Murali & Murali [2025] FedCFamC1F 692 (29 September 2025)

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

1. The parties are engaged in proceedings pursuant to Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") in relation to the only child of their relationship, X, born 2020. X is currently aged five and lives with his mother. It seems common ground that X has not spent any time with his father since March 2023.
2. The matter has a final hearing for four days commencing on 30 March 2026. The competing applications at the final hearing are in broad terms the father's application for joint parental responsibility and for X to commence spending time with him building up to unsupervised time four nights per fortnight, whilst the mother's application is that she has sole parental responsibility and that X spend no time with his father.
3. The current application before the Court is the mother's application pursuant to s 102BA of the Act seeking to restrict the father and his legal representative's access to documents produced to the Court. Each of the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") have filed Case Outlines which records the evidence relied upon and submissions referable to the application.
4. Some context to the current application is gleaned from the parties' affidavits and more pertinently from a Child Impact Report dated 4 March 2025 ("CIR").
5. The CIR records that X was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (Level 2) in 2024 and is assessed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. His mother reports to the Court Child Expert that X has developmental delay in some areas but advanced cognitive skills in others. The mother describes X to the Court Child Expert as having strong emotions and struggling with impulse control, sometimes becoming dysregulated and explosive. She reports to the Court Child Expert that he has sensory sensitivity, seeks out sensory stimulation, and is not yet toilet trained. X receives a number of supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
6. The Court Child Expert identifies that there are a number of safety concerns in relation to X. The Court Child Expert records that family violence is a significant issue, the mother having made reports to Victoria Police of the father smashing himself in the head with a kettlebell weight, slapping a phone out of the mother's hands, threats that he would take X and disappear, allegations that he threw X against a wall when he was a baby, allegations of sexual assault upon the mother, calling her disparaging names, having been physically abusive and threatening towards a dog, and at one stage having been in possession of an illegal firearm. The Court Child Expert recorded as follows:
   1. Ms [Murali] presented with extreme levels of fear for both her and [X's] physical and psychological safety, believing that [Mr Murali] has the capacity, and has indicated an intention, to kill her and/or [X]. She described the incidents of physical violence as involving a "change" in who he was, and she said that he would frequently unpredictably change in response to minor arguments. [Ms Murali] alleged that [Mr Murali] told her that he was violent to himself in order to stop himself from killing her, that he has threatened that he would take [X] and disappear, and that if he can't have [X], neither can she...
7. The father admitted to the Court Child Expert that he had on occasions called the mother "crazy" and was dismissive of her complaints. The Court Child Expert recorded that he had acknowledged to her that he may have caused the mother to be fearful but claimed he had never displayed anger in front of X. He acknowledged that he had been "insensitive" in his requests for sex.
8. The Court Child Expert recorded that there were concerns in relation to the mental health and drug use of the father which impacted on the potential for future family violence and his capacity to provide appropriate care for X. The Court Child Expert also recorded that there were concerns in relation to the mother's mental health and the impact of this on her perceptions of the risk posed by the father and on her capacity to provide appropriate care for X.
9. In relation to the child, the Court Child Expert recorded as follows:
   1. [X] is a preschooler with additional needs. He requires comprehensive early intervention services to assist his development and prepare him for the social and learning aspects of school. [X] needs a caregiver/s who is able to focus on his developmental needs. There may be some concerns that [X] may miss out on opportunities and relationships that could be offered by his father, and it might be considered that [X] may benefit from his mother being supported by sharing his care with another caregiver. However, there are significant safety concerns and there is also likely to be a considerable negative impact on the quality of care that [Ms Murali] is able to provide [X] due to her fear of [Mr Murali] and the stress and anxiety she is likely to experience during these court proceedings, particularly if [X] is to commence spending time with his father.
10. The Court Child Expert identified the following key considerations and pathways for decision-making:
    1. Given the significant safety concerns, the break in time spent between [X] and his father, the mother's vulnerabilities in her mental health, and [X's] young age and additional developmental needs, a cautious approach is recommended regarding any consideration of commencing time for [X] with his father in the interim.
    2. If the court were to consider initiating time for [X] with his father, professional supervision at an accredited Children's Contact Service would be required and significant safety planning for [Ms Murali] and [X] would be necessary.
    3. [Ms Murali's] reported concerns regarding her neurodivergence and possible additional needs in order to participate effectively in the court proceedings will need consideration, particularly with regard to any possible dispute resolution or settlement negotiations.
    4. Each parent's concerns about their own capacity to engage in the court system effectively and competently and potential systems abuse may require consideration.
    5. The court would benefit from information in police and child protection records, which is yet to be produced.
    6. The cost may be prohibitive, but the Court could benefit from a single expert report prepared by a clinician with experience in neurodivergence in children and parents, mental illness and family violence.
    7. Both parents are encouraged to access support and referrals to community services from the Family Advocacy and Support Service (FASS). Phone 1800 11 3277 for women and 1300 00 3277 for men.
    8. [Ms Murali] will likely require safety plans for all future in-person court events.
    9. It is suggested that consideration be given as to when and how this Child Impact Report is released to the parties, noting the serious and potentially lethal family violence allegations, and [Ms Murali] has expressed concerns for her safety in relation to potential responses by [Ms Murali] to events in court proceedings.
11. The mother in her affidavit says the following:
    1. I have been in psychological treatment since approximately 2014, with the records subject to this hearing dating back to 2022 when I commenced with my current psychologist.
    2. I have sought support for my neurodivergence, complex trauma history resulting from adverse childhood experiences and subsequent challenging and/ or traumatic experiences throughout adulthood, and the psychological impacts resulting from the Applicant's pattern of coercive control and family violence spanning more than a decade.
    3. My treatment records may contain detailed discussions of intimate personal matters, traumatic events and my trauma responses, safety planning strategies, and therapeutic interventions. My records may also contain information about my social relationships, work, and other issues of a confidential nature. Many of the records pose a risk of containing information that could be used to identify my current movements and relationships.
    4. These disclosures were made in the context of a confidential therapeutic relationship for the express purpose of obtaining psychological treatment and developing safety plans and coping strategies.
    5. My medical records contain protected confidences regarding my physical and mental health, employment, personal relationships, and movements. The contents of those records could also reasonably be used to identify my social relationships, workplace, movements and location, as well as other service providers I utilise. This information may pose a safety risk if disclosed to the Applicant Father.
    6. My psychological and medical records both contain detailed information about my disability and its impacts on my daily functioning and my ability to navigate complex systems. This information includes details about my cognitive processing differences, executive functioning challenges, and the specific accommodations and strategies I utilise to function effectively, as well as information about the actions and situations that are most distressing and disabling to me. There is significant scope for this information to be misused to undermine my ability to participate equitably in proceedings on the basis of my disability.
    7. These are protected confidences under the law and I do not consent to them being disclosed to the Applicant or his legal representative. I am prepared for the Court and the ICL to review these records in order to determine if there is anything contained therein that is relevant to the issues in dispute that warrants further exploration.
12. In a Case Outline, the mother identifies the present issues in dispute to be as follows:
    1. What access the Father and/ or his legal representatives should have to information and records related to the Mother and the child, and their providers and social contacts, in light of the family violence risk
    2. Whether any further records of the Mother and/ or the child are necessary for the Court to form an opinion on the child's best interests
13. In her Case Outline, she submits as follows:
    1. The Father has perpetrated serious family violence against both the child and the Mother
    2. The Father has engaged in patterns of coercive control and systems abuse, including abuse of process within these proceedings and long term psychological abuse centred around the Mother's mental health concerns
    3. The letter regarding the Father's participation in [B Family Service] mens' behaviour change program demonstrates his lack of insight into his behaviour and ongoing risk of family violence
    4. The Father continues to engage in abusive conduct in a range of ways, leading to undue distress and burden on the Mother to anticipate and protect against unpredictable threats on the safety and wellbeing of the child and mother
    5. There is an unacceptable risk of physical, psychological, and developmental harm to the child if any contact with the Father is permitted
    6. There is an unacceptable risk of physical, psychological, emotional, and financial harm to the Mother which would detimentally impact her parenting capacity if protective measures are not ordered, if contact with the Father is ordered, and/ or if shared parental responsibility is ordered
    7. The disclosure to the Father or his legal representatives of protected confidences made by the mother in the context of medical and psychological treatment would cause serious harm to the mother and negatively impact her parenting capacity, and presents a risk it may facilitate further family violence Child's Best Interests
    8. The child has complex additional needs (autism spectrum disorder level 2, ADHD - primarily inattentive) that require specialised and intensive parenting support
    9. The Mother's capacity to provide for the child's needs is a paramount consideration regarding ongoing proceedings and parenting arrangements given the extent and complexity of those needs, and the significant resource demands placed on her in supporting them
    10. The Mother's parenting capacity has been negatively impacted by the Father's conduct in the proceedings and its impact on her psychological, emotional, social and financial wellbeing Protection and Safety
    11. The Father's behavior warrants protective orders to ensure the safety of the Mother and child
    12. The Father has engaged in and/ or threatened behaviors that place the Mother and child at risk
    13. The Father has attempted to use third parties and systems to locate, monitor, or gain access to information about the Mother and child
    14. The Father has utilised a wide range of actions to intimidate, coerce, harass, embarrass, control, and exhaust the resources of the Mother
    15. The Father has demonstrated a lack of insight into of the harm caused by his actions and no meaningful accountability for his past and ongoing harmful conduct 16. The Father has denied perpetrating family violence despite acknowledging specific incidents of the same
14. The father in his solicitor's Case Outline contends the following:
    1. The requested records relate to the mother's medical and mental health treatment in so far as it relates to the mother and the child.
    2. The subject child has developmental delays having been diagnosed with Autism Level 2 and possible ADHD (para 103, 104 affidavit of mother 22/04/2025.)
    3. The mother has put her mental health in issue by disclosing through her own evidence and by way of disclosure to the Child Impact Reporter that she has mental health issues. See

(i) Para 21 Child Impact Report

(ii) Paras 68-72 of her affidavit filed 22.11.24

(iii) Paras 79-80 of her affidavit filed 24.07.2025

1. The Applicant's concern is not with the existence of a diagnosis per se for the mother, but rather with:

(a) her perceptions of risk in so far as it relates to the father as against her and the subject child; and

(b) the impact that her diagnosis is having on her refusal to agree to the subject child spending time with and having a meaningful relationship with his father;

(c) the functional impact on her parenting when under stress or when feeling overwhelmed.

1. Records from treating practitioners including psychologists are the most probative and reliable evidence available to the Court in considering and determining the above.
2. In the mother's affidavit evidence filed 5 September 2025, she admits her medical records contain 'protected confidences regarding (her) physical and mental health' (para 8) She states in para 9 'My psychological and medical records both contain detailed information about my disability and its impacts on my daily functioning and my ability to navigate complex systems.' This information is highly relevant to the issues in these proceedings and to this end it is noted the Child Impact Reporter wrote that the mother wants to 'protect the potential for a relationship to develop between [X] and his father but appears to find it difficult to know how to do that in the context of her safety concerns.'(para 26).
3. The issue of domestic violence as alleged by the mother is central to her case which is that the father is abusive and violent and because of that abuse and violence she 'fled' with the child to an undisclosed location.
4. The father denies many of the allegations raised by the mother and or where appropriate, has admitted same, or endeavoured to correct factually what had occurred. Ultimately the assertions made by both parties shall be tested at the final hearing.
5. If the Court were to grant the father's legal representative access to the materials, the requisite undertaking not to disseminate the content or provide the documentation to the father would preclude the father's legal representatives from disclosing the information contained therein to the father in any event.
6. The issue of being able to identify particulars pertaining to contact and associated details pertaining to the mother and child including their location can be easily cured by redacting the documents appropriately.
7. The mother asserts she was 'engaged in seeking a new paediatrician due to the disclosure of his current provider in the subpoenas issues in March 2025'(para 105 Affidavit 22/04/2025). This supports the CIR's concerns as to the mother's 'perceptions of risk' which in turn goes to the relevance of her mental health conditions and capacity as described and the fact that such steps were taken in circumstances where the relevant Order permitted the legal representatives only and not the father from viewing the material.(Orders 20/03/2025).
8. The Applicant submits that such information is not available through less intrusive means, as the Respondent's own evidence is insufficient to test these issues. The respondent mother has stated that in her affidavit filed 5 September 2025 para 28 that the father has referred to her mental health concerns as 'vague...'

1. The mother seeks the following orders in relation to the documents produced to the Court:

1. That the Mother's residential address and the residential address of the child not be disclosed to the Father or his legal representatives. 2. That under Section 102BA, 1028B and 102BC, the mother's protected confidences contained in the records of her medical and psychological treaters not be released to the Father or his legal representatives 3. That the details of the child's school, childcare, medical providers, therapists, and other service providers not be disclosed to the Father or his legal representatives. 4. That all documents filed or subpoenaed in these proceedings that contain any of the following information be thoroughly redacted before being provided to the Father's legal representatives:

a) Names, addresses, contact details, and any identifying information of the Mother and child; > > b) Names, addresses, contact details, organisational information, and any identifying information of any service providers, including but not limited to medical practitioners, therapists, allied health providers, educators, and childcare providers; > > c) Names, addresses, contact details, and any identifying information of any social contacts of the Mother or child; > > d) Any information about the Mother or child's schedule, routines, or regular activities; > > e) Any information that could reasonably be used to ascertain the location or movements of the Mother or child.

5. That the Father be restrained from:

a) Seeking any information about the Mother or child from any third party, including but not limited to family members, friends, schools, medical providers, government agencies, or service providers;

b) Contacting or attempting to contact any service provider who works with the Mother or child, including but not limited to medical practitioners, therapists, educators, and childcare providers;

c) Contacting or attempting to contact any social connections of the Mother or child with whom he is not in regular contact as of the date of these orders;

d) Disclosing any information about the Mother or child to the maternal grandparents or any shared social contacts.

1. That the Father have no direct access to any records pertaining to the Mother or child, including but not limited to medical records, educational records, therapy records, and government records.
2. That redacted records of the Mother and child are only provided to the Father's legal representative under an undertaking to share information with the Father only when absolutely necessary given the ongoing family violence actions of the Father and his systems abuse and non-compliance to date, and that the legal representative must advise the Mother within 2 days of what information has been shared with the Father from these records in case of unrecognised safety concerns related to that information.
3. That any discussions related to personal circumstances and arrangements of the child and/ or Mother be undertaken without the presence of the Father or his legal representative

1. The father for his part seeks orders as follows:
   1. That the mother and the mother's solicitor have first access to the documents produced pursuant to subpoenas issued to the mother and the subject child's treating practitioners and any other documents produced to the Court that are protected confidences, to redact all identifying information of the mother and/or child.
   2. That within 14 days of the mother and the mother's solicitors being given access to the subpoenaed material, the mother and/or the mother's solicitors provide the unredacted and the redacted subpoenaed material to the ICL.
   3. That within a further 14 days of receipt of the redacted subpoenaed material, the ICL shall review the redacted subpoenaed material to ensure that the redactions are appropriate for the purposes of preventing any identifying information sharing with the father and the father's solicitors.
   4. That upon the ICL's inspection of the redacted subpoenaed material, only the father's solicitor and Counsel briefed on his behalf shall have access to the redacted subpoenaed material.
2. The ICL for his part by way of a Case Outline document sought orders as follows:
   1. That the mother's solicitor be granted first access to any documents produced pursuant to any subpoenas issued to;

- the mother's treating practitioners; and

- the child's treating practitioners;

And shall redact all identifying information.

1. That upon the mother's solicitor completion of the redaction of the subpoenaed material, the Independent Children's Lawyer and their counsel, the father's solicitor and Counsel briefed on his behalf shall have access to the redacted subpoenaed material.

3. That the father shall not be granted leave to have access to the subject material.

1. The father's legal representative at the time of submissions indicated that the orders could be made by consent in the terms of paragraph 3 as sought by the ICL.

1. On 10 June 2025, the Act was amended by the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) ("the amendments") to include Div 1B, Pt XI ("the Division") to enshrine a statutory protection with respect to information relating to the treatment provided to a party and/or child that is described in s 102BA of the Act as a protected confidence. The Explanatory Memoranda described the amendments as a response in part to the potentiality of perpetrators of family violence seeking to use the family law system as:
   1. ... a vehicle to abuse a former partner, including by seeking the disclosure of an individual's private and sensitive records. This can have a significant detrimental consequence for a respondent's well-being and for their willingness to seek future support and treatment.
2. For the Division to apply, the subject information must have been provided in the context of a professional relationship involving an obligation of confidentiality. The information is described in the relevant sections as "a protected confidence" which is provided by the "protected confider" within the context of that relationship. The legislation covers not just communications made to the protected confider but also communications made in connection with that relationship.
3. Section 102BA of the Act defines what is a protected confidence while s 102BB of the Act identifies the various professional services during which the information may be confided.
4. The court may restrict the use of the documents containing the protected confidences by a "direction" pursuant to s 102BC of the Act that the information is not to be adduced in evidence or by a "direction" pursuant to s 102BD of the Act that the information is not to be produced, inspected or copied. Such direction may be given by the court on its own motion or on application.
5. Section 102BE of the Act sets out the statutory framework by which the court determines whether or not a direction should be made pursuant to s 102BC or s 102BD of the Act, requiring the court to be satisfied that it is likely that harm would or might be caused to the protected confider or a child if the evidence were adduced or produced, inspected or copied and that the nature and extent of the harm outweighs the desirability of adducing the evidence or producing, inspecting or copying the documents.
6. Section 102BE(2) of the Act identifies a non-exhaustive list of the types of harm for the purposes of s 102BE(1) of the Act. Subsection 102BE(4) of the Act guides the court in mandatory terms to have regard to a series of matters in deciding whether the direction should be made being:
   • the probative value of the documents or evidence, the importance in the proceedings and the availability of other documents and/or evidence (102BE(4)(a));
   • the likely effect of adducing the evidence or permitting production, inspection or copying of the documents on the confider and/or child (s 102BE(4)(b));
   • the means available to the court to limit the harm (s 102BE(4)(c));
   • whether the substance has already been disclosed (s 102BE(4)(d));
   • the public interest in preserving confidentiality (s 102BE(4)(e));
   • whether the protected confider opposes the disclosure of the protected confidence or any part of it (s 102BE(4)(f));
   • whether the protected confider is legally represented (s 102BE(4)(g)); and
   • where the protected confider is a child under 18, whether the disclosure is opposed by a person who provides parental responsibility and/or an Independent Children's Lawyer (s 102BE(4)(h)).
7. If the direction is made in Pt VII proceedings the court must, pursuant to s 102BE(3) of the Act regard the best interest of the child as the paramount consideration.
8. It is uncontroversial that the documents in question are protected confidences within the meaning of s 102BA of the Act. It was not submitted otherwise.
9. The court is required to be satisfied that it is likely that harm would or might be caused to the mother and/or child. Satisfaction can be established either by direct evidence or by inference (Britt & Britt [2017] FamCAFC 27; (2017) FLC 93-764). I am satisfied on the available evidence that harm might be caused to the mother and/or child if the evidence were adduced, produced, inspected or copied. As much is conceded by the terms of the orders the father proposes.
10. However, s 102BE(1) of the Act is framed in conjunctive terms such that the court needs to be satisfied that the nature and extent of the harm outweighs the desirability of adducing the evidence and/or producing inspecting or copying the documents. The section involves the satisfaction of competing tensions framed within a best interest's consideration.
11. I am satisfied that the nature and extent of the harm that might be caused does not outweigh the desirability of adducing the evidence and/or producing inspecting or copying the documents. There is a partial acceptance of this by the mother in that she only seeks to restrict the father and his legal representatives from accessing the documents, not the ICL or the Court.
12. The documents are undoubtedly relevant to the issues in the proceedings as they bear directly upon the parenting capacity of the mother. The various diagnosis and opinions may inform in part the conclusions as to harm that may be occasioned to the child by any impact on the mothers parenting capacity of time between the child and the father as supporting the relief the mother seeks. The mother by the terms of her affidavit and her submissions directly raises as relevant issues in the proceedings the importance of the evidence. Axiomatically the documents are thus not only probative but important in the proceedings. It was not submitted otherwise.
13. No submission was advanced as to other means by which the evidence could be obtained (s 102BE(4)(a) (iii) of the Act). The best interests of the child can only be determined by the court having regard to all of the evidence that bears upon the parenting capacity of a parent not just some of it (s 102BE(3) of the Act). I am satisfied that the substance of some of the evidence has already been disclosed in part by the mother in her affidavit and to the Court Child Expert (s 102BE(4)(d) of the Act). However, that is only part of the story because there has been no testing of that which has been already disclosed.
14. I have had regard to the provisions of s 102BE(4)(e) of the Act and accept that there is a public interest in preserving the confidentiality of protected confidences. That confidentiality, however, must give way to what is in the best interests of the child which I am satisfied can only be established by all of the documents being made available to the legal representatives of all of the parties and to any expert to enable their testing. That is, the public interest is best served by ensuring that the court is provided with all of the available evidence and that it is tested by all interested parties.
15. I am satisfied that steps can be taken in the terms of s 102BE(4)(c) of the Act by ensuring that the documents are redacted to remove the reference to the mother's name, any reference to the mother's address and/or the identity and location of the mother and the child or her social contacts. I am further satisfied that harm can be minimised and the mother and child protected by ensuring that the documents are not provided to the father as is proffered by the father's legal representatives.
16. The father has consented to an order that would prevent the documents being provided by his lawyers to him. The father's lawyers are bound by their obligations to the court, and I accept that this provides a further measure of protection.

1. I am satisfied that the orders that I propose to make provide the appropriate balance between the likely harm that may be occasioned to the mother and/or child against the desirability of admitting the evidence for the purposes of the Court being able to make an order that is in the best interests of the child. I recognise the mother's need to have sufficient time to peruse the documents to enable her to undertake the redaction process and I am satisfied that the orders that I make provide her with that time.

I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Schonell.