prior to the commencement of school, if he lived nearby, he did not so live nearby until after the child had commenced primary school. The mother and child were residing in City E from on or about the commencement of 2018, with the father remaining in City F for a period of almost 3 years. During this time, the father did not always exercise the spend time arrangements between he and the child pursuant to the final orders.
In January 2018, the father appealed the decision of Judge Cassidy.
In May 2018, the parties divorced.
On 31 July 2018, the father's appeal was heard by the Full Court.
On 17 August 2018, the Full Court ordered that the father's appeal be dismissed, and that the father pay the mother's costs of the appeal fixed in the sum of $4,200 within 28 days of that date. The father has not paid this amount to the mother.
From the commencement of 2020, the child commenced to attend L School.
In or around the commencement of 2020, the mother commenced to reside with her partner, Mr G. Mr G was born in 1992, and aged 32 at the time of trial. He is in the construction industry and employed for approximately 32 hours per week.
In March 2020, the father made allegations to City F Police that the child had been bitten and assaulted by the mother in January 2019. I observe over a year prior thereto. The report was investigated by officers. That investigation included an interview with the child, who was then spending time with the father in City F. The child did not make any disclosures consistent with the father's report. The child said he felt safe with his mother and stepfather, and that he liked going to his father's, but preferred to stay with his mother.
In March 2020, the mother received a phone call from police, who sought to speak to the child. The father had contacted Argos, a branch of the police service within the Department of Child Safety Queensland and made various allegations of physical and sexual grooming and abuse of the child by the mother's partner in which the mother was complicit. The father's allegations were that, in 2017 or 2018, whilst the father and child were showering together, the child pulled the father's penis on three occasions and said "Poo Cow [Mr G] allows me to do it".[2] The mother and the child attended upon the City E police station, and the child underwent a second interview conducted by Queensland Police under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The child was approximately five and a half years of age. During the interview, the child made nil disclosures of physical or sexual abuse by his mother and/or her partner, in response to direct questions being asked of him, and with further questioning occurring with continuing nil disclosures.
Despite the above, the father told the child not to shower with the mother's partner and to not let the mother's partner undress the child.
Thereafter, the father, not being satisfied with the outcome of the police investigation, made numerous reports with respect to the child being physically and sexually abused in the mother's household to Police and Child Protection. The mother was told by police that the police had received many reports from the father concerning the child's wellbeing while in the mother's household. The police did not disclose the details of the reports. The mother told the investigating officer that there were some difficulties with the father, and a lot of conflict. The officer told the mother she could apply for a Protection Order and referred her to the City E Regional Domestic Violence Service.
In May 2020, the mother applied for a Domestic Violence Protection Order. The application was ultimately dismissed in the City E Magistrates Court. The father had a solicitor and barrister. The mother was self-represented.
In June 2020, the child commenced sport lessons as instigated by the mother.
On 15 June 2020, the father attempted to relitigate the making of final parenting orders by his filing of an Initiating Application for Final Orders seeking, in essence, an equal time arrangement for the child. In his affidavit material, in support of his seeking to revisit the earlier final orders, the father persisted with his allegations against the mother's partner and used them as a means by which to bring the matter back before the Court.
On 8 July 2020, the child had a video call with the father. The child told the mother after the call finished, that the father got angry with him whenever he talked nicely about his mother and stepfather. The child said to the mother "he made me not like you, and like him".
In August 2020, the father had still "an occupational gun license". He may still have same. The father had not notified police that he had ceased to be a compliance officer in June 2016. That occupation was the basis on which he obtained the gun license.
On 17 August 2020, the father filed a Contempt Application against the mother.
On 14 September 2020, the father's applications for contempt and interim parenting orders were dismissed by Judge Jarrett (as His Honour Justice Jarrett then was).
In August/September 2020, Child Safety assessed that the child's protective needs were being met by his remaining in the care of the mother, and that the father was continuing to perpetrate domestic violence against the mother by his pursuit of proceedings in the Court.
In late 2020, M ("M") was born. M was four years of age at trial. M is the child of the mother and the mother's partner, Mr G. Mr G has a strong and loving relationship with his son, as does the mother with M.
On 15 October 2020, Judge Jarrett (as His Honour then was) made orders on the father's Initiating Application for final orders. His application was dismissed. The father was ordered to pay $15,497 to the mother. The costs payment was made by the father obtaining such funds from his family.
On 18 October 2020, the child told the mother that during the school holidays of September 2020, the father had told him "If your mother takes you to more lessons, I will beat her up". The mother inferred 'more lessons' to mean the sport lessons the child was having, and the child's attendance at the Country K academy to learn the Country K language.
In November 2020, the father relocated to City E. This was in fact a resumption of his residing there.
In late 2020, the child had just commenced spending more regular time with the father. The mother, concerned with comments made to her by the child, took him to the doctor. The child was referred by his GP to N Health Service for counselling. He had fifteen sessions in total. Thereafter, his behaviours deteriorated, including bedwetting and self-harming, so the mother again took the child to the doctor. The GP referred him to a psychologist. The child's self-harming behaviours included him scratching off the scabs to his mosquito bites, and the skin around his fingernails. There was often blood on his fingers.
On 13 January 2021, the mother had a video call with the child, who was spending time with the father. Mr G was also in the room in the mother's household. When the father heard the mother's partner speak to the child, the father attempted to immediately end the call. He directed the child to end the conversation, telling him he could no longer speak with the mother. The father shut the computer at his home, thinking he had ended the call. He had not, however. He then spoke with the child.
At trial, it was clear what had occurred after the father had told the child he could no longer speak with his mother and acted to end the call. The father, intent on denigrating the mother and her partner, and intent on having the child acquire a false belief about the actions of the mother's partner, spoke with the child, and the child with the father, relevantly as follows:[3]

[31]

On 4 April 2021, the child informed the mother that the father "always takes photos of his legs". The mother asked why, to which the child responded, "to take mum to the highest Court".[7] The mother acknowledged that the child would get bitten by mosquitos from time to time which was very evident on his legs. She had however, to address this issue, ensured that the child had mosquito sprayed over his body when he played outside in the afternoon. She treated any bites on the child with cream and band-aids.
On 16 April 2021, whilst the child was in the mother's care, he told the mother "My dad said you don't love me because you have [M] now. I was scared".
In May 2021, the mother started seeing a psychologist through O Mental Health Service counselling. She was struggling with the combative approach of the father and upset by its adverse impact upon the child.
On 19 July 2021, when the child was going to bed, he expressed to the mother that he did not want to go to his father's the next day. He said that his father had said some things to him, and he didn't want to listen anymore. These comments included "I'm warning you; you need to stop talking about that fucking baby [M], otherwise you will get in big trouble". The child also said to his mother, "he said if I am not good one more time, what the point that in spending money to Judge, he could've bought a boat".[8]
In or about July 2021, the child commenced to attend upon psychologist, Ms P, at Q Mental Health Service. This followed from the earlier referral by his GP. The child attended some 20 sessions with Ms P and in the period from July 2021 to approximately May 2022. In preparation for trial, the mother requested a letter be provided to her from Ms P and Ms P obliged, communicating by letter dated 30 July 2024. In her correspondence, Ms P stated that "[X] felt betrayed by the Child Safety Officer from the Department of Child Safety when his father was informed as to what he told the case workers" (see hereafter). Further, Ms P noted as follows:

[33]

On 18 October 2021, the child told the mother that his father had bitten his arm. He showed the mother his arm, and she took a photo of the bruise.
In January 2022, following a notification to the Department of Child Safety, a Child Safety officer ("CSO") spoke with the child who "had no worries" being in his mother's household with his stepfather.
On 15 February 2022, the child was interviewed by two CSOs. The content of that interview was described by them as follows:[9]
- [X] worries about making mistakes at dad's as he gets growled at. [X] explained that if he did something by accident, dad won't believe him and will tell him he is lying. [X] says he feels sad and angry when Dad does this. [X] said he hasn't been smacked in a long time and that dad will just growl, loudly.
- [X] said he wished Dad would stop saying bad things about mum to him as it is getting annoying.
- When asked about dad biting his arm, [X] shared that he and Dad were play wrestling and he bit him on the arm. [X] said Dad didn't care that it hurt him. [X] said he thinks it was an accident. [X] said sometimes dad cares when he hurts himself and checks that he is ok.
- [X] said he sometimes wants to talk to mum while at Dad's house but when he is at Dad's, he is spending time with dad and when he is with mum, he is spending time with mum.
- [X] said he had no worries in his house for mum. [X] was nodd[ing] his head up and down enthusiastically when asked if he likes [Mr G] (stepdad) who he calls [...].
On 28 February 2022, the father had a telephone call from a CSO. The CSO advised the father of the notification to Child Safety. The father made various allegations against the mother and her partner, in response. They included the following claims:
- that the child was getting locked in a room by the mother's partner.
- that the child was forced to give the mother's partner a hug and say I love you.
- that the mother's partner was saying to the child that his dad was a bad man. If the child said no, (in respect of the description as to his father) then the child got into trouble and was locked in his room.
- that the child was being sexually groomed, and showing sexual behaviours, and was not permitted to talk about what happened (between he and the stepfather) because he will get into big trouble.
- that CPU had interviewed the child and told him there was nothing they could do.
- that the mother was fabricating information about him.

[37]

The father had the child's passport. Although the mother had booked flights to Country K with the child, the father refused to give the child's passport to the mother. The father told the mother that he had lost the child's passport. The mother contacted the Australian Passport Office. They informed the mother that the child's passport had not been reported as lost. The father refused the mother's request for him to take the child to the passport office and obtain another passport. Ultimately, the mother was able to obtain a passport for the child to undertake the necessary travel.
Commencing August 2023, and until about November 2023, the child underwent counselling sessions with a social worker at his school. That social worker was Ms R. The commencement of those sessions occurred at a time just after the mother and child had returned from Country K following the death of the mother's father. The child was upset. He loved his grandfather. These counselling sessions were not initiated or requested by the mother, but rather the child's classroom teacher who referred the child to the school's wellbeing social worker because of his behaviours, which were described as "disruptive, chatting back, complaining, work avoidance and refusal, and not taking responsibility".[12] Both the mother and the father were invited to participate at times in these interviews and/or discussions about them. They did so, separately.
During the above period, Ms R conferred with the mother on several occasions. The mother told her that the child had begun to avoid her partner, Mr G, saying the father had told the child that he was not allowed to do anything with Mr G. The father conceded as much.
In August 2023, the mother attended City E Police station and advised that the father had failed to return the child at the arranged pickup point, McDonalds, at 4:00pm. The police telephoned the father. The father advised police that the child was with him and did not wish to be dropped off at McDonalds. He also advised that the child was safe and well, and the father would drop him at the child's school the following morning.
On 17 October 2023, the mother told Ms R, that the child had told his mother that he did not have to return to the mother's care on a Sunday night. The mother responded to the child, saying that he did need to return to her home and that they had rules in place to follow. On the following Sunday, the child did not return from the father's care to the mother's care in accordance with the orders. Instead, he went fishing with the father, stayed the night at the father's home, and his father returned him to school the following morning. The mother told Ms R that the father was using the child to do something to her - "to emotionally, make me sad".
On 25 October 2023, the child told Ms R the following: that his father had told him that he did not have to go to McDonalds on Sunday to meet his mum as he does not want to - so he can spend more time with dad- he will go to school on Monday - X says he does not have to follow mum's requests as mum lies too much - he said he caught her lying too much however ( Ms R noted) X could not elaborate this.[13]
In November 2023, the mother, the principal of L School, Ms S, Ms R, and the father had a meeting. The principal informed the parents that they should refrain from speaking ill of each other in the presence of the child; that the child was trapped in the middle of them; and that the child was negatively affected by the parent's animosity, one toward the other.
Following the meeting with the principal, the mother went home and in front of the child cried, and told him she was sorry. She said words to the effect of "thank you very much for telling your real feeling to the third party...I will do my best to not to do anything anymore that you think I'm saying badly about your dad".[14] The child cried in response. The mother and child hugged. It was the mother's perception that she and her son were close again. The mother's evidence was that she had been very careful to not denigrate the father in the presence of the child in any way. She considered that she had perhaps done so by her facial expressions and behaviour, rather than by anything she had said that was disparaging of the father.
Around this time, the child said to the mother that if he, in the presence of his father, said nice things about his mother and/or her partner, the father would respond "I'm not your dad anymore". The mother tried to reassure the child, saying that the father was his father and would remain his father, and not to worry about it.
On 29 November 2023, during the child's final session with Ms R, the child disclosed to Ms R that his hair had been "shaved" by the father, because the child had misbehaved.
On 4 December 2023, the school counselling for the child finished.
On 27 February 2024, when the child was going to bed and saying goodnight to the mother, he expressed to the mother that he 'did not want to go to his dad's.'[15] The mother asked why, to which the child said 'nothing' and put a pillow over his head and did not say anything further. The following day, the child and the mother had the below conversation:[16]

[42]

Following 4 March 2024, the mother considered that the child was "involved too much" in the parental animosity and dysfunction, and that if she tried to collect the child from school in accordance with the orders, "it's going to hurt him more -so I stopped it and I accept that."[17]
In March 2024, the mother agreed to the father's constant requests, as relayed also through the child, to alter the child's care arrangements to reflect an equal shared care regime. Accordingly, the father's time spent with the child began to occur week on, week off. The mother considered, from that point in time, that the child's behaviours further deteriorated.
In one incident, the child behaved badly toward M. The mother disciplined the child, verbally, and he became very angry, calling the mother a "fucking idiot". The child had not sworn at the mother previously. In response to the mother telling the child not to swear, the child showed his fists to the mother, and pretended to punch her, saying "you wanna fight".[18]
The mother told Mr G of the above incident. Mr G spoke to the child alone, asking him for his side of the story. Mr G noted that the child seemed happy that he was given a chance to explain the situation with the mother. He said he was angry, and Mr G told him it was okay to be angry, but he should not hurt people. The child proceeded to apologise to the mother.
The father videoed the mother and her partner at changeovers.
In March 2024, a third party, being a neighbour diagonally across from the father's home, reported to police that the neighbour heard the father verbally abuse the child, and strike the child six times. The neighbour reported not seeing the incident but claimed to have clearly heard the child being hit. The neighbour reported hearing the father calling the child names about being stupid and taking so long. The following day, police attended the father's home to conduct a welfare check. The child was not present. The father told police that nothing had occurred between him and the child. The incident was reported as a 'NO DV', because police had not identified domestic violence occurring, and there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.
On 2 June 2024, the mother went with her partner, M and the child (who was at the time living with the mother) to the Suburb T grocery store, where they came across the father. Mr G told the child that he could go and say hello to the father, and that they would wait for him in a different aisle. After 10 minutes, the child had not returned to them. Mr G went to the relevant isle and told the child that they were leaving the supermarket. The father ignored Mr G and continued to talk to the child. The father continued to ignore Mr G when Mr G told the child, a further two times, that they were leaving. The child eventually started to walk towards Mr G and M, but the father called him back. Mr G observed the father to whisper into the child's ear, whilst looking at Mr G. He heard words to the effect of "you don't have to listen to him". The child nodded and returned to Mr G and M.
On 20 June 2024, the father sent a text message to the mother, relevantly as follows:

[49]

(a) The father informed the principal that the child had "had enough" of his mother and her partner. The father said the child did not want to be in the household of the mother, and that he walks around on eggshells in her home. Further, that the child is scared of her partner. The father described the child as capable of standing up to his mother, saying that the child had indicated that he did not like changeover at McDonalds, and that had produced change accordingly, and that the child had agitated for a shared care arrangement between his parents and that had also happened.

(b) The father asserted that he did not care about the mother and that he was not "bagging" her.

(c) The father described the child as "he cops it" when in the mother's home, but that he is laughing and happy when in the father's home. The child had told the father, words to the effect of "pick me up. I am not going back there".

(d) The father alleged the child told him of the grocery store episode as referred to in paragraph [89] hereof and claimed that the mother's partner said that he would beat the father up if people were not around.

(e) The father stated that he encourages the child to stand up to his mother and her partner.

(f) The father indicated that he had spoken to the enrolment officer at V School, and that he had taken the child for a walk around the school at an earlier point in time. The father indicated, in response to the principal's concern that no one knew the child's history at V School (by comparison with L School, which had a good knowledge of the child's history, the child having attended there for nearly five years), that the father would tell them the child's history. I observe that to be the history as framed by the father, rather than the actual history.

(g) The father stated that he had indicated to the mother that this transfer of the child's enrolment was happening as he and the child wished for that outcome. He described the mother's response as threatening and nasty.

(h) The father told the principle that the mother was using her and her staff to effectively bolster her case.

(i) The father described the mother as engaging in toxic behaviours, and sending threatening texts to him including using the principal and her staff as a way to threaten him.

[50]

The father was not interested in hearing the impartial response of the principal, but rather continued with his diatribe against the mother. The father also appeared to not register the principal's concerns about the child's re-enrolment in another school, being a school where there were no familiar people or students, and no familiar support persons to assist the child. The principal spoke of the parties having an ability to enrol and re-enrol the child in differing schools by unilateral action, indicating that was not a desirable course nor in the best interests of the child. The principal indicated that the parties would need to go to Court. The father considered it was the mother who would need to go to Court.
On 9 July 2024, after the child had been in the father's care the night before, the father messaged the mother that he had been able to convince the child that the mother could pick him up after school. The mother collected the child from school. The child did not greet the mother but said "Mum if you say no to [V School], I have to live with dad and only see you on the school holidays".
The mother did not agree to the child being enrolled at V School. She informed both schools that she did not agree to the child's transfer. The principal of L School considered that it was not in the child's best interests for him to change schools.
On 10 July 2024, the mother attended upon the school to collect the child. The child started crying and said to his mother words to the effect of "I told you Mum, I have to go to Dad". The child then ran away from the mother, to where the father had parked his car for the purposes of collecting the child and taking him to the father's home, in clear breach of the Court orders.
Since 10 July 2024, the child has remained solely in the father's care.
On 19 July 2024, the mother requested that the father return the child to her.
On 29 July 2024, the mother again requested that the father return the child to her care.
On 31 July, the mother attended the child's school for half an hour, to see the child. She reported that the child was visibly upset. The mother asked the child if there was anything wrong that she had done to him, to which the child responded, "you love your phone, it's like your life". The child also asked the mother "do you agree", [19] asking her if she agreed to him attending V School. The mother told the child that she would talk to the father. The child refused to let the mother touch him and was very angry that she did not agree to any change of school for the child at the time.
On 9 and 11 August 2024, the mother requested a video call with the child. The father declined.
On 14 August 2024, the father travelled to Brisbane for a few days, leaving the child in the care of friends. He did not make any requests for the mother to care for the child, and he did not advise the mother that he was leaving the child in the company of others.
On 19 August 2024, the mother again asked to speak to the child. The father did not facilitate this.
On 20 August 2024, the mother requested to speak to the child, which the father declined.
On 26 August 2024, the mother initiated this proceeding.
On 30 August 2024, the mother requested to spend time with the child. The father did not respond.
On 2 September 2024, the mother emailed the child's Grade Four teacher, to ask if the mother could arrange to spend time with the child at the school.
On 5 September 2024, the principal of the child's school, Ms W, replied, by email, relevantly, the following:

[54]

On 16 October 2024, the mother requested that she spend time with the child. The father declined.
On 23 October 2024, the mother requested that she see or speak with the child on the child's birthday. The father declined.
On 24 October 2024, the child's birthday, the mother attended the school at 8:00am with M. She saw the child before school started. The child hugged both the mother and M. The mother gave the child a letter, including drawings from M, and a gift for his birthday. The mother asked the child whether he wished to spend some time with her to which he responded, "No I don't". The mother did not persevere, saying that she understood the school was a safe place for him, and not a place where she was going to force him to come back to her home. The child said "I love you [M]" in a sad tone, before they left.
On 28 October 2024, the Court ordered the appointment of an ICL for the child, amongst other orders.
On 1 November 2024, the mother gave a letter, and some Halloween treats, to her neighbour for her neighbour's child to give to the child. The letter included words to the effect of "How was Halloween? Did you get many lollies? I heard you play sport competition at school, how was it? We miss you and love you".
On 4 November 2024, the mother received an email from the child's Physical Education teacher informing her that the child had been given the opportunity to compete in the State Finals for sport in Brisbane. The mother texted the father that message, seeking to discuss it. She received no response.
In November 2024, the mother was made aware that the father had made a complaint to the principal of the child' school about the substitute teacher through whom she had passed her letter to the child in October 2024. The father acknowledged that he sought dismissal of that teacher. I observe the father occupied considerable administrative time for the school in the airing of his various complaints and issues, as he did in other forums. The mother thereafter ceased communicating with the child through letters. She did not want the child, nor anyone else to be the focus of the father's anger.
On 4 December 2024, the parties were interviewed by the Family Report writer and Court Child Expert ("CCE"), Ms C.
In January 2025, the mother communicated with the father about the child's sport lessons, telling the father that "[X] will move to the next level from next term. Can you please reply to me if you are able to take him to play sport with this schedule, and I will contact the coach". The father replied that he would contact the coach directly and make arrangements, "according to [X's] wishes".
On 13 January 2025, the first Family Report, dated 12 January 2025, was provided to the Independent Children's Lawyer.
On 10 February 2025, the CCE received additional documentation from the Independent Children's Lawyer, that being information as provided by Child Welfare; Queensland Police; Department of Education; and the mother's further affidavit affirmed 3 December 2024.
On 13 February 2025, Senior Judicial Registrar Norrington made interim orders which had the effect of varying the earlier final orders such that the child was to live with the father, instead of the mother, and was to spend supervised time with the mother for 2 hours a fortnight at Y Family Service, with the mother to pay for the costs of the supervision.
Following the orders of 13 February 2025, the mother contacted Y Family Service to make the necessary arrangements for her to spend time with the child. The supervised time between the mother and the child did not proceed. It was not facilitated by the service because the child indicated that he would not spend time with the mother. In those circumstances, the service declined to assist, despite the Court orders.
An Addendum Family Report was prepared, dated 14 February 2025. That report, which addressed the new information received, was intended by the author to be read in conjunction with the initial report.
On 26 February 2025, the mother completed the 'Positive Parenting Program'.
On 28 February 2025, the mother's lawyer sent an email to the father asking if he would agree to supervised time between the mother and child occurring at the City E Contact Centre. The father responded that it was the child's wishes to not spend time with the mother.
On 19 March 2025, Mr G was driving home in the afternoon. He noticed a car driving quickly, coming up behind him. While the car overtook Mr G, he noticed that the driver was the father. The father gestured to Mr G a slicing throat action before driving away quickly.
The mother attended Relationship Counselling at Relationships Australia Queensland on four occasions throughout March, April and May 2025.
On 30 April 2025, the mother's lawyer sent an email to the father again requesting if he would agree to time occurring at the City E Contact Centre. The father responded that the child did not want to spend time with the mother. The lawyer sent another email asking the father if he was encouraging the child to see the mother. The father responded by saying that he was under no obligation to answer that email, and that he had no intention of doing so.
On the afternoon of 29 May 2025, the mother, Mr G and M were at the supermarket at Z Shopping Centre. Whilst M and Mr G were waiting at the front of the supermarket, Mr G saw the child and the father entering the supermarket. The father made a gesture to Mr G, which he described as "his hand was by his side like he was holding something. He moved his hand back and forth, gesturing towards me. I took this to mean that he was calling me a 'wanker'."[20]
On 10 June 2025, the mother completed the Relationships Australia, 'Focus on Kids - Parenting Orders Program', and on 12 June 2025, the mother's partner also completed the program.
Around mid-June 2025, the father commenced his work as a process worker wherein he departed for work at 6:40am and returned from work by around 3:30pm. He left the child alone in his home on his evidence, and described the child's routine as: getting up; getting himself breakfast; making his own lunch; watching a bit of Netflix; and then riding his bike to school. He confirmed in his evidence there was no adult in the house during this period. That fact did not trouble the father. Given the age of the child, it was an extraordinary concession.
On or about 28 June 2025, the father commenced to lease a two-bedroom residence at Suburb H, having departed Suburb U. He had taken out a lease of 12 months duration. He had a girl from Country K staying in the second bedroom. On his evidence at trial, the father stated that he had taken other persons into the properties as rented and/or owned by him, having a girl from Country AA residing with him at the Suburb U address and other persons residing with him in the home he lived in prior to moving to Suburb U. The father had never disclosed, before being cross-examined, these matters, namely, who and how many people were in his household while the child was in his care. It was something he considered the mother did not need to know. This living arrangement of the father's requires the child to sleep in the father's bed. The father gave evidence that he was not concerned about the sleeping arrangement saying, "he wants to stay in my bed every night, yes" and "he wants to sleep with his father".[21] The father has no intention of ceasing that practice until such time as the child wishes for that cessation. That arrangement is not appropriate at the child's age, and was further evidence of the father's enmeshment of the child with the father, as is discussed later in these reasons.
On 28 July 2025, the trial commenced. Judgment was reserved at its conclusion on 30 July 2025. The parties were told that judgement would be delivered, if possible, in approximately six weeks.
On 22 September 2025, the parties were advised that Orders would be made, and judgment delivered in the matter, on 24 September 2025. The Court also advised the parties that orders had been made in chambers on 22 September 2025, as follows:
1. The parties, together with any support persons they may wish to accompany them, personally attend the Commonwealth Government Centre, Level 4, 94-104 Grafton Street, Cairns on Wednesday 24 September 2025, at 11:30 am in Courtroom 1 for judgment delivery in this matter. The Independent Children's Lawyer and/or counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer is permitted to attend via electronic link.
2. On Wednesday 24 September 2025 at 11:00 am, the father shall deliver the child [X] born [2014] to the Court Child Services at Level 4 of the Commonwealth Courts Building at 94-104 Grafton Street, Cairns, QLD and the father shall thereafter immediately depart the Court Child Services (without the child) and he shall proceed to attend in Courtroom 1 for the pronouncement of the Orders and the delivery of Reasons for Judgment in this matter.
On 24 September 2025, the Court was informed that the father did not deliver the child to the Court Child Services at Level 4 of the Commonwealth Courts Building at 94-104 Grafton Street, Cairns, QLD as ordered by the Court. He attended alone. Further, that the father was directed by security to leave the Court building. I accept that in those circumstances, the father was not in the courtroom on that day. The child not being delivered by the father, in accordance with Order 2 of the orders made 22 September 2025, made it necessary for the Court to issue a recovery order for the return of the child to the mother. The orders made by the Court that day were as follows:

[59]

On 29 September 2025, the Court enquired of the parties whether any leave to adduce further evidence would be sought in respect of the 24 September 2025 events. The Court had made final orders with respect to parental responsibility and decision-making; and live with arrangements pertaining to the child. Any relevant evidence (considering the child not being delivered by the father and his being directed to leave the Court building on 24 September 2025) that a party wished to seek leave to place before the Court, was anticipated to be directed to issues of compliance with the earlier order of the Court, and the question of time spent between the father and the child and other ancillary and injunctive matters. The mother and ICL indicated they sought to adduce no further evidence. The father indicated that he did wish to adduce further evidence. The father next had a solicitor file a Notice of Address for Service on behalf of the father. That solicitor filed an affidavit on 7 October 2025, as sworn by the father. While no Application in a Proceeding was filed for leave to adduce this further evidence, I granted leave to the father to rely upon such affidavit evidence.
The Court has considered the matters raised in this latest affidavit of the father. That material concedes that the father did not comply with Order 2 of the orders made 22 September 2025. That material also highlights the difficulties as presented to Court Child Services, and security, and subsequently the police, the mother (in this instance), and a child, in the circumstances of a breach of order and recovery order execution. The entire responsibility for the Court having to issue a recovery order rests solely with the father. The Court does not necessarily accept the father's account of what others have said to him, nor when he became aware of the orders, but nothing turns on that for the purposes of the orders as made by the Court in this proceeding. Finally, the affidavit raises again the unrestrained, and harmful to the mother and child, conduct of the father. It completely ignores the final orders as already made.

[106]

It was the father's evidence that at the time of trial, he was no longer concerned with ongoing sexual abuse as alleged by him to have been perpetrated upon the child by the mother's partner, because his actions had stopped it. The father still described the mother's partner however, as a "child abusing paedophile". At trial, the father alleged as a safety issue for the child, the physical and emotional abuse ongoing, as alleged by him, to be perpetrated by the mother and her partner in their household. There is no evidence that supports that which the father alleges. The Court considers, on the evidence before it, that it is probable that the father has deliberately made further false allegations.
Furthermore, the father alleged that the mother had failed to protect the child from her partner; is emotionally threatening to the child; and lies to him. He told the child words to the effect of "your mum's lied. Your mum's taking me to court". He claimed the mother allowed her partner to physically discipline the child; lock him in his room; and to not allow the child to leave for the purposes of going to the toilet or to eat dinner. There is no evidence, other than his untruthful evidence, to support such claims.
There is no evidence from the independent investigations conducted by Queensland Police and the Department of Child Safety to support a finding of sexual abuse or sexual grooming of the child from the mother's partner and/or otherwise in her household. There is no evidence from the child. There are denials from the mother's partner. The allegations were made by the father in circumstances where he had failed to secure the orders he sought from the Court. He widened the net, seeking to have validation of what he claimed, but which I find, he knew not to be true.
Mr G further denied, in the context of the father's ongoing pursuit of Mr G to obtain for himself, possession and control of the child, that he has ever been physical towards the child. He denied that he has choked the child or put his hands on his chest. Mr G denied that he has threatened the father at any point. He denied that he has said anything negative about the father to the child. Mr G's affidavit evidence was unchallenged, and I accept his evidence and that of the mother as to these matters. I reject the father's evidence.
There is no finding that there is an unacceptable risk to the child or the safety of the child in the mother's household.
Conversely, there is an unacceptable risk to the child or the safety of the child in the father's household. It can be ameliorated by the child not encountering the father, or having any communication with the father, for a long period of time, and thereafter, only under supervision. The risks presented are numerous. The father's behaviours, which have controlled the child and caused him to be fearful of the father's anger. The child's need, as informed by the father, to cease his relationship with the mother. The father's deliberate enmeshment of the child with him, and non-facilitation of the child's relationship with the mother has caused the child harm, and failed to promote his safety. It has also impacted the safety of the mother, and of her partner. It has subjected them to false accusations and caused them to be fearful of the father's responses.
It is evident that in the care of the father, the child is exposed to adult issues and conversations. The father conceded that he told the child of the current proceedings, saying to him "we're going to court because you've refused to go back to your mother, and your mother's household. Because you've refused, your mum's now taking me to court".[29] The evidence otherwise supports my finding that the father has used disparaging language against the mother and the mother's household to the child, deliberately adversely influencing the child's view of the mother and Mr G, two people with whom the child formerly had a reciprocated loving relationship.
The "imbalance of power between the parties" as "misused" by the father and referred to in Judge Cassidy's reasons for judgment in 2017, continues, enlarged and not abating, to the present time.
The existence of Court orders has not deterred the father. Instead, he has used the child as a weapon to harm the mother and her partner. He has dictated the child's living arrangements to the mother, even though governed by Court orders, and done all he could, to secure the child to him and place the mother outside the child's life. The father's co-sleeping with the child was particularly directed to the enmeshment process.

[110]

The Court has considered the child's Country K heritage and the importance of maintaining the child's connection to the Country K language and culture. The Family Report dated 18 February 2025, detailed at paragraph [45] the importance of "the child maintaining connection with his culture and language, being connection with the mother, and connection with community regarding his Country K heritage". When asked what the father has done to encourage the child's connection to Country K culture since being in the father's primary care, the father answered, "[X] has been living with people [of Country K heritage] in my household... and I have [Country K heritage] friends".[31] I accept that evidence. However, the totality of the evidence is that his father does not support his Country K language development and that his cultural needs are best, and most genuinely advanced, by the mother.
The child's developmental, psychological and emotional needs would ordinarily be promoted by the child having an ability to rely on each of his parents, and for each of his parents to support the other in their engagement with the child. The father however, has no capacity to support the mother in any aspect of her care of the child. The child can only rely on the father (unlike the mother) to the extent that his needs do not involve any interaction of any sort with the mother, or positive conversation with the father about her. The psychological and emotional needs promoted by the father in his relationship with the child are mostly his own needs. They are contrary to the child's needs.
The mother gave evidence that she had spoken with a counsellor at Relationships Australia about the impact on the child if he were to spend a period of some months without seeing or having contact with the father. The mother showed genuine concern for the child's needs and understood that "it will be an emotional stress for him". She gave evidence that through her participation in the parenting programs competed by her, she has learnt strategies to "validate him, acknowledge his feelings...I wanted him to know he can love both of us".[32]
When asked how she would support the child through a moratorium period, the mother gave evidence that she intended to:[33]

[116]

There is significant benefit to the child in the promotion of the child's relationship with the mother, and with her partner and with M. Each of them had a reciprocated loving, supportive, and beneficial relationship with the child prior to the father's intended and malicious disruption of that. Whilst ordinarily the child would benefit from a relationship with the father, it is clear on the evidence that the father has caused harm to the child and his actions do not promote the child's safety. He is both unable and unwilling to facilitate a relationship between the child and the mother. He has unjustifiably vilified Mr G. The father maintained in his evidence, that he had not withheld the child, but it was rather the child withholding himself from the mother and refusing to return to her care. He did not view returning the child, at aged nine, to the mother's care, in accordance with orders of the Court, as within his ability to facilitate, and categorised it as 'child abuse' to force the child to return to the care of the mother.
It is evident that should the child remain living with the father, the child's relationship with the mother would not be facilitated by the father. When asked by the mother's counsel whether he would have returned the child to the mother before the trial, the father responded, "of course not". When asked by the mother's counsel "if orders are made in the future and he runs away, are you going to return him to his mother?", the father responded, "to an abusive household with abusive people? No way in the world".[35] The father failed to facilitate video calls between the mother and the child, as requested by the mother. The father failed to encourage, let alone allow the child to spend time with or communicate with the mother as a condition of living in his household.
Conversely, when the child was living with the mother, the mother was able to facilitate the child's relationship with the father. She informed the father of all important events and things happening in the child's life and kept her communication with the father amicable. The mother's freedom in that regard led the child to have to make a choice as dictated to by his angry - whether expressive or subtle- father.
The father was asked by counsel for the mother, whether he could say anything positive about the mother. The father replied, "I can't" and "I have no idea".[36] He was further asked whether he considered it damaging for the child to not see his mother. His response was telling. It was "I'm not concerned...he seems to be a better child for it"[37] and "he's in a wonderful place at the moment".
The father did not inform the mother of any important information about the child, his school achievements or sports activities during the period that the father denied the mother time spent with the child. She has instead received this information from her friends or from the school. When the parties have communicated, the father has been argumentative or hostile, or simply, for the most part, unresponsive.
The child also had a relationship of significance with the mother's partner. His evidence was, relevantly, at [10] and [17] of his affidavit of evidence:

Mulryan & Mulryan [2025] FedCFamC1F 676 (9 October 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (158 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)