1. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the applicant suffers from any physical health conditions. In his SOFIC, the applicant refers to his mental health being a reason he would face impediments if removed from Australia, however his SOFIC also states that he currently does not present any mental health concerns which would impact on his behaviour in the context of the potential risk of him reoffending. While the applicant gave evidence in the hearing that he had felt mentally unwell at times in the past and under stress, there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition. The 2023 and 2026 reports from the applicant's psychologist, Ms Clare Fercher-Barrett, state that the applicant denied having a history of physical or mental health issues[10] and she finds that there is no evidence to indicate that he is suffering from, or has previously suffered from, a mental health condition.[11] Ms Fercher-Barrett refers in her 2026 report to the applicant 'experiencing situational stress at present within the context of the current matter which is considered proportionate and within normal reactive limits.'[12] I accept this and find the applicant does not have a diagnosed mental health condition or a history of mental health issues.

1. The hearing was conducted using the Microsoft Teams videoconference platform due to the different geographical locations of the applicant, the representatives and the Tribunal. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the following witnesses, all of whom gave their evidence by telephone and from within Australia:
   • Ms Clare Fercher-Barrett, Consultant Psychologist engaged by the applicant, who gave expert evidence in supplementation of her written reports dated 20 July 2023 and 22 January 2026;
   • Mrs AWF, the applicant's wife;
   • Mr FIL, the applicant's father-in-law (Mrs AWF's father); and
   • Ms APS, one of the applicant's sisters.
2. I am of the view that the applicant understood the nature of the proceedings and he was able to participate in a meaningful way by giving evidence and responding to questions on relevant matters.
3. I explained to the applicant that the respondent may ask him questions about conduct where he had not been convicted and he could object to answering a question where the answer might tend to prove he had committed a crime. If there was a possibility that some conduct may expose him to criminal charges, he has the right not to answer questions if to do so would incriminate himself or expose him to criminal charges. The applicant said he understood. I repeated this warning to the applicant during the hearing as appropriate.

Mrs AWF's medical condition and her oral evidence in the hearing

1. As set out above, medical evidence before the Tribunal shows that Mrs AWF has a rare inherited metabolic disorder called MSUD. A letter dated 3 December 2025 from the Metabolic Diseases Unit at The Royal Melbourne Hospital[13] states that Mrs AWF is under the Unit's care and her condition requires ongoing monitoring and access to timely support, and to take special formula and follow a very low protein diet. The letter explains that if a patient does not follow a strict dietary regime and their condition is not well managed, levels of certain amino acids can become acutely elevated such that the person is 'at risk of brain oedema, coma and death.' The letter states that Mrs AWF's MSUD has caused her to have some 'cognitive impairment' and so she requires assistance with daily functioning, coordination of care and support during periods of illness, stress or medical vulnerability.
2. A Critical Health Management Plan dated 8 October 2021 for Mrs AWF from the Unit states that clinical signs of concern may be difficult to assess, and can include 'irritability' or 'just not right'.[14] The document also explains that if Mrs AWF presents to hospital she requires urgent care. A letter from the Unit dated 15 May 2018 explains that MSUD can cause 'varying degrees of mental and cognitive dysfunction' and refers to Mrs AWF having been hospitalised several times since coming under the Unit's care in 2012 due to her condition and clinical deterioration, but more recently her condition had improved. The letter states that her admission in 2016 was thought to be due to suboptimal control of her condition, but in 2017 it was due to pneumonia. A neuropsychology report dated 13 February 2020[15] assessed her cognitive scores as indicating an overall ability level in the Borderline or Low Average range, with the possibility of some slight decline in her cognition due to MSUD. It notes she completed the Victorian Certificate of Education (Year 12 in Victoria) and had worked in the past.
3. Mrs AWF gave evidence in the hearing that she has to stay on top of her condition or she gets very sick. She said that if she gets upset, or gets a small infection, it can make her dizzy and unstable. She can hallucinate or vomit and it is dangerous for her to drive. She said it changes her mood and she becomes a different person. She said that when she is pregnant, her condition dramatically affects her hormones and she gets 'triple' the normal mood swings, she gets really tired, needs extra help and she is not herself. She said that from about 2014 to 2018, she was not looking after herself, wasn't paying attention to her health and she was a whole different person.
4. Mrs AWF's father gave evidence in the hearing that Mrs AWF had experienced a lot of challenges in her life due to MSUD and she always needs help in her life. The family thought she wouldn't live past the age of about 20. He gave evidence that when there is an imbalance in her management regime, including when she is pregnant or becomes sick, she is like a drunk and doesn't know what she is doing or saying. He said she loses balance and becomes uncontrollable.
5. Mrs AWF has provided a number of written statements over time (2025, 2022, 2016, 2015) in support of the applicant[16] and describes how the MSUD adversely affected her mood during her pregnancy.[17] She refers to her love for her husband, states that he is a good father, that she relies on his support and she denies that the applicant has ever perpetrated family violence against her or their children.[18]
6. In the hearing, as noted above, Mrs AWF gave her evidence via telephone. She was able to speak clearly about how her medical condition affects her health and behaviour and she became quite emotional when speaking about the range of difficulties she is currently facing due to the applicant's absence in lawful detention. At times, she had some difficulty understanding the questions asked of her and the questions needed to be repeated or rephrased. I also had the sense that in response to some questions about specific incidents, she was not recalling actual memories but was speaking about what she thinks she would have done or said, and her evidence, at times, was confused and she spoke in generalities rather than specifics. Further, I had the sense that she was very keen to emphasise to the Tribunal how much she needs her husband and was at pains to say what a good father he is, how good their relationship is and how many of the problems they experienced in the past were due to her MSUD and that the problems with the police were her fault or certain alleged events did not take place.
7. Overall, I am satisfied that Mrs AWF had capacity to give oral evidence, but I consider that her cognitive level and being in a stressful situation (that is, specifically giving evidence in the hearing and more generally finding it difficult to manage her children without the applicant's support) affected the quality of her oral evidence. Given the allegations of family violence discussed below, in considering Mrs AWF's written and oral evidence I have also taken into account the fact that victims of family violence can be reluctant to disclose certain behaviours or matters due to fear of more violence, or for the same reasons that they have been coerced into consenting to certain behaviours, or due to their perceived need to preserve an ongoing relationship with the perpetrator for various reasons which can be complex.[19]
8. Overall, I do not consider that Mrs AWF was deliberately giving misleading or untruthful evidence in the hearing, but I also consider aspects of her oral evidence in particular to be unreliable, as discussed further below, and I have taken this into account in my analysis. Where possible and appropriate, I have placed more weight on her written evidence or where her oral evidence is supported by that of other witnesses such as her father, who I found to be a credible witness.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to cancel a visa on character grounds.
2. Relevantly to this case, s 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
3. The character test is set out in s 501(6). For the purposes of this case, a person does not pass the character test in the event the person were allowed to remain in Australia if there is a risk that they might engage in criminal conduct in Australia: s 501(6)(d)(i).
4. An application to review a decision made under s 501(1) visa may be made to the Tribunal under s 500(1)(b).

1. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (s 499(2A)).
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('the Direction'). It is expressed to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.
3. The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under s 501 and s 501CA of the Act.
4. Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out principles to provide 'the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA.' These are:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[2]

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in clauses 8 and 9 of the Direction.
2. Paragraph 7.1 states that in applying the considerations, information and evidence from authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Paragraph 7.2 states that the primary consideration at 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.
3. The Primary considerations set out in paragraph 8 of the Direction, which the Tribunal must take into account, are:

(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;

1. The Other considerations the Tribunal must take into account are (but are not limited to):

1. As set out above, the first issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant passes the character test. In this case, the relevant part of the character test is s 501(6)(d)(i) which provides that a person does not pass the character test in the event they were allowed to remain in Australia if there is a risk that they might engage in criminal conduct in Australia: s 501(6)(d)(i).[20]
2. Annex A to the Direction deals with the application of the character test and provides guidance. Section 1 of Annex A provides an overview of the character test. In relation to discretionary visa cancellation or refusal, it relevantly provides that:

(1) Under section 501 of the Act, a person may be refused a visa if the non-citizen does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. A person may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test, and the person does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test.

(2) Persons who are being considered under section 501 of the Act must satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test set out in section 501(6) of the Act. In practice, this requires the decision-maker to determine, on the basis of all relevant information including information provided by the person, that the person does not pass the character test by refence to section 501(6) of the Act.

(3) Section 501(6) of the Act prescribes the circumstances in which a person does not pass the character test. A person need only be found not to pass one ground, in order not to pass the character test.

1. Section 2 of Annex A deals with application of the character test. Relevantly, paragraph 6 deals with risk in regard to future conduct (section 501(6)(d) of the Act). It states that a person does not pass the character test if, in the event they were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would engage in any of the conduct specified in section 501(6)(d) of the Act. It goes on to state that the grounds are enlivened if there is evidence suggesting that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the person, if allowed to enter or remain in Australia, would engage in conduct specified in section 501(6)(d). Paragraph 6(3) states that it is not sufficient to find that the person has engaged in conduct specified in paragraph 501(6)(d) in the past. There must be a risk that the person would engage in the future in the specified conduct set out in section 501(6)(d) of the Act.
2. Paragraph 6.1 of Annex A deals with risk of engaging in criminal conduct in Australia (section 501(6)(d)(i)). Paragraph 6.1(1) states that a person does not pass the character test if, in the event that the person were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person will engage in criminal conduct in Australia. Paragraph 6.1(2) states that the reference to criminal conduct must be read as requiring that there is a risk of the person engaging in conduct for which a criminal conviction could be recorded.

1. The following background is taken largely from the SOFICs, the G documents and documents provided under summons from the Commissioner of Police.
2. On 12 May 2015, the applicant was found guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court of reckless conduct endanger life. No conviction was recorded but he was sentenced to a 12 month Community Correction Order (CCO) with the condition that he perform 100 hours of community work.
3. On 31 July 2017, the applicant was found to have contravened the CCO because he had not completed the required hours of work. As a result, he was convicted of the original offence of reckless conduct endanger life and a further 12 month CCO was imposed with a requirement to perform 65 hours of community work.[21]
4. The essential circumstances of the reckless conduct endanger life are not in dispute. On the morning of 17 January 2014, the applicant left his six-month old son unattended in his car, parked in a street in the Melbourne CBD, so the applicant could attend a work site. It was a warm morning. The child was noticed by a bystander and the police were called. The police unlocked the car and removed the child who was hot to the touch and wet with sweat. Paramedics arrived and found the child was suffering from heat stress. The child was taken to hospital where he was treated overnight for moderate dehydration. The Department of Human Services were notified by police. The child was put into foster care for two days and then returned to the applicant and his wife.[22]
5. In terms of the risk that the applicant will engage in further conduct akin to this offence, the applicant submits[23] that this offending happened over 11 years ago, it is not reflective of a pattern of poor behaviour, it has not been repeated despite the applicant having had a further five children, it did not involve any premeditation or malice, the applicant has given evidence about some mitigating factors at the time of the offending including the stress he was under, and he has demonstrated remorse and taken steps to ensure the risk of him reoffending remains virtually non-existent. He also submits that a conviction was only recorded after he contravened the CCO, which is indicative of the mitigated severity and risk of further offending. He also refers to Ms Fercher-Barrett's conclusion that he presents a low risk for engaging in violence or other antisocial conduct.
6. The respondent submits that this conviction is very serious, involving the endangerment of a six-month old baby, and that the consequences of a repeat of this offending would be very serious by definition. The respondent did not make specific submissions about the level of risk of the applicant engaging in this type of behaviour again. As discussed below, the applicant and respondent have both identified the central concern in terms of the future risk of the applicant engaging in criminal conduct as relating to family violence, which is considered in detail below.
7. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence which was consistent with his written statements[24] and what he told Ms Fercher-Barrett[25] about the circumstances that led to his decision to leave his baby son in the car and his regret and remorse for his actions. His evidence is that he was new to family life and was finding it stressful, including the pressure of being the sole income earner, his wife was pregnant again with twins and having medical issues due to her MSUD and had been admitted to hospital, the applicant was caring for his son and decided, wrongly now he understands, that it was safer for him to leave his son in the car rather than taking him into the site where he was working. The applicant gave evidence about the precautions he has subsequently put in place to ensure that this behaviour does not happen again, including maturing and having a better understanding about the importance of the safety and wellbeing of his children, having counselling with his imam, and later changing his work so that it was more flexible and he could spend more time with his family. He confirmed that he understood that what he had done was wrong and he has not done anything similar since. I accept the applicant's evidence about these matters.
8. The applicant has also expressed remorse in his written and oral evidence for his breach of the CCO. He gave evidence that he did not complete the initial CCO because of work and family commitments, but he said he later complied and completed the further hours, which is confirmed by a Discharge Report dated 23 March 2018.[26] He gave evidence that he understands that breaching the order was wrong and he subsequently took steps to have a better balance between his work and family commitments as part of his precautions to avoid future offending. I accept the applicant's evidence about these matters which I have referred to in more detail below. Based on the applicant's evidence in the hearing, I find that the applicant now understands the critical importance of complying with any court orders and the like, despite the evidence (including evidence discussed below) showing his disregard in the past, and the potentially serious consequences of any future non-compliance.
9. Mrs AWF gave evidence that the applicant told her about the incident when he left their son in the car and he is very regretful and remorseful about what he did. She also gave evidence that some of the problems in the past were because the applicant was too busy with this work but now they all have a better balance and are much happier and work as a team. This is consistent with her written statement.[27]
10. Ms Fercher-Barrett refers in her reports to the applicant's vulnerabilities at the time this incident took place,[28] his past efforts at rehabilitation, acceptance of responsibility and his positive attitude towards further rehabilitation.[29] In her 2023 report, she concludes that the clinical, psychometric and historical evidence reflects a very low recidivism risk for the applicant.[30] In her 2026 report, which is more focussed on the family violence allegations about which she had considerably more information before her than in 2023, she concludes that the applicant generally presents a low risk for engaging in violence or other antisocial conduct.[31] I give weight to Ms Fercher-Barrett's analysis and conclusions.
11. Therefore, based on all the evidence before me, I find that the risk that the applicant would engage again in the type of conduct that led to him being convicted of reckless conduct endanger life if he were allowed to remain in Australia is minimal or remote, such that s 501(6)(d)(i) is not engaged.

Other conduct of concern - family violence allegations

1. The applicant and respondent both acknowledge through their written and oral submissions that the key issue of concern in this matter is the allegations of family violence against the applicant. I agree with this. The applicant denies all allegations of family violence and submits that I cannot reasonably conclude that, based on the evidence, he has committed family violence in the past or is at risk of committing family violence in the future. The respondent submits that the evidence before me is sufficient for me to make a finding that family violence occurred, even though the applicant has never been charged with or convicted of family violence (which is common ground), and that the risk of the applicant engaging in such conduct is more than minimal or remote, such that s 501(6)(d)(i) is engaged and the applicant is found not to pass the character test.
2. 'Family violence' is defined in paragraph 4 of the Direction as 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.' The definition goes on to give examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence and includes examples of both physical and non-physical behaviour. The definition of 'member of the person's family' includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person. In determining whether the incidents between the applicant and the relevant family member constituted 'family violence', I am required to consider whether those incidents involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled the family member or caused the family member to be fearful.[32]
3. I have considered each of the potential incidents below, both individually and cumulatively.

1. A Victoria Police incident report dated 26 November 2013[33] states that the applicant and his wife have a baby and Mrs AWF said she might be pregnant again. A neighbour called police because they could hear a verbal argument between the pair. When the police arrived, the applicant had left the house because he had to go to work. Mrs AWF said the baby had a fever and had not been sleeping well and this had caused her and the applicant to be short tempered with one another. Mrs AWF said that she and the applicant had had a verbal dispute. The report states 'Nil violence. Nil threats. Nil concerns for safety. House searched nil damage to any property.'
2. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that Mrs AWF was having an episode related to her MSUD and she was shouting and a neighbour noticed, and this might be what the neighbour reported to the police. The applicant confirmed that there was no violence and no threats.
3. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that this incident did not constitute family violence.

1. A Victoria Police incident report dated 4 December 2013[34] states that the police were contacted by Mrs AWF to attend her home about a dispute with the applicant. It says they have a 4 month old baby and Mrs AWF is three months pregnant again. The report states that Mrs AWF said the baby had a fever and the applicant was late getting home from work. When the applicant arrived home, they had an argument about this. The applicant then collected the baby, along with some baby food and clothing and left the property in the car and Mrs AWF did not know where they had gone. Mrs AWF told the police she was not concerned for the baby's welfare but she doesn't know where her baby is. She told the police the applicant is a good father, there was no violence between them and no threats. The police reported there were no welfare concerns for any of the persons involved. The report states that later, Mrs AWF told the police that the applicant had returned home around 2.30am, she and the baby were well and there was no fighting or conflict.
2. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he had been at work and Mrs AWF called him about the baby having a fever and she wanted him to take the baby to the doctor, so he came home and that is what he did. He said he took the baby to the a medical centre which was open until midnight, and returned home around 12.30pm, and not 2.30am. He suggested Mrs AWF had called the police because he was not answering his phone, but said he had told her he was taking the baby to the doctor. He said there was no argument or family violence.
3. Mrs AWF, having been reminded of the outline of this incident, was asked whether she remembered this day and responded 'maybe'. She then said she wouldn't have been upset because the applicant is an excellent father and she would not have called the police for something like that. She then conceded that she actually didn't remember, but said there was a lot happening in 2013. I give her evidence about this incident no weight because I don't consider she has an independent recollection of it.
4. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that this incident did not constitute family violence.

1. A Victoria Police incident report dated 20 June 2015[35] reports that Mrs AWF is 30 weeks pregnant and decided to leave the marital home and attempt to get accommodation at a local hotel. When she could not get accommodation there, she tried to contact women's emergency accommodation but she was on hold for 30 minutes and called the police and said she was going to commit suicide and hurt herself. Police found Mrs AWF near her address and she admitted to saying she was going to hurt herself because she was stressed out and needed accommodation. She said there had been approximately 6 months of verbal arguments, none of which had ever led to violence. She said the arguments are small but consistent and she gets very emotional because she is pregnant. She also said she has left before but has never made threats to self-harm. She denied any other issues between her and the applicant. She did not give contact details for the applicant and said he does not have a phone. She was taken to the Northern Hospital which was going to try to find her emergency accommodation. She said she did not have friends or family who she could currently reside with and she needs a break from the applicant. She said she had told the applicant she was going to leave for good and he had to go to work and would expect her home due to previous times she has left.
2. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that this incident was related to Mrs AWF's medical condition. After contacting his wife, he brought her back home and that was the end of it. There was no violence. He said that when Mrs AWF was pregnant, which she was when this incident happened, there was a high risk of episodes because her levels would go up and if she didn't take the formula or medicine she needed it affected her behaviour. In cross examination, the applicant agreed that there had been some arguments, but not six months' worth. He said these arguments were about them continuing to live with his sisters (who were both unmarried at the time), which Mrs AWF did not want to do because she wanted privacy. The applicant said he agreed with her about this but he needed time to make new arrangements and this is what led to the situation. He confirmed that Mrs AWF spent the night away from home and then she returned to the family home.
3. In the hearing, Mrs AWF was reminded of the circumstances of this incident from the police report and asked whether she remembered it. She responded that she was very moody and not herself, and she was really sick. She gave evidence that she left the home because she was very angry when she was pregnant, her moods changed and sometimes she would be upset. She said sometimes she wanted to be by herself and she would leave.
4. Based on the medical evidence and the evidence of the applicant, Mrs AWF and Mr Amad, I accept that the combination of Mrs AWF's MSUD and being pregnant, as well as her condition not being particularly well-managed at this time, adversely affected her mood and led to her behaving erratically at times. I accept the applicant's evidence that Mrs AWF was not happy about living with his sisters and wanted to move elsewhere, which was a source of tension between them and led to arguments. This is broadly consistent with Mrs AWF's evidence that sometimes she wanted to be by herself and she would leave. While any threat of self-harm must be taken very seriously, the evidence does not indicate that Mrs AWF repeated this threat to the police or that she attributed the threat of self-harm to the actions of the applicant.
5. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that this incident did not constitute family violence.

1. A Victoria Police incident summary report dated 27 June 2015 refers to the police being called to a motel in Apollo Bay by staff due to complaints of noise. The report states that neither person is clearly the affected family member or perpetrator. The report refers to the applicant and Mrs AWF being present with a two-year-old child and twins aged 14 months, and Mrs AWF being 32 weeks' pregnant. The report refers to Mrs AWF stating that she can no longer live in the same house as her husband's two sisters who abuse her, and her husband refuses to find another house to live in. The report states the couple had decided to stay in a motel in Apollo Bay to get away for a short time, but argued most of the time. The report refers to the applicant stating that he had to get back to work at 6pm in Melbourne and Mrs AWF wanting to stay for an extra night and saying the applicant was lying about having to go back to work. They both stated that they had been yelling at each other during arguments, that there had been no violence and that it was a verbal argument only. The report states that the three children present appeared cared for and not overly upset.
2. In the hearing, the applicant confirmed that they went to Apollo Bay and had an argument and the police were called. He said they spoke to the police, there were no charges and no violence and the police left. In cross-examination, the applicant gave evidence that his sisters did not abuse Mrs AWF. He agreed that he and Mrs AWF went to Apollo Bay for a break with their three children and they were arguing because Mrs AWF said she would only go home if he got them another house, and he asked her for more time but she disagreed.
3. Based on the evidence before me, I do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that this incident did not constitute family violence.

1. A Victoria Police incident summary report dated 7 July 2015[36] refers to the police attending the couple's address after receiving a 000 call from the applicant, stating that Mrs AWF was running around naked in the street. Police attended and observed that Mrs AWF was clothed and heavily pregnant in a distressed state. The report states that Mrs AWF said she woke the applicant up from bed at around 6am after feeling contractions. The applicant became angry due to being woken up and an argument erupted in which Mrs AWF said she wanted to leave the applicant. During the argument, the applicant punched Mrs AWF's arm several times causing bruising. The report states that police observed the bruising and when asked, Mrs AWF refused to make a statement or have photographs taken of her injuries. The applicant was arrested and interviewed for recklessly causing injury. The report states that police hold concerns that if the applicant and Mrs AWF continue to live together, she will be in considerable danger of further violence.
2. In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about the incident. He said Mrs AWF was having an episode and she left the house naked. He called the ambulance but the police came and they assumed there had been family violence. He said that by the time the police arrived, he had got some clothes onto Mrs AWF so she was no longer naked. He denied that he had become angry with Mrs AWF. The applicant said he tried to explain to the police about his wife's condition and that she needed a doctor but the police did not understand Mrs AWF's condition. They handcuffed him and took him to the police station and later that day they put an interim intervention order (IVO) in place and took Mrs AWF and the kids away and he didn't know where they had gone. The applicant denied that he punched Mrs AWF on her arm or caused bruises. He said the bruises were from her medical appointments each week when she had to have blood tests. He said he did not touch her. He said that in 2015, his family was going through stress and conflict and he doesn't deny that this affected his wife and children, but he denies there was family violence.
3. In the hearing, Mrs AWF was reminded about the incident as described in the police report and asked whether she remembered it. She responded that she thinks so, that the applicant didn't punch her and there was 'something about bruises'. When asked why she wouldn't let the police take photos and a statement, which is what the police report says, Mrs AWF responded that it was because her husband didn't do it. When asked why she thinks she would have had bruises, she said that she thinks she must have done it to herself, and she said no to the police because the applicant didn't do it. She said she was very moody and not herself back then and that she did it to herself. She said that when the police asked her why she would not let them take photos and a statement it was because she knows she did it to herself and didn't want to make a false statement. She subsequently said that she knows she hit herself and the applicant didn't touch her.
4. The police incident report notes the risk indicators police identified for possible family violence, namely, 'indictable assault, pregnancy, kids in relationship, [Mrs AWF] reluctant to assist.'[37]
5. I have considered whether I can be satisfied that this incident involved family violence.
6. In his SOFIC in reply,[38] the applicant submits that he has always maintained that he did not commit family violence on 7 July 2015 (or at any other time). He reiterated this denial in the hearing without reservation. The applicant submits that Mrs AWF's evidence is that the applicant did not punch her in the arm and cause the bruises. It was conceded that her evidence about this incident in the hearing might be a bit hazy, but the applicant submitted that it is more likely that the events of that day were due to Mrs AWF's medical condition and the bruises were caused by medical tests. It was also noted that applicant consented to the IVO without admission (referred to below) and there have been no charges or convictions.
7. The respondent submits that while not all the occasions when police were involved between 2013 and 2015 constituted events that could amount to family violence, in relation to this particular incident in July 2015, there is a basis for me to find that physical violence had taken place, and the basis for this is what the police observed and included in their report, including visible bruising and Mrs AWF claiming to have been punched and then not permitting the police to photograph the bruises or take a statement. The respondent acknowledged the applicant's denial of violence and his explanation that the bruises were due to Mrs AWF's treatment for her medical condition, and also noted Mrs AWF had given a different explanation in the hearing. The respondent submits that based on the original, contemporaneous statement made by Mrs AWF to the police when they went to the house after the applicant called them, and what the police observed, means it is open to me to find that family violence conduct took place and it does not matter that no charges were brought, particularly as Mrs AWF refused photographs or to make a statement.
8. I have set out above my concerns about aspects of Mrs AWF's evidence. I do not consider that Mrs AWF was deliberately giving untrue evidence to the Tribunal about this incident, but I find that she does not have a genuine, independent recollection of this incident and I find her evidence about it to be unreliable. I do not accept that she hit herself and caused the bruises, or her explanations for why she didn't let the police take photos or a statement. In my view, the fact that Mrs AWF does not have an independent recollection of this incident, given its significance and the consequences that flowed from it discussed below, lends weight to the applicant's explanation that Mrs AWF was having an episode due to her MSUD and this is why he called 000. The evidence is that Mrs AWF was heavily pregnant at the time.
9. The medical evidence, along with Mrs AWF's own evidence, that of her father and the applicant is that maintenance of her condition requires constant vigilance, and that when the levels of relevant amino acids are not right she can experience a range of symptoms including hallucinations, erratic behaviour and mood, and can become 'uncontrollable and not know what she is doing', according to her father. Mrs AWF's evidence, and that of the applicant, is that pregnancy affected her particularly badly in this regard. In my view, the evidence indicates that a medical episode associated with her MSUD could reasonably account for her running outside naked, telling the police she had been punched in the arm by the applicant, and then not cooperating with their attempts to investigate. There is no contemporaneous evidence before me of the medical treatment and monitoring Mrs AWF was receiving at this time, but I consider that based on the evidence, if she had not been having at least some regular monitoring and testing associated with her condition it was likely to have got sufficiently out of control such that she would have required hospitalisation (as had happened in the past), which also lends weight to the applicant's claim that the bruises on her arms were from medical or blood tests and not from physical violence by the applicant. I also consider it reasonable to assume that the police would have had little or no reason to suspect or believe that Mrs AWF's behaviour and allegations were connected to a rare medical condition, even if the applicant told them this (which is not clear).
10. I have considered the respondent's submissions that based on the original, contemporaneous statement made by Mrs AWF to the police when they went to the house after the applicant called them and what the police observed means it is open to me to find that family violence conduct took place. I have also considered what I have referred to above about the complex reasons that can lead to victims of family violence changing their evidence or not wanting to implicate their abuser and I am conscious of the risk of 'victim blaming'.[39]
11. The respondent submitted that the frequency of the engagement of the police with the applicant and Mrs AWF, particularly from 2013 through to 2015, was consistent with a relationship in turmoil. This is broadly consistent with the evidence of the applicant, Mrs AWF, Mr FIL and Ms APS, all of whom agreed that to various degrees, the couple had arguments and a volatile relationship at times, but all of them denied there had been any violence. I note Ms APS's oral evidence that she lived with the applicant and Mrs AWF from April 2014 until the end of 2015, which covers the period including this event, and she confirmed she had not seen any physical violence or abuse. I found her to be a credible witness. Ms Fercher-Barrett refers in her 2026 report to 'tensions and conflict' in the marriage and a 'complex family dynamic', which the applicant has taken steps to address, and the vulnerability of the family unit.[40] She also refers to the applicant's denials of family violence.
12. Based on all the evidence and submissions, for the reasons set out above, in all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the incident on 7 July 2015 involved family violence by the applicant towards Mrs AWF.

1. Following the 7 July 2015 incident, the police applied for an interim intervention order (IVO) which was granted on 31 July 2015.[41] The order provided that the applicant must not, amongst other things, commit family violence against his wife and children, attempt to locate them, contact or communicate with them or go to or remain within 200 metres of any address or other place when they live or work or attend school/childcare. The order notes that the applicant was not present at the hearing.[42]
2. On 17 March 2016, the interim intervention order was made final, by consent and without admission by the applicant of the allegations in the complaint.[43] The order notes that the applicant was present at the hearing. The order protected Mrs AWF and their (then) four children, providing that the applicant must not commit family violence against them, intentionally damage their property or threaten to do so, or get another person to do anything the applicant must not do under the order. The order was in place until 23 August 2017.[44]
3. The applicant gave evidence that he missed the court hearing about the interim IVO because he was very stressed and couldn't cope with what was happening. He agreed in the hearing that he consented to the full IVO without admission.
4. Based on my findings above, in all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the IVOs indicate that that the applicant engaged in family violence towards Mrs AWF.

1. A Victoria Police incident summary report dated 21 February 2016 states that on that afternoon, the applicant went to Mrs AWF's house and was banging on the door and yelling, but the door was locked and he could not gain access. Mrs AWF told the police that she didn't know how the applicant had found the address and she was fearful he would continue to come to her house. Mrs AWF told the police she would like an IVO for her and her children. The report notes that the police were not aware of the existing IVO until they returned to the station. The report also notes that the applicant's conduct was a breach of the IVO.
2. The applicant gave evidence in the hearing that in fact what happened was that Mrs AWF called him and asked him to come over and look after the children and she provided him with the address of the property. His evidence was that she told him there was no IVO in place and so he went over and stayed for a couple of days. He denied banging on the door and yelling, and said that he could see she was sick and so that is why he stayed. She said she wanted him to come back and stay with them, but the applicant said he needed time to make that decision. The applicant said he did not know why Mrs AWF would have said to the police that she wanted an IVO to protect her and the children.
3. I note that earlier in the hearing, the applicant had given evidence that soon after the interim IVO was put in place (end of July 2015), Mrs AWF called him even though she was not supposed to, to tell him about the birth of their fourth child (in August 2015) and said she wanted to come back home but the authorities didn't want her to and they didn't understand her condition. I also note that there is medical evidence referred to above about Mrs AWF's medical condition not being well managed in 2016.[45]
4. Mrs AWF gave evidence in the hearing that in the past she had lied to the applicant on multiple occasions about whether there was an order in place because she was struggling and wanted him to come and help her, so she said there was no order and asked him to come and help her. While this was in response to a question about 2018 and 2019, from her response I consider she was talking about the situation more generally.
5. Based on the evidence before me, I prefer the applicant's evidence that Mrs AWF gave him the address of the house and asked him to come and assist, and I do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that the incident did not constitute family violence.

1. A Victoria Police incident summary report dated 1 March 2016 refers to a breach of the IVO. The report states that at around 1.45am, Mrs AWF was asleep in the living room and the front door of the property was unlocked. The applicant entered the house and demanded to see his eldest son. He pushed past Mrs AWF and entered the children's bedroom to give his son a cuddle. The son became distraught at being woken up and his father being there. Mrs AWF told the applicant to leave because there was an IVO in place. The applicant became vocal, agitated and abusive towards Mrs AWF and left. Mrs AWF then called the applicant to come back as she thought her son was having an asthma attack. The applicant returned, settled the child and continued to abuse Mrs AWF. The applicant said he wanted Mrs AWF to drop the IVO so that they can attend immigration and get him permanent residence. Mrs AWF asked the applicant to leave and threatened to call the police, which she did.
2. The applicant gave evidence that Mrs AWF had asked him to come and see her and the kids and told him there was no IVO in place and that the involvement of Child Protection was over. He went to see her to help look after the kids. Later, he left the house because they had a verbal argument because she wanted him to move in with her. He said he would need some time and she got angry, so he left the house. He explained that he was unsure about moving back in because it means he would have to end the lease on the place where he was living. He helped with the asthma attack and then left. The applicant agreed that he was aware of the IVO when it was first served in 2015, but since then he had not had any further contact with the Department or Child Protection. The applicant admitted that in terms of the IVO and the conditions, at the time he was thinking emotionally and not clearly about the consequences of breaching it. That is why he made the decision to see Mrs AWF and he now acknowledges that breaching the IVO was a mistake and he understands the seriousness of the consequences of not complying.
3. As noted above, Mrs AWF gave evidence that in the past she had lied to the applicant on multiple occasions about whether there was an order in place because she was struggling and wanted him to come and help her, so she said there was no order and asked him to come. While this was in response to a question about 2018 and 2019, from her response I consider she was talking about the situation more generally.
4. Based on the evidence before me, in all the circumstances, I prefer the applicant's version of events and do not accept that this individual incident involved violent, threatening or other behaviour by the applicant that coerced or controlled Mrs AWF or caused Mrs AWF to be fearful. Therefore, I find that the incident did not constitute family violence.

Cumulative consideration of the applicant's behaviour

1. I have found above that none of the individual incidents involving police and the applicant and his wife referred to above constituted family violence.
2. The respondent also submitted, correctly, that family violence does not have to be physical. The respondent submitted that it can include what is known commonly as 'gaslighting', which involves setting someone up to fail as a control mechanism. Respect Victoria[46] defines 'gaslighting' as when someone is

deliberately using manipulative behaviour to make you think that your memory or understanding of something is wrong, and they are right. That you can't trust yourself, and you need to rely on them instead. Abusers gaslight so they can gain and retain control of a relationship.

3. The respondent submits that not all of the occasions when police were involved with the applicant and his wife constituted events that could amount to family violence, but it does not accept that all the events were a consequence of Mrs AWF's behaviour due to her medical condition. The respondent submits that the applicant has demonstrated a pattern of conduct in which he attempts to explain away his family violence as misunderstandings arising from Mrs AWF's erratic behaviour due to her medical condition.[47]
4. In its SOFIC, the respondent refers to a Placement Prevention Intervention Report prepared by Baptcare dated 17 April 2020 under their Families First program (Baptcare report),[48] and the respondent referred to the Baptcare report during the hearing. The Baptcare report explains that Families First is a program which aims to strengthen the capacity of families to protect and care for their children where there are risk issues and where children are at imminent risk of out of home placement if they do not receive intensive support. The reason for the referral of the family to Baptcare was concerns over 'Mrs AWF's capacity as a primary parent to manage her own complex medical condition (MSUD) without in-home support from her family' including the varying needs of her five children, and the 'children's father continues to post a risk for family violence'.[49]
5. The Baptcare report refers to 'historical family violence' by the applicant, including physical violence, which resulted in a previous IVO. It notes he denies family violence. The Baptcare report states that because the scope of the intervention was to work with Mrs AWF, it did not include 'contact or engagement with [the applicant].' The author of the Baptcare report acknowledges that the information it contains about the applicant 'is a brief assessment based on the information that was gathered from Mrs AWF and her family, as well as departmental records, which were impacted by the sensitive and difficult nature of the subject and with only a portion of the information being shared respectively.'[50] I consider this caveat raises concerns about the reliability of the information contained in the report about family violence and the basis on which some of the conclusions have been drawn by the author.
6. The respondent's SOFIC[51] reproduces part of the report which states[52]

From the information available, [the applicant's] use of coercive control and violence appears to be focussed around undermining Ms AWF's parenting of the children. For example, LLTS has goaded and intentionally upset Ms AWF and taken recording of her to show others that she is unstable and aggressive, also known as gaslighting. At his most violent, [the applicant] has physically attacked and beat Ms AWF during her pregnancy with AMC 4 and during a time when she was experiencing possible early labour and wanting to attend hospital, showing little regard for her or his children's safety.

7. The respondent did not elaborate further in its submissions on specific behaviours by the applicant that cumulatively could be construed as amounting to 'gaslighting' or controlling Mrs AWF by setting her up to fail, but I have concerns about relying on the conclusions in the Baptcare report to support this. I have found above that based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant was physically violent to Mrs AWF while she was pregnant with AMC 4 in July 2015 (which is what the reference above in the Baptcare report appears to be). It is not clear what the evidence is to support the author's statement that the applicant 'has goaded and intentionally upset Mrs AWF and taken recording of her to show others that she is unstable and aggressive, also known as gaslighting.' In particular, I have not been directed towards any evidence or allegations of the applicant recording Mrs AWF to show others that she is unstable and aggressive, which is a serious allegation. I note the Baptcare report also states that the author spoke to Mrs AWF's sisters 'who were isolated from Mrs AWF during the time where [the applicant's] violence and control were at its worst' and that 'they do not have an extensive knowledge of [the applicant's] pattern of coercive control.'
8. Based on all the evidence before me, my concerns about the reliability of aspects of the Baptcare report, and my findings above about the incidents where the police were involved with the applicant and Mrs AWF, I am not satisfied that Mrs AWF has been subject to gaslighting by the applicant or that he has engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour towards her which amounts to family violence.

1. This incident involves an allegation of family violence against the applicant's second son AMC 2, who was nine years old at the time, rather than against Mrs AWF.
2. A Victoria Police incident summary report dated 19 December 2023[53] states that on 19 December 2023, police received a report that the applicant hit his son in the head with a wooden rolling pin on 17 December 2023 resulting in significant swelling to his forehead. Information received indicated the incident was witnessed by the child's 10-year-old brother. Child protection and the police attended the applicant's address. Upon attendance, the applicant was heightened and initially refused entry to sight the children. Upon entry, police sighted the child with a large visible swollen wound on his head from his eyebrow to the top of his hairline. Police questioned the involved parties who provided an alternative version of events as to how the injury was sustained. The injured child said he was crawling under his bed and bumped his head on wooden slats which caused the injury. The brother said the child was jumping on his bed and fell off, hitting his head on the floor. Police believe that between refusing and allowing them entry to the property, the applicant told the injured child, Mrs AWF and the siblings to provide a version of events that was not truthful. Child protection are actively engaging with the family. Police hold significant concerns for the safety and wellbeing of the child and believe a family violence safety notice to be necessary.
3. A family violence safety notice was served on the applicant to exclude him from the home, an interim IVO was granted and then withdrawn on 7 February 2025 when the interim IVO expired.[54] A letter dated 15 February 2024 to Mrs AWF from Child Protection[55] states that 'following the completion of a child protection investigation into concerns that had been expressed in relation to the children, Child Protection will not continue to be involved with your family. Should [the applicant] wish to return to the family home then he is encouraged to contact Child Protection so that he can engage with an assessment and supports.'
4. The relevant report on this incident is the Responsible for Harm Assessment dated 1 February 2024 produced by Child Protection services (the CP report).[56] The front page of the CP report states under the heading Rationale for Assessment of Person Responsible for Harm

In consultation with the Team Manager, [name] the decision has been made to substantiate harm for [the six children].... AMC 2 has presented with an injury to his head, disclosing that [the applicant] had hit him with a rolling pin. [The applicant], AMC 2 and AMC 1 then provided three differing accounts of how the injured was obtained when interviewed by CP[57] and SOCIT[58]. Child Protection pattern and history clearly identifies [the applicant's] ongoing use of coercive control and violence, which [the applicant] has continually denied and refused to address.

5. Part 11 of the CP report is headed Safer Statement. Immediately under this is the hearing Reported Concerns. The Reported Concerns section in the CP report is apparently the third party report that led to the police and Child Protection visiting the applicant's home.[59] The way it is reproduced in the CP report means the form or context in which the original third party report was made is not clear. It is also not dated and it is not clear whether this is a complete or verbatim copy of the report or a summary and parts are redacted. It states

The family speak Arabic. The mother and father do not require an interpreter. - There is a young child within the home, believed to be one or two. - [redacted] AMC 2 [redacted] Twin sister was asked where he was. She stated that 'he hit his head'. - A month ago, A split his head open at a birthday party. - AMC 2 [redacted] stated, 'my dad hit me'. He stated that he was annoying his sister and his father then hit him in the head with a rolling pin. He repeated this story again and stated that it was a wooden rolling pin. - He has a large, visible swollen area from his eyebrow to the top of his hairline. The swollen area is slightly discoloured, however it is hard to see as he has slightly darker skin. There is a small graze closer to his eyebrow as well. - AMC 2 stated that it was hurting quite badly [redacted] however not as much as [redacted] - AMC 2 was asked if anyone saw the incident happen. He stated that the older brother saw this happen [redacted], - AMC 2 stated that he has never been hit with a rolling pin previously. AMC 2 did not mention whether he has been hit with a hand/any other object as he was not asked. - Has AMC 2 ever presented with any concerns in relation to his physical presentation? Nothing [redacted] - AMC 2 has previously mentioned that the siblings get yelled at. [redacted] - AMC 2 present as matter of fact when disclosing this information, and did not present as distressed. - AMC 2 stated that he was OK at home [redacted] however his head was very sore. He did not mention feeling unsafe. - AMC 2 did not mention whether any of his other siblings have been hit previously. - Do you think that he requires a medical assessment? Yes, potentially due to the size of the swelling. AMC 2 has stated that he has not been to a Dr in relation to the incident. - [redacted]

6. The CP report includes a transcript of the Child Protection interviews with AMC 2 and his brother AMC 1.[60] AMC 2 says he hit his head on metal planks of the bed when he was playing a game, and denied his father caused the injury. He said his brother was in the room at the time. I note that contrary to the police report and Investigation commentary in the CP report,[61] the transcript of interview shows that AMC 2 did not say he was face down under the bed when he hit his head (it was the interviewer who suggested that) and he said the planks were metal and not wood.[62] AMC 1 said his brother was jumping on the bed and hit his head on the bed, and then said he saw his brother do a big jump and he slipped and fell down on the floor very hard. AMC 1 also denied that his father caused the injury.[63] According to the report, Mrs AWF said her son was jumping on the bed and he fell down[64] and she also said she was not there when the injury occurred.[65] The applicant said his son hit his head on the bed and he didn't see what happened.[66]
7. In his Statutory Declaration dated 2 January 2026, the applicant states that in December 2023, his son hit his head while playing and school staff reported it.[67] In the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he was not responsible for the injury. He said that Child Protection attended his home with allegations that he had struck his son's head which he denies. He said the school called the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) about the bump which his son got running around in the house and hit his head on a table, but when his son went to school the teachers saw it and informed DHS who came to the house to investigate with the police. The applicant said he and his kids denied that he hurt his son. DHS took him away from the house and put an IVO in place which was eventually withdrawn and no charges were laid.
8. In cross-examination, the applicant gave evidence that he let the authorities into the house, but he did not let them in initially because nobody had let him know that someone was coming or for what reason, so he first wanted to check with his wife (who was out at the time) whether anyone was coming and she told him to let them in, which he then did. The applicant confirmed his previous evidence that his children had told him that AMC 2 was running around the house and banged his head on the table. The applicant said he was out at work when the injury happened. The respondent put to the applicant that when AMC 2 and his brother were interviewed at the house, AMC 2 said he was crawling under the bed and hit his head and his older brother said the child was jumping on the bed and banged his head on the floor, which is different from what the applicant said about the table. The applicant responded that he was not there and he told Child Protection what the kids had told him. The applicant also confirmed that he did not know for sure that it was the school who had contacted Child Protection services.
9. The respondent put to the applicant that there were now four versions of events, namely, one that AMC 2 told a third party who reported to Child Protection that he had been hit by the applicant with a rolling pin; the two versions of events the boys told to Child Protection and the police on 19 December 2023 in their interviews; and the applicant's account in the hearing that he understood his son had hit his head on a table. The respondent put to the applicant that Child Protection took the view that the applicant was responsible for the injury because he lost his temper with his son for bothering his sister and hit him with a rolling pin (which is what the third party report says). The applicant denied this and said it is not what happened.
10. In the hearing, Mrs AWF said the allegation that the applicant had hit AMC 2 on the head with a rolling pin was false. She said her understanding of what happened is that her son was jumping on the bed and fell down. She said that she and the applicant don't believe in hitting their children and the applicant did not hit AMC 2. She said DHS closed the investigation.
11. The applicant maintains that he has never committed family violence and submits that the police's application for an IVO in 2023 does not indicate that family violence occurred, because the police later withdrew the order in February 2025.[68] The applicant submits this indicates there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, which the police had had plenty of time to progress. The applicant submits that very limited weight should be given to the conclusions of Child Protection about the incident and the conclusions that the applicant has perpetrated family violence or is at risk of doing so in the future, and that various Child Protection reports and documents contain errors which adversely affected Child Protection's conclusions in respect of the applicant's behaviour. The applicant draws attention in his SOFIC in reply[69] to what he says are errors or misrepresentations made by Child Protection in several reports over time, and other examples were referred to in the hearing.
12. The applicant submits that the assessments of Child Protection should not be regarded as findings of fact that the applicant has engaged in family violence, which he denies and has never been charged with. The applicant also refers to Mrs AWF's confirmation that the applicant was not responsible for injuring their son.[70] The applicant submits that since December 2023, there have been no allegations of family violence against him despite the fact that he has lived with the family since November 2024.
13. The respondent submits that Child Protection assessed the applicant as responsible for the harm and found actual physical and emotional harm to the child to be substantiated.[71] The respondent refers in its SOFIC to the assessment of Child Protection[72] that

All children, particularly the youngest, are considered extremely vulnerable and have most likely suffered cumulative harm due to the nature of the history. The consequence of harm is determined as significant based on the analysis of the available information within the risk assessment dimensions of vulnerability of the children and severity of harm.

14. I note that this assessment is made in a later report about a potential allegation of harm by Mrs AWF in September 2024, and not in respect of the December 2023 incident. In the context of this 2024 report, it appears that the above assessment may be a general assessment in respect of both the applicant and Mrs AWF. The same section of this 2024 report refers to 'a number of incidents in which the father perpetrated physical assaults on the children, resulting in injuries' and that 'these incidents have resulted in father being subjected to IVO that excluded him from home'. I note the evidence I have been referred to by both the applicant and the respondent indicates there is only one alleged physical assault by the applicant on one of the children and not multiple as suggested in this report. I acknowledge this is another example of the applicant's concerns about inaccuracies in various Child Protection documents about how his history is represented. I consider that these inaccuracies are very unfortunate and may well have influenced some of the assessments made by Child Protection about the applicant over time, including in December 2023, but that is only one factor in my consideration of whether I can be satisfied that based on all the evidence, the applicant perpetrated family violence by hitting his son with a rolling pin in December 2023, which is the alleged incident in question.
15. The respondent submits that the assessment by Child Protection, who are specialists in the field, just over two years ago in late 2023 that the applicant injured his son should be given significant weight even though it did not result in criminal proceedings or a long-term IVO. The respondent submits that it is not necessary for the applicant to have been found to have committed an offence or to have been sentenced in respect of family violence for the Tribunal to conclude that there is more than a minimal or remote chance of the applicant engaging in family violence such that s 501(6)(d)(i) is engaged and the applicant is found not to pass the character test.
16. The respondent submits that the third party report in the CP report contains direct quotes of what AMC 2 said about his father hitting him. The respondent submits that the prompt visit by Child Protection with the police to interview the family members who gave different versions of events, including AMC 2 from what he reportedly told the third party, as well as the applicant's delay in letting the authorities into the home, and the applicant's further version of events given in the hearing, raises concerns. The respondent submits that the authorities concluded there was a significant risk to the children from the applicant such that he needed to be removed. The respondent submits it is open to the Tribunal to be comfortably satisfied, based on the conclusions of Child Protection, even in the absence of a determination by the criminal justice system, that the conduct took place in December 2023 and that the risk of it happening again in the future is more than minimal or remote.
17. Based on the documents before me, my understanding is that the alleged incident with the rolling pin happened on Sunday 17 December 2023, which is what both parents said, although no timing is referred to in the third party report. According to information in the CP report, AMC 2 stayed home from school on Monday 18 December 2023. This suggests that AMC 2 must have told the third party about being hit on the head with a rolling pin during the day on Tuesday 19 December 2023, which is consistent with the police stating they received the report that day. The third party report directly quotes AMC 2's twin sister (AMC 3) as saying 'he hit his head', and AMC 2 as stating 'my dad hit me'. It does not contain any other direct quotes. Child Protection and the police attended the family home after school hours on Tuesday 19 December 2023. This means the interviews with the family took place two days after the incident, but apparently on the same day the third party report was made.
18. When interviewed at home on the afternoon of Tuesday 19 December 2023, AMC 2 gave a different reason for his head injury from what he had told the third party. He said he hurt himself when he was playing a game in the bedroom and hit his head on the bed. The transcript shows he also said it happened 'yesterday'. When asked, he agreed that he went to the doctor, but when asked if it had been for the injury, he said 'no'. (I note CP report indicates he had not yet been to the doctor about his head injury and there is no suggestion he had been to the doctor on 17 or 18 December 2023.) AMC 2 was a nine-year-old boy at the time of the interview with Child Protection. It is clear to me from the transcript of the interview that his responses to questions were very dependent on the exact question asked, how it was asked, and the nature of any follow up question to clarify. I infer that this would have been the same in terms of the information he gave to the third party in response to questions, but a transcript of that conversation is not available to assess the reliability of the third party report compared to what was actually said, apart from 'he hit his head' (AMC 3) and 'my dad hit me' (AMC 2). This is a concern for me in terms of the context and reliability of the details contained in the report and therefore, how much weight to place on that third party report. I also note that AMC 2 was not asked questions in the interview with Child Protection to try to elicit information about the different explanation he had given to the third party earlier in the day about the cause of his injury.
19. AMC 1, aged 10 at the time, told the Child Protection interviewers that he saw his brother jumping on the bed and hit his head on the bed. He also said he saw his brother do a big jump and slipped and fell hard on the floor. Both of the children denied that their father caused the injury. It appears that AMC 2's twin sister was not interviewed by the Child Protection team even though she was apparently in the house and she is quoted in the third party report as saying something different from AMC 2 about what happened, and which she said prior to the Child Protection interviews. The applicant and his wife both told Child Protection and the police they had not seen what happened but said AMC 2 either fell off the bed or hit his head on the bed.
20. The first page of the CP report refers to the applicant, AMC 2 and AMC 1 providing three different accounts when interviewed at home of how the injury occurred. Having read the transcripts of the children's interviews, I do not consider their stories to be particularly different, or that the differences should be overemphasised in terms of considering the truthfulness of their accounts. I note that the applicant said in the hearing that his son hit his head on a table rather than a bed, which is what he told Child Protection, but given the applicant has continued to maintain he did not actually see what happened and was told by his children, I don't consider this difference in his evidence to be of particular concern in terms of the overall credibility of his evidence.
21. I give some weight to the applicant's concern that Child Protection's knowledge of the family's history of engagement with Child Protection services and police, and the errors in some of the information they appear to have relied upon in the past, is likely to have made them more open to finding that family violence had occurred than, for example, if this was the family's first time engaging with the authorities in relation to a potential incident. I also acknowledge the respondent's submission that the Child Protection and police teams are specialists in their field and their conclusions and opinions about the risk the applicant posed to his children should be given weight. The respondent submitted it is not clear why the authorities did not proceed with any sort of charges against the applicant or attempt to convict him. The applicant submits this failure to proceed indicates there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, which the police had had plenty of time to progress. That is one possibility, but as the respondent submitted, there could be other reasons. It appears that Child Protection closed their investigation on 15 February 2024 while the IVO was in place and the applicant was overseas.[73] As noted above, no further action was taken and the IVO was withdrawn in February 2025 when it lapsed.
22. I have considered the concern expressed by police in their report that during the delay in the applicant granting access to the property, he had told Mrs AWF and the children to provide a particular version of events that was not truthful. I consider this to be conjecture on the part of the police and give it no weight.
23. I have taken into account that there is no probative evidence of the applicant being violent towards his children either prior to the December 2023 incident, or since, despite references in Child Protection documents that I have referred to above and others, the imposition of various intervention orders since 2015, interim accommodation and family preservation orders of the Children's Court between 2016 and 2020, and the orders put in place after the December 2023 incident.[74] The applicant denies being violent towards his children. Mrs AWF denies in her written and oral evidence that the applicant has been violent towards their children and says she does not believe he hit AMC 2. Ms APS gave evidence that the applicant is a kind, involved and loving father who looks after his children and that he is also very kind and caring towards her children and those of her sister (the applicant's nieces and nephews). Written statements of support provided in 2025 and 2026 by the applicant's brother and brothers-in-law (husbands of his sisters in Australia), as well as Mrs AWF's father and one of her sisters all refer to him being a kind, caring father and how he looks after his children.[75] Mrs AWF's father, who gave oral evidence in the hearing, says in his statement that he does not consider the applicant to be a person who poses an intentional risk to his wife or children.[76] Even though I acknowledge these statements have been provided by people who have an interest in supporting the applicant's application and may paint the applicant in the most favourable light, they have evidently been provided voluntarily and I give them weight.
24. While I acknowledge the concern about the different versions of events given about the cause of this incident, particularly by AMC 2, having considered all the evidence and submissions, and based on my reasons and concerns set out above, in all the circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant engaged in physical violence against his son AMC 2 on or about 17 December 2023.

Conclusion in relation to risk of family violence

1. In light of my findings above, I am not satisfied that the applicant has engaged in behaviour in the past that constitutes family violence.
2. Despite this finding, I must still consider whether there is a risk that if the applicant were allowed to remain in Australia there is more than minimal or remote chance that he would engage in family violence in the future.
3. In addition to his written statements, the applicant was given the opportunity in the hearing to address the question of whether he would be violent towards his family in the future and the question of the risk he might pose in the future more generally and the reasons for this.
4. It is clear from the evidence, including the 2026 report of Ms Fercher-Barrett, that the applicant and his wife have experienced tensions and conflict in their marriage and that their family unit remains vulnerable and in need of ongoing support. In the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that he had contributed to the situation in the past through his own behaviour but he had learned a lot since then. He said he is older and calmer and more aware of the impact of his actions and admits responsibilities, even when emotions are involved.
5. The applicant acknowledged that he had breached intervention and accommodation orders on a number of occasions in the past. He stated that Mrs AWF had told him at times that the orders were no longer in place, but he also acknowledged that he was aware of the IVOs at times and chose to see his wife and family anyway because he was thinking emotionally and not about the consequences of his behaviour. He said that it was a mistake, he now understands the seriousness of the consequences and the need for him to respect the law at all times. The applicant also said that if he is released, he would do the same in terms of his engagement with Child Protection because he wants to comply and take safe steps, and he recognises what he did in the past was wrong and he intends to engage with them and comply with their requirements in the future because he knows that is the right thing to do and he will engage in safe and lawful behaviour and gain their trust. He also said that he clearly understands the potential significance of the consequences if he does not comply, including the risk of being charged and deported, and this is not something he wants for many reasons.
6. The applicant also said that in the past, he had resisted engaging with behavioural change programs even though he had been ordered to do so. He explained that this was because he used to think that engaging meant he was also admitting to behaviour he denied or disputed, but now he understands that the programs are about learning skills and not just admitting mistakes. The applicant referred to some programs he has undertaken, or is undertaking, in immigration detention on anger management and parenting.[77] He described what he had learned about parenting strategies and how to engage with children emotionally and in different situations, and how adults' behaviour can adversely affect children. He said he will make sure he is safe with his family and children and ensure their needs are met, and that the safety and wellbeing of his children comes first. I note that in the applicant's SOFIC, it states that he has completed 'numerous rehabilitative courses',[78] which appears to be an exaggeration that the applicant, to his credit, did not repeat in the hearing.
7. The applicant gave evidence that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the steps he has taken and the commitment he has made to changing means there is no risk of him engaging in family violence in the future. The applicant submitted that he is driven not to engage in family violence, his family support is a protective factor, he has learned from his courses and any risk he poses is minimal or less than minimal.
8. I found the applicant's evidence in which he provided insights into his past behaviour, his identification and acknowledgement of what he had done wrong and why, his changed attitude and intentions for the future, and the steps has taken so far and intends to take in the future to ensure he does not repeat his errors, to be reassuring and compelling, and I accept it.
9. The applicant also submitted that significant weight should be given to the reports of Ms Fercher-Barrett which conclude that he poses a low risk. I have considered the reports of Ms Fercher-Barrett and, in particular, her report from 2026 given it was provided after the December 2023 incident and with knowledge of the family violence allegations. While I note that Ms Fercher-Barrett placed some emphasis in her risk assessment on the fact that the applicant has not been charged or convicted of violent offences, and in the hearing the respondent critiqued this along with her assessment of the significance Child Protection's actions in December 2023, Ms Fercher-Barrett maintained that in her professional assessment the applicant's risk of violence and antisocial conduct in the future was low. I place weight on this conclusion.
10. The respondent submitted that the risk that the sort of conduct the applicant was considered by Child Protection to have engaged in in December 2023 may be repeated, is more than minimal or trivial, and that while the applicant has recognised the error of his ways in respect of past breaches of orders, his persistent failure to have regard to orders and resistance to undertaking programs remains a cause for concern. As noted above, the respondent also raised concerns about the risk assessment by Ms Fercher-Barrett given the view reached by Child Protection about the applicant's conduct in December 2023. I have considered these submissions, but in light of my findings above and the applicant's evidence about his past behaviour and future intentions, they do not change my conclusion about future risk.
11. Based on the all the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the risk of the applicant engaging in family violence in the future, if he is allowed to remain in Australia, is minimal or remote, such that s 501(6)(d)(i) is not engaged.

1. On 28 February 2017, the applicant was found guilty in the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court of drive with person in trailer; dve veh-breach load restraint limit req. No conviction was recorded and the applicant was required to pay $200 to the court fund.[79]
2. Neither the applicant nor the respondent focussed on this incident in the context of concerns about whether the applicant passes the character test, or otherwise. There is no suggestion that the applicant has engaged in this type of behaviour again and I find the evidence indicates the risk of him doing so is minimal or remote, such that s 501(6)(d)(i) is not engaged.
3. Based on the evidence and submissions before me, I do not consider that there is other conduct of the applicant which I need to make findings about in relation to whether the applicant meets the character test.

1. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the applicant meets the character test under s 501(6). Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the exercise of the discretion to refuse to grant the visa under s 501(1) and the application of Direction 110.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501(6).

Solicitor for the applicant: Mr Declan McCarthy of Sambi Legal

Solicitor for the respondent: Mr David Brown of The Australian Government Solicitor

[8] HB111; 228-229; 394-396; applicant's SOFIC.

[19] National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, last updated August 2025, at 5.1 Impact on consent and disclosure https://dfvbenchbook.aija.org.au/article/1080250

[20] HB24; applicant's SOFIC; respondent's SOFIC.

[32] MVPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 1263.

[39] National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, as above.

[46] Red flags: What is gaslighting and why is it dangerous? | Respect Victoria

[58] Victoria Police Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team

[68] Applicant's SOFIC in Reply, HB390; applicant's SOFIC, HB352

[74] See applicant's SOFIC, HB352, and respondent's SOFIC, HB 375-377 for references.