Nicolas & Valentin [2025] FedCFamC2F 1520 (30 October 2025)

GK v PR [2021] EWFC 106

Olivier & Olivier [2020] FamCA 639

Pickford & Pickford (2024) FLC 94-230; [2024] FedCFamC1A 249

Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448; [2022] 1 WLR 2681; [2022] 1 All ER 475

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (2003) 77 ALJR 1598; [2003] HCA 48

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

1. All previous parenting orders relating to the child, X, born in 2021 ("X") be discharged.

1. Subject to order 3, the applicant ("mother") and respondent ("father") (together, "the parties" or "the parents") have joint decision-making responsibility for decisions about major long-term issues for X.

1. Subject to order 4, the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for decisions about major long-term medical issues relating to X.
2. Prior to the mother making a decision about any major long-term issue regarding X's medical care:

(a) The mother inform the father in writing with at least 14 days prior notice of her intention to make such a decision ("proposed decision"), or such lesser time as is practicable in the event an urgent decision is required;

(b) Within seven days of being so informed, the father advise the mother in writing of his views about the proposed decision;

(c) The mother consider the father's expressed views before making a decision; and

(d) The mother forthwith advise the father of her decision once made.

1. X live with the mother.
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, X spend time with the father, as follows:

(a) From the date of these orders (on a fortnightly basis):

(i) In week 1, commencing in the week X would next have spent the weekend with the father pursuant to the interim orders in place immediately preceding these orders:

1. On Wednesday, from 9.00 am to 4.00 pm; and
2. From 3.00 pm on Friday to 4.00 pm on Sunday; and

(ii) In week 2: from 9.00 am on Wednesday to 9.00 am on Thursday;

(b) From the commencement of term 1 in 2026, during school periods (on a fortnightly basis):

(i) In week 1: from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 3.00 pm if a non-school day) to 4.00 pm on Sunday; and

(ii) In week 2: from the conclusion of school on Wednesday (or 9.00 am if a non-school day) to the commencement of school on Thursday (or 9.00 am if a non-school day);

(c) From the commencement of term 3 in 2026, during school periods (on a fortnightly basis):

(i) In week 1: from the conclusion of school on Friday (or 3.00 pm if a non-school day) to the commencement of school on Monday (or 9.00 am if a non-school day); and

(ii) In week 2, from the conclusion of school on Wednesday (or 3.00 pm if a non-school day) until the commencement of school on Thursday (or 9.00 am if a non-school day);

(d) In 2026, during all school holiday periods once X is attending school (including the 2026/2027 long summer school holidays), on alternate weekends following the same fortnightly cycle pursuant to orders 6(b)(i) and (c)(i) from 3.00 pm on Friday (or from the conclusion of school on Friday on the last day of school term if that is a weekend X spends with the father) to 4.00 pm on Tuesday;

(e) In 2027, during all school holiday periods (including the 2027/2028 long summer school holidays) on alternate weekends following the same fortnightly cycle pursuant to order 6(c)(i) from 3.00 pm on Friday (or from the conclusion of school on Friday on the last day of school term if that is a weekend X spends with the father) to 4.00 pm on Wednesday;

(f) From 2028, during school term holidays:

(i) For the first half of the holidays in 2028 and each alternate year thereafter (commencing from the conclusion of school on the last day of term); and

(ii) For the second half of the holidays in 2029 and each alternate year thereafter (concluding at the commencement of school on the first day of term); and

(g) From 2028, during the long summer school holidays, in alternate weeks:

(i) Commencing at the conclusion of school on the last day of term in 2028 and each alternate year thereafter;

(ii) Commencing at 9.00 am on the day one week after the last day of school term in 2029 and each alternate year thereafter; and

(iii) Concluding at the commencement of the first day of school in term 1 if X is in the father's care for the last week of the school holidays.

(a) All school term periods and school holidays referenced are as scheduled for X by the school he attends; and

(b) X's time with the father resume each term as if the school holidays had not occurred and the fortnightly cycle had continued during the holidays.

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, each of the mother and the father do all things necessary to ensure X attends school at B School beginning in term 1 2026 and neither parent cancel X's enrolment in B School or enrol him in any other school without the prior written consent of the other parent.

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of these orders, X spend time with each of the mother and the father for special occasions at times to be agreed between the parties in writing, and in default of agreement as follows:

(a) For Christmas:

(i) In 2025, and in each alternate year thereafter, with the father from 11.00 am on Christmas Eve to 11.00 am on Christmas Day, and with the mother from 11.00 am on Christmas Day to 11.00 am on Boxing Day; and

(ii) In 2026, and in each alternate year thereafter, with the mother from 11.00 am on Christmas Eve to 11.00 am on Christmas Day, and with the father from 11.00 am on Christmas Day to 11.00 am on Boxing Day; and

(b) For Easter:

(i) In 2026, and each alternate year thereafter, with the mother from 10.00 am on Good Friday to 10.00 am on Easter Sunday, and with the father from 10.00 am on Easter Sunday to 5.00 pm on Easter Monday; and

(ii) In 2027, and in each alternate year thereafter, with the father from 10.00 am on Good Friday to 10.00 am on Easter Sunday, and with the mother from 10.00 am on Easter Sunday to 5.00 pm on Easter Monday;

(c) For X's birthday, with the parent who does not otherwise have care of X from the conclusion of school for three hours on a school day or from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm on a non-school day;

(d) For Father's Day, if it is a day X would not normally spend time with the father, from 4.00 pm on the Saturday immediately prior until 4.00 pm on Father's Day;

(e) For Mother's Day, if it is a day when the X would not normally spend time with the mother, from 4.00 pm on the Saturday immediately prior until 4.00 pm on Mother's Day;

(f) For the mother's birthday, if the mother's birthday is not a day X would normally spend time with the mother, at times to be agreed by the parties in writing and failing agreement, from the conclusion of school for three hours on a school day, or from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm on a non-school day; and

(g) For the father's birthday, if the father's birthday is not a day X would normally spend time with the father, at times to be agreed by the parties in writing and failing agreement, from the conclusion of school for three hours on a school day, or from 10.00 am to 2.00 pm on a non-school day.

1. The father provide the mother with not less than 30 days' notice in writing if he is travelling for work or otherwise is unable to care for X in accordance with these orders, unless for reasons outside his control he is unable to do so, in which case he provide the mother with as much notice in writing as is practicable.

1. Each of the mother and the father facilitate changeover for the purposes of X moving between their care pursuant to these orders as follows:

(a) To and from kindergarten or school whenever his time with the father commences or concludes with kindergarten or school;

(b) At all other times in the car park of C Centre; and

(c) As otherwise agreed between the parties in writing.

1. Each of the mother and the father facilitate X speaking to the other parent by videocall if available and otherwise by telephone at X's reasonable request.
2. Each of the mother and the father, at times X is in their care, facilitate X calling the other parent between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm on each third consecutive night he is not in the care of the other parent, with the call to be by videocall if available and otherwise by telephone IT BEING NOTED the parties agree the duration of the call is to be child-focused and may be as little as five minutes or up to thirty minutes duration.

1. Each of the mother and the father be at liberty to attend kindergarten and school events to which parents are ordinarily invited, regardless of whether X is in their care during the event.
2. Each of the mother and the father be at liberty to attend X's significant extra-curricular events such as sporting finals and concerts, regardless of whether X is in their care during the event, and they each advise the other as soon as practical of such events.
3. Each of the mother and the father may enrol X in any extracurricular activity they wish him to attend during his time with them and, if that activity also occurs when he is in the other parent's care, that parent is not obliged to take X to that activity during his time with them unless they have agreed to X's engagement in that activity in writing prior to X commencing the activity.

1. Each of the mother and the father advise the other as soon as practicable of any serious accident or illness suffered by X while in their care, including details of any treating health professionals.
2. To the extent it is necessary, each party authorise all such treating health professionals to communicate with the other party regarding X's health.
3. If X is admitted to hospital each party be permitted to visit him irrespective of whether X is in their care.
4. Each of the mother and the father advise the other as soon as practicable via telephone and/or text message if X is taken to the emergency department of any hospital or otherwise given emergency medical treatment.
5. Each of the mother and the father advise the other via the Divitto parenting app (or such other means as may be agreed in writing) if X has sustained any injury or illness requiring medical attention or treatment whilst in their care as soon as practicable.

Communication between parents / access to and sharing of information

1. Each of the mother and the father communicate with the other about all non-urgent matters relating to X's care and welfare in writing via the Divitto app or other such means as agreed between them in writing.
2. Each of the mother and the father communicate with the other about all urgent or emergency matters relating to X by telephone.
3. Each of the mother and the father keep the other informed in writing of:

(a) Their current residential address and contact telephone numbers, including mobile phone numbers;

(b) Details of all medication prescribed to X when in their care, and each parent provide the other with any prescribed medication at changeover together with instructions as to timings and dosage; and

(c) Of the names and contact details for all X's treating medical, dental and other allied health practitioners, and notify the other party forthwith in the event X attends on any new treating medical, dental or allied health professionals and of any future appointments made.

1. Each of the mother and the father are authorised and permitted to:

(a) Communicate with all medical and dental practitioners and allied health professionals upon whom X attends in such a manner and by such means as the medical, dental and allied health professionals require or expect;

(b) Seek and obtain all medical, dental and health information relating to X, at the expense of the requesting party;

(c) Communicate with staff at all kindergartens and schools X attends, in such a manner and by such means as the kindergarten or school requires or expects; and

(d) Liaise directly with X's school and sporting bodies to receive school notices, information, newsletters, school reports, school photographs and any other information parents are ordinarily entitled to obtain.

1. Each of the mother and the father may attend at X's school for the purposes of any function or activity normally attended by parents.
2. Each of the mother and the father do all such acts and things necessary to ensure that X can attend all such excursions and camps organised and undertaken as part of X's school's normal curricular activities.

1. Each of the mother and the father may travel internationally with X subject to the following, unless otherwise agreed in writing:

(a) From the 2028/2029 long summer holidays they each be permitted to travel internationally with X for one occasion per calendar year during X's time with them during the school holidays;

(b) The travelling parent provide the other parent with:

(i) Written notice of the proposed travel, at least 60 days prior to travel; and

(ii) Details including itinerary, address and contact details for X whilst overseas, at least 14 days prior to departure;

(c) The travelling parent initiate and facilitate communication between X and the non-travelling parent at times agreed between the parents in writing, and failing agreement, every three days between 6.00 pm and 8.00 pm in whatever time zone X is in;

(d) Travel is to a country in respect of which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is in force with Australia; and

(e) Travel is not to a country in respect of which the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade travel advisory advice at the time of the proposed travel is "Do not travel".

1. Each of the mother and the father do all things and sign all documents as may be required to obtain and renew an Australian passport for X, at their equal-shared expense within 72 hours of a request made by the other parent.
2. When X is not travelling the mother hold X's passport.
3. The mother make X's passport available to the father at least 28 days prior to any planned international travel by the father with X and for the purpose of the father obtaining any visas for X to travel.
4. The father return X's passport to the mother within seven days of X returning from international travel with the father.
5. If either party wishes to travel interstate with X, unless otherwise agreed in writing:

(a) Each of the parties be permitted to travel interstate with X provided the travel does not interfere with X's time with the other party pursuant to these orders; and

(b) The travelling party provide the other party with details in writing of the proposed travel at least 7 days prior to travel, including itinerary, address and contact details for X whilst interstate.

1. Each of the parties permit X to attend school trips and excursions interstate and internationally as organised as part of X's school's curriculum or as otherwise agreed in writing by the parties.

1. Each of the mother and the father, by themselves or their servants and agents, is hereby restrained from:

(a) Abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other party to, or in the presence of, or within hearing of X and allowing X to remain in the presence of, or within hearing of, any third party engaging in such behaviour;

(b) Discussing these proceedings and/or negotiations about parenting arrangements with or in the presence or hearing of X and allowing X to remain in the presence of, or within the hearing of, any third party engaging in such behaviour, save for explaining X's care arrangements to him pursuant to these orders; and/or

(c) Showing or leaving accessible to X any document connected with these proceedings.

1. Each of the mother and the father forthwith take all reasonable steps to ensure the Victorian Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages pursuant to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (Vic) amend the name of "X Valentin" to "X Nicolas-Valentin", with the first name "X", the second names "Nicolas" and the surname "Valentin" and that a new birth certificate be issued with that name.
2. The parties be permitted to provide a copy of these orders to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry and any other person or body required to give effect to order 36.
3. Each of the mother and the father be restrained by injunction from causing X to be registered, enrolled, listed, or known anywhere by a family name other than Valentin, and from changing X's name other than in accordance with these orders.

1. Each of the parties is authorised to provide to their own treating psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor, to any psychologist or counsellor they agree to attend upon for further family therapy, and to any parenting coordinator they agree to engage, a copy of:

(a) These orders and the accompanying reasons for judgment;

(b) The family report prepared by Ms D dated 16 August 2024; and

(c) The family therapy report prepared by Ms E dated 3 July 2025.

Obligations, consequences of contravention and assistance with orders

1. Pursuant to sections 65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist the parents to adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these orders.

1. The parties have entered into a binding child support agreement, which requires (among other things) the father to pay all educational expenses relating to X's schooling attendance at B School, inclusive of school fees and levies.

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

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

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

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

1. This proceeding concerns the child, X (aged 4) and in particular a dispute about the allocation of decision-making responsibility and the time he will spend with his father.
2. The parties are X's parents. I will refer to the applicant as the mother and the respondent as the father, reflecting their relationship with X and not intending any disrespect to them.
3. X currently lives with the mother and spends regular time with the father, including three nights overnight each fortnight (two consecutive nights on alternate weekends and one night in intervening weeks) and during the day on two other days mid-week. This means X spends time with the father on seven days each fortnight, on four separate occasions.
4. It is not in dispute that X has close and loving relationships with both of his parents and enjoys spending time with each of them. However, the parties' co-parenting relationship is fraught, they do not trust one another and they do not communicate well. They do not dispute the description of their relationship as one of high conflict.
5. Each party alleges the other has perpetrated family violence against them. The mother alleges the father has denigrated her in the presence of X, has engaged in physical intimidation and has engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour. The father alleges the mother has subjected him to "brutal emotional and threatening outbursts" and physical violence. Each party denied the allegations made by the other. Whilst the parties each maintained these allegations, neither contends it is unsafe for X to spend time with the other parent.
6. At the outset of the final hearing, little was agreed by the parties. Happily for X, many issues resolved during the course of the final hearing. Significantly, the parties now agree on the school X will attend when he starts school next year and how they will manage his participation in extra-curricular activities. They have entered into a binding child support agreement which provides for the father to meet X's school fees, among other expenses. The parties now agree on arrangements for X to spend time with each of them for special occasions, for changeover and for X's communication with each of them. They have agreed on the terms of orders providing for both parents to access and share medical and other information about X and how they will communicate with one another. They agree to X's name being changed to incorporate the mother's surname as a middle name. They agree on injunctions to safeguard X from exposure to parental conflict. They agree on arrangements for X to travel overseas and interstate. They agree X's time spent with the father during school holiday periods should increase gradually, until he spends equal holiday time with both parents. However, the parties been unable to agree on how decision-making responsibility is to be allocated and if X's time with the father should be extended beyond an agreed increase to four nights per fortnight.

1. The mother seeks she have sole decision-making responsibility about major long-term issues relating to X's education and medical care, subject to a requirement for her to first consult with the father. The father seeks the parties have joint decision-making responsibility about all major long-term issues relating to X.
2. In relation to X's time spent with the father, the parties agree his time with the father on alternate weekends be extended to three nights commencing in term 3, 2026 (from Friday to Monday) and that he spend one night overnight with the father mid-week in intervening weeks. However, the mother opposes the making of any order providing for X's time with the father to be extended beyond that. The father seeks X's time with him continue to progress, so that X ultimately spends equal time with both parents.
3. To address the parties' poor co-parenting relationship, the father seeks orders facilitating their continued engagement with Ms E if the mother agrees to further family therapy and requiring them to engage and attend upon a parenting coordinator. The mother says she is not opposed to seeking professional assistance in the future but she is not yet ready for that, preferring to first continue work with her counsellor. She therefore resists the making of orders compelling the parties to engage in any particular form of family therapy or with a parenting coordinator.

1. The following issues therefore require determination:

(a) How should decision-making responsibility for X be allocated? This requires particular consideration of:

(i) The types of decisions likely to be required in respect of major long-term issues for X;

(ii) The parties' capacity to communicate safely and effectively, to the extent required to consult with one another and make joint decisions in a timely manner; and

(iii) The impact on X of being exposed to parental conflict and disputes about decision-making.

(b) Is it in X's best interests for orders to be made now, providing for the time he spends with the father during school term periods to be extended beyond four nights each fortnight at a particular point in the future?

(c) Should orders be made as sought by the father in an effort to improve the parties' co-parenting relationship, including:

(i) An order providing for the parties to attend further family therapy with Ms E, psychologist; and

(ii) An order requiring the parties to engage a parenting co-ordinator?

1. The Full Court has made clear it may be important in appropriate cases to make findings of family violence if "they are available and necessary to determine what is in the best interests of the child".[1] As to whether it is "necessary" to make such findings, Austin and Williams JJ explained in Pickford & Pickford:[2]

It is [...] important to acknowledge how the purpose of litigation under Pt VII of the Act is to determine orders which will most ably serve children's best interests (s 60CA and s 65AA). Keeping children and their carers safe into the future is the ideal, which objective should not be subverted by allowing the litigation to be used as the medium by which to make definitive factual findings resolving disputed allegations of historical family violence between conflicted, vengeful or anguished parents, nor to make punitive orders against the parties who may be found to have perpetrated family violence.

[...] It is apposite to observe how judges need not make findings to resolve contested facts unless the findings authentically influence the outcome. In fact, the High Court of Australia has expressly cautioned against unnecessary factual findings in the context of risk assessment [...]. So has this Court [...].

1. In this case, the family report writer assessed the parties' allegations of family violence, if proven, may be best categorised as "situational couple violence", which she explained involves mutual blaming, hostility and verbal abuse escalating to occasional physical violence struggles, most commonly caused by limited problem-solving skills, poor communication and refusal to submit to one another's rules and demands. Neither party challenged that assessment. As mentioned, neither party alleges it is unsafe for X to spend time with the other parent. They each propose X spend unsupervised time with the other. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for me to make findings in respect of the contested allegations of family violence, to decide on the time X spends with each parent. Resolution of those disputed facts will not authentically influence the outcome of this case, as to how much time X spends with the father.
2. In relation to the allocation of parental responsibility, the mother submits the father's coercive and controlling behaviour towards her, the high conflict between the parties and their inability to communicate means it is not in X's best interests for the parties to make joint decisions about his education and medical issues. Counsel for the mother submitted it is therefore necessary for me to consider the mother's allegations the father has subjected her to coercive and controlling family violence, in order to determine how parental responsibility is to be allocated for X. I will therefore consider the mother's allegation the father subjected her to coercive and controlling family violence, on the basis that if that allegation is proved it may influence my determination of whether it is emotionally safe for the mother to be required to consult with the father and make joint decisions with him about major long-term issues relating to X.

1. The matter was conducted over three days, from 25 to 27 August 2025. Each of the parties and the independent children's lawyer were represented by counsel.

(a) Third further amended Initiating Application filed on 30 July 2025 ("mother's application");

(b) Her affidavit filed on 29 July 2025 ("trial affidavit");

(c) Her affidavit filed on 18 August 2025 ("affidavit in reply");

(d) Her financial statement filed on 12 August 2025;

(e) Response of the Department of Families Fairness and Housing (DFFH) dated 22 May 2024 prepared pursuant to section 67Z of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") ("section 67Z response");

(f) The father's notice of child abuse, family violence or risk ("notice of risk") filed on 30 May 2024; and

(g) Her amended Outline of Case Document (Final Hearing) ("case outline") filed on 26 August 2025 with leave of the court where her previously filed case outline referred to repealed provisions of the Act.

1. The father relied on the following documents, withdrawing reliance on an affidavit of his friend, Mr F:

(a) Fourth amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 12 August 2025;

(b) His affidavit filed on 12 August 2025 ("trial affidavit");

(c) Financial statement filed on 13 August 2025; and

(d) His case outline filed on 21 August 2025.

(a) The single expert family report prepared by Ms D ("family report writer") dated 16 August 2024 ("the family report");

(b) The report prepared by Ms E dated 3 July 2025 ("the family therapy report");

(c) A joint minute detailing the terms of orders agreed by the parties, and in respect of issues in dispute, the terms of orders sought by each of them. That minute was twice updated during the course of the final hearing and each version was marked as an exhibit;[4]

(d) Tendered documents, marked as exhibits; and

(e) A copy of their binding child support agreement made after the conclusion of the final hearing, tendered pursuant to an order made on 27 August 2025 and now also marked as an exhibit along with the accompanying signed certificates of legal advice.[5]

1. I have read and considered all of the evidence adduced by the parties. If I have not mentioned a piece of evidence or an argument presented at the hearing that does not mean I have not considered it. As the High Court said in Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon:[6]

A judge's reasons are not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by the losing party as relevant to an issue. Judgments of trial judges would soon become longer than they already are if a judge's failure to mention such facts and arguments would be evidence that he or she had not properly considered the losing party's case.

1. In assessing the evidence, I have applied the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof, as required by section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). When assessing the allegation the father has engaged in coercive and controlling family violence, I have taken into account the gravity of that allegation. I have also kept in mind the significance of a decision to deprive the father of any aspect of his parental responsibility for X.

1. I will make some preliminary observations in relation to the evidence of the parties and witnesses before considering their evidence in more detail as relevant to each of the issues requiring determination and the required statutory considerations.

1. It was clear from the mother's presentation in court that she was anxious and stressed about attending court and being cross-examined. She took time to think about and answer the questions put to her. I found her to be a careful and considered witness, who gave evidence thoughtfully and responsively, focussed on X and his needs as she perceives them.
2. I accept the mother has found it difficult and stressful co-parenting with the father and navigating the disputes between them. I accept she finds his assertive approach intimidating. As to whether she has been subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by the father is a matter I will consider carefully.

1. The father was a confident witness, who appeared at ease in the witness box, although I accept it was likely a stressful experience for him too.
2. The father's evidence given on affidavit was brief. His trial affidavit consisted of approximately 10 pages, a significant proportion of which recounted recommendations made by the family report writer and Ms E.
3. His affidavit and his notice of risk portrayed a wholly negative picture of the mother. The father conceded from the witness box he did not say anything positive about her on affidavit. It was only in his oral evidence that he volunteered the mother is a "good mum" to X but even then he maintained doubts about her parenting capacity, giving evidence "I don't know that she's always going to have [X]'s best interests in heart".
4. Whilst the father's counsel pointed to the father's acknowledgement the mother is a good mum and concessions made in respect of his own conduct as indications of improved insight, it is significant those concessions were made only during the course of the final hearing. I made like observations in respect of compromises his counsel pointed to, as indicative of an improved co-parenting relationship between the parties, which were made only during the final hearing. I am not convinced the father's late concessions and acknowledgements were entirely genuine and not strategic.
5. When giving evidence from the witness box, the father emphasised he wants what is best for X and I accept he does. However, he holds firm and inflexible views about what he believes to be the best outcome for X, and he has been determined and uncompromising in seeking to achieve those outcomes, including for X to spend as much time with him as possible. My impression from the father's evidence is that he finds it difficult to consider issues from alternate perspectives, including from the mother's perspective. He continues to hold a poor view of the mother, and a belief she is standing in the way of achieving what he perceives to be the best outcomes for X, by not agreeing to his proposals.

1. By the time of the final hearing, it had been more than 12 months since the family report writer met with the family. She was provided with copies of the parties' trial material prior to the hearing and counsel provided her with a summary of the parties' current positions and key evidence adduced during the hearing. The family report writer considered that evidence and provided responsive answers to the questions put to her. However, I accept the limitation she identified in respect of her expert evidence, that she has not undertaken a recent assessment of the family. She explained that because X is a young child and it had been more than 12 months since she met him, it was difficult for her to make recommendations into the distant future.
2. I have considered the family report writer's evidence carefully, along with all other evidence, and I do put significant weight on her account of her interviews with the parties, her observations of X with each of them, and on her expert opinions, subject to the limitation she acknowledged. I will refer to the family report writer's evidence and recommendations as I turn to each of the issues for determination and the required statutory considerations.

1. Ms E was not required for cross-examination in respect of the evidence she gave about the family therapy she has provided to the parties or her recommendations. Her evidence is therefore unchallenged and I have had regard to it.

1. The parties each set out the background to their relationship and these proceedings in their trial affidavits. I have considered that evidence but will not recount it save as is necessary to explain my determination of the remaining issues in dispute.

1. The parties met online and commenced a relationship in early 2020. They agree they did not know each other well when X was conceived. They did not know one another's friends and family due to the restrictions then in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Their relationship ended in May 2021, when X was an infant. The parties disagree as to whether they cohabitated during their relationship. This background is significant. It means the parties' co-parenting relationship was not based on a foundation built while living together as a family. As explained by the family report writer, getting to know each other through a child's needs is tricky.
2. X was born in 2021.

1. Following the breakdown of the parties' relationship, the father initially lived with his parents in Suburb G, approximately one hour from the mother's home with X in Suburb H. In early 2024, by which time X was three, he moved into a home he purchased in Suburb J, approximately 20 kilometres from Suburb H.
2. X has lived with the mother since separation. Contrary to the father's submission they are "both primary carers" for X, I find the mother has been the parent primarily responsible for X's care, although I also accept X has spent very regular and significant time with the father and X shares a close and loving relationship with him.
3. Both parties work in full-time employment. Each deposed they have flexibility in their work. X has attended childcare and the parties have otherwise cared for him around their work commitments. His childcare centre incorporates a kindergarten program, which X has participated in since 2024. There has been a dispute between the parties about how much time X should spend in childcare. The father has advocated it is in X's best interests to spend more time with him rather than additional days in childcare.
4. After the parties separated in May 2021, they attended three mediations (on 27 May 2021, 26 October 2021 and 10 February 2022) each resulting in an agreed parenting plan. Broadly, the parenting plans provided for X to live with the mother and spend incrementally increasing time spent with the father, beginning with six hours during the day, three times a week, and progressing to include overnight time from February 2022, when X was aged one year old.
5. Whilst the father has alleged the mother has been obstructive in relation to the time X spends with him, I find that is not the case. It is evident from these agreements, reached from the time X was an infant, that the mother was actively facilitating and supporting X to develop and maintain a relationship with the father. I accept she did so notwithstanding her own discomfort and hesitation as a first-time mother to an infant child and dysregulation she observed in X after spending time with the father. The father gave oral evidence acknowledging the mother found the mediation process difficult and he saw her emotionally distressed at this time. Appropriately, he gave her credit at the final hearing for agreeing to the parenting plans in those circumstances.
6. By February 2022, the parties had reached agreement for X to spend time with the father every Monday and Wednesday from 8.00 am to 3.00 pm, and overnight on three Saturdays each month (from Saturday morning to Sunday morning), and overnight on Friday on the remaining weekend each month.[7]
7. On 25 October 2022, the parties participated in a fourth mediation but failed to reach an agreement. The mother deposed X was "not coping well" with the arrangement at that time, describing that he experienced "clinginess" and "meltdowns" upon his return to her care and that it "often took many hours to calm him down". The mother attributed X's difficulties to the long travel times between the parties' homes (which she said was then a two hour return trip) and the frequency of changeovers, particularly mid-week. I accept the mother's evidence in respect of X's presentation, although I do not make a finding about the cause of his observed dysregulation. The father nevertheless sought to further progress X's time spent with him.
8. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, X therefore continued to spend time with the father as the parties had agreed by February 2022. I accept the mother's evidence that in the subsequent period, the parties had difficulty agreeing on care arrangements for X that fell outside the scope of the parenting plan, including for X to spend full weekends with the mother and arrangements for special occasions, holiday periods, and extracurricular activities.
9. In October 2023, the mother forwarded to the father, a party invitation X had received. The party fell on a day X was to spend time with the father. The mother asked the father to collect X from the party and offered to do so if he preferred. The father responded, critical of the mother for scheduling events for X during "our time" and agreed to X attending the party only if the mother agreed to swap days so their time together was not interrupted by the party.[8] In my view the mother's messages were polite, respectful and demonstrated flexibility and a focus on X. The father's messages on the other hand were terse, accusing and inflexible, focussed on the perceived interruption of his time with X by the mother rather than the opportunity for X to attend the birthday party and for him to share in that experience with X. I find these communications were likely representative of the parties' attitudes and interactions at that time.
10. In or around early 2024, the parties were informed X may have a medical condition which causes blood cells to break down. When cross-examined, the father agreed the parties had agreed on a specialist for X to undertake testing to determine whether he had the condition. They cooperated to regulate X's diet pending a diagnosis. An appointment was made for X with the agreed specialist to undertake an assessment, with blood tests to be undertaken. The mother rescheduled that appointment to 8 March 2024 without informing the father. He learned of the changed appointment from the specialist's receptionist and attended the appointment, which the mother said shocked her. The father gave oral evidence he had notified the mother of his intended attendance by text message but I do not accept that where he had not given that evidence in his trial affidavit and did not tender the messages he referred to. The father gave oral evidence he did not expect to attend all medical appointments for X but the mother should have informed him of the changed appointment. I accept the mother's evidence this is the only appointment for X she had not informed the father about. In light of what else was occurring at this time, I accept her explanation that she did not do so because this was a particularly acrimonious time and she was feeling constantly intimidated by the father. The father agreed he was promptly informed of the results from the tests undertaken by X on 8 March 2024 and that he attended a follow up appointment by video link. Fortunately, X did not have the condition. What is particularly concerning about this dispute is the father's reaction to learning of the changed appointment for X. Rather than communicate directly with the mother and asking to attend or make arrangements to be kept informed, he took it upon himself to attend the appointment she had re-scheduled. I find this would have been intimidating for the mother in the context of their interactions at that time and the tenor of the father's communications I have referred to. It risked X being exposed to a situation of conflict between his parents and the mother being anxious and stressed. It risked X's specialist being caught up in parental conflict.

1. On 21 March 2024, the mother informed the father she would make X available to spend time with him on an alternate basis:

(a) Each Monday and Wednesday, from 8.00 am to 3.00 pm;

(b) Overnight on three Saturdays a month, from 9.00 am on Saturday until between 10.00 am and 11.00 am Sunday; and

(c) On the remaining weekend each month, from Friday afternoon until 4.00 pm on Saturday.

1. At that time, X was attending childcare on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays which incorporated a three-year-old kindergarten program.
2. To the family report writer, the mother explained the reasons for her change to the time X was spending with the father, including the long travel time for X, that X was struggling with too many changes between his parents' care during the week and that X was not spending a full weekend with either parent. I accept these were genuine and child-focussed concerns held by the mother. I do not find the mother was obstructive in respect of X spending time with the father. It is evident from her proposal, she was continuing to support X's relationship with the father - the parties just did not agree on what balance of time with each parent was appropriate for X. I accept the mother acted unilaterally by imposing this arrangement on the father but he was unwilling to consider an arrangement for X that resulted in any less time with him and was pressing for X to spend more time with him. They were therefore at an impasse.
3. The mother deposed that following her decision to change X's care arrangements:

[X] became far more settled with a marked improvement in his demeanour with the reduction in weekly travel time and number of transitions. The steadier routine, including alternate weekends with each parent, resulted in [X] becoming happier and more settled.

1. I accept the mother's evidence that she observed X to be more settled, although I cannot say if this was for the reasons supposed by the mother. As pointed out by the family report writer, there was a lot going on for X at this time and many factors that may have contributed to his dysregulated behaviour including settling into a routine in the three-year old kindergarten program at his childcare centre where he was younger than his peers.
2. When cross-examined, the mother agreed there were many things that could have been contributing to what she described as X's struggles at that time including frequent transitions in his care, long drives and that she was a "first time mum", learning as she went. Giving this evidence, the mother focussed on X's circumstances and showed insight into what might be impacting X, rather than blaming the father for X's behaviour.
3. When cross-examined, the father showed a reluctance to consider that X's care arrangements may have been contributing to him being unsettled, emphasising X was not unsettled in his care and that being unsettled at childcare is something "most kids have". In his trial affidavit he deposed to his belief that it was the mother's "quick changes" in X's care arrangements since April 2024 "are what has confused X greatly" and:

I genuinely believe that it was only since April 2024 when [the mother] unilaterally decided to diminish my time with [X] and then continue to fight the incremental increases that [X] grew confused and unsettled about the changeovers.

This has never been about [X]s comfort or ability to transition. It has always been about [the mother] and her fear of my relationship with [X]

1. When asked why he thought the mother raised X being unsettled at this time, he answered that he did not know but it was "probably about her emotional needs". He also said he thought the mother seeking to alter X's care arrangements was less to do with X being unsettled at kindergarten and more to do with the mother wanting to spend more time with X on weekends. These responses indicated to me that even by the time of the final hearing and with the benefit of the family report writer's assessment, the father was unwilling to consider alternate perspectives as to how X was managing at that time and what might have been impacting him. He continued to doubt and blame the mother.
2. From May 2024, the mother increased X's enrolment in childcare (incorporating the three-year-old kindergarten program) to four days per week, to also include Mondays. I accept she did so to accommodate her work commitments and what she understood to be the father's work commitments, rather than to undermine X's time with the father as was asserted by him. I accept she did so taking into account the recommendations of childcare centre staff.

1. On 2 May 2024, the mother commenced this proceeding by filing an Initiating Application. At that time, she sought final orders providing for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility for X and for him to spend time with the father on alternate weekends (from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon) and during the day each Wednesday, together with time for special occasions. For the interim, she sought the preparation of a family report.
2. The father filed a Response to Initiating Application on 30 May 2024. Significantly, he sought final orders providing for him to have sole parental responsibility for X, that X spend only supervised time with the mother at a children's contact service and that X's name be placed on the Family Law (Airport) Watchlist. Among other interlocutory orders, the father sought an order for sole parental responsibility, for the parties to undertake a psychological assessment, for the parties to "attend to a family therapist for production of a family report with a high conflict family therapist, [Ms K]" and for an independent children's lawyer to be appointed "due to the high conflict between the parties". He sought an interim order providing for X to live with him, to attend childcare three days each week (Tuesday, Thursday and Friday), and to spend time with the mother from Friday afternoon until Monday morning.
3. In his notice of risk filed on 30 May 2024, the father recorded that X had been abused or was at risk of child abuse or neglect by the mother, including emotional/psychological abuse, threatening comments and exposure to family violence, and that he had reported those concerns to the police on 8 April 2024. He also recorded his belief that X was at risk of being abducted by the mother after attending at her home to collect X on 8 April 2024. He stated:

8 April 2024, I went to pick up the child as I have the child on Mondays according to the parenting plan. The garbage bins were out on the street, but no one answered the door. I attend the police department to request assistance. They attempted to contact the Mother to no avail. The mother had represented to me that she was taking the child with her to NSW for work the week of 8 April, however, I did not agree. Further the dates I was given was 9 April, yet the child was unavailable to me on the 8 April. Again, I did not consent to any changes of the parenting plan spend time arrangements. As of filing, I do not know where my son is.

1. I find this was a disingenuous claim made by the father, given the letter sent by the mother's lawyers to the father's lawyers dated 2 April 2024,[9] reading:

In closing, our client sets your client on notice that she will be travelling with [X] on the following dates:

1. Monday, 8 April 2024 to Friday, 12 April 2024 (Sydney); and

2. Sunday, 28 April 2024 to Friday, 3 May 2024 (Queensland).

1. I find there was no reason for the father to attend at the mother's home on 8 April 2024 or to seek police assistance on that day, save to cause trouble for the mother in retribution for her decision to take X with her on these two work trips against his wishes and to put pressure on her to accede to his proposals. The family report recorded the police phoned the mother and confirmed she was interstate with X. It was simply untrue that the father did not know where X was at the date of filing his notice of risk on 30 May 2025. As ultimately conceded by the father, his response to the mother's travel with X was an overreaction. I find his response had the potential for X to be adversely impacted, including if the police had attended to conduct a welfare check.
2. I agree with the assessment of the family report writer that it is incidents like this that have led the parents to remain hostile and distrustful towards each other. However, I do not agree the mother was engaging in "gate keeping" behaviours by travelling interstate with X without the father's permission. Whilst she travelled without the father's consent, the trips were for short periods of time and the father was informed, I am not satisfied his consent was reasonably withheld and I am not persuaded the mother travelled for the purpose of restricting X's time with the father.
3. To the family report writer, the father acknowledged his initial application seeking X spend only supervised time with the mother may have been "extreme" and that he did not consider it necessary. When cross-examined, the father acknowledged it was "probably an overreach" and would have been upsetting for the mother. His counsel submitted it was an emotional response in the context of litigation, following what had been until then a positive co-parenting relationship. When asked about the impact on X had his proposal been implemented, the father conceded only that it would have been "unsettling" for him, revealing an ongoing lack of insight into the potential impact of his proposals on X.
4. On 25 June 2024, interim orders were made by consent providing for the parties to have joint decision-making responsibility for X and for X to live with the mother and to spend time with the father on alternate weekends (from Saturday morning until Sunday afternoon) and during the day each Wednesday. Among other orders, an order was made providing for the preparation of a family report by Ms D. A notation made to the orders recorded that while the father consented to the orders, he was seeking "significantly more time" with X.
5. On 10 July 2024, the father filed an amended Response to Initiating Application, seeking interim orders providing for X to spend time with the mother on alternate weekends only (from Friday to Monday) and restraining the mother from travelling with X for work outside of Victoria. Among other amendments to his application for final parenting orders, he sought an order for X to attend B School at the parties' equal expense.

1. The parties and X met with the family report writer on 23 July 2024. At that time X was aged three.
2. The parties gave evidence they came across each other outside the family report writer's rooms prior to their interviews, the father approached the mother, pointed out where to go, and they walked in together. The mother cried quietly when giving this evidence. I accept this interaction was unexpected for the mother and caused her to feel uncomfortable, anxious and stressed, even though she acknowledged the father was polite to her.
3. In the family report, the family report writer made the following assessment of the conflict between the parties:

Since October 2022, the parties have been unable to reach agreement about changes they wish to implement. This has led to increased animosity and high conflict between the parties, which has occurred in the presence of [X] at changeover. The parents' behaviour and attitude towards the other has been antagonistic, malicious and not child focused. Both parties seem to blame the other parent and do not seem to accept any self-responsibility. Both parties refuse to negotiate with each other and instead have remained determined not to change their position or be influenced by the other party, losing focus of [X] and his developmental needs.

1. The family report recommended the parties maintain equal shared parental responsibility, and X spend time with the father on an incrementally increasing basis, progressing to five nights per fortnight and half of school holidays. The family report writer made a range of other recommendations to support the parents' co-parenting relationship, including that they engage in personal counselling to address "their individual needs [...] such as, interpersonal conflict resolution skills, emotion regulation, how to manage conflict without being either passive or acting out aggressively, perspective taking, and how to prioritise [X]'s needs", that they undertake a parenting after separation course and "Breaking the Cycle of Conflict course", and that they "engage with a parenting co-ordinator to assist their communication and improve capacity to prioritise [X]'s needs and implement court orders".
2. The parties each filed amended applications and responses following release of the family report, including to seek further interim orders.

1. On 18 September 2024, interim orders were made following a contested hearing providing for X to live with the mother and spend increasing time with the father ("the September 2024 orders") as follows:

(a) Until January 2025:

(i) In week 1: on each of Monday and Wednesday (from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm) and from 9.00 am on Saturday until 5.00 pm on Sunday; and

(ii) In week 2: on Monday (from 8.00 am until 4.00 pm) and from 8:00 am on Wednesday until daycare drop off on Thursday morning.

(b) From January 2025:

(i) In week 1: on each of Monday and Wednesday (from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm); and from after kinder on Friday until 5.00 pm on Sunday; and

(ii) In week 2: from the conclusion of kinder (or 3.00 pm) on Wednesday until the commencement of kinder (or 9.00 am) on Thursday.

1. These are the orders that govern X's current care arrangements.
2. The September 2024 orders included a range of other interim parenting orders, including providing for special occasions, enrolment in extracurricular activities, the parents' attendance at events for X, communication between the parties, access to and sharing of medical and other information about X, interstate travel with X and injunctions to safeguard X from parental conflict. The September 2024 orders also required the parties to engage in reportable family therapy with an agreed therapist. The orders provided that if the parties could not agree on a therapist, the mother was to nominate three candidates and the father to choose one from those nominated.
3. The father scheduled an appointment for X in December 2024 for a developmental assessment. Notwithstanding the September 2024 orders included a requirement for the parties to keep each other informed in the event X attends upon any new medical professional, the mother was informed of that appointment only via an affidavit made by the father, filed on 2 January 2025. That assessment did not ultimately proceed after the mother contacted the doctor and informed her of the court proceedings and orders. It is not clear why the father arranged this assessment for X.

1. Demonstrating the level of conflict between them, neither party was satisfied with the interim parenting orders made by the court (the mother sought to slow the progression of X's time with the father and the father sought to increase the progression) and they were unable to agree upon a therapist to provide the reportable family therapy required by the September 2024 orders.
2. On 5 December 2024, the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to vary the September 2024 orders, including in respect of the time X spent with the father (so X would spend only one night overnight with the father on alternate weekends from January 2025 rather than two) and requiring the father to cooperate to change X's name from "Valentin" to "Valentin-Nicolas". She sought an order appointing Dr L to provide the parties with reportable family therapy, being a psychologist she had once attended upon herself for support following the parties' separation. That application was subsequently twice amended. The father filed a response to the mother's interlocutory application, also seeking further interim parenting orders, including in respect of the time X spent with him (to provide for X to spend two nights with him mid-week from January 2025 rather than one), in relation to X's attendance and childcare and kindergarten and transition to school, and requiring the parties to attend the N program offered by Ms K and Mr M beginning in February 2025. When cross-examined, the father agreed the cost of that program was approximately $18,000 and he proposed the parties share that cost. The mother deposed the total cost of participation in the program was $25,000. She gave evidence she was not opposed to participating in the program but could not afford the cost. She offered to contribute $2,500 along with the cost of her solicitors attending required conferences forming part of that program. The father agreed he persisted with his application for the parties to participate in that program at their shared expense, notwithstanding the mother's objection to the cost, because he "thought [Ms K] was the best". He acknowledged that in hindsight, his failure to compromise meant that this issue was unable to be resolved without a court determination.
3. On 8 January 2025 orders were made following a contested hearing requiring the parties to engage Ms E to provide family therapy in accordance with the September 2024 orders. All other interim applications were dismissed.
4. Since January 2025, each of the mother's Initiating Application and the father's Response to Initiating Application seeking final orders has twice been further amended. On 12 March 2025 the matter was set down for final hearing and trial directions made.
5. I mention this procedural history because it highlights the nature of the disputes that arose during the course of this proceeding and the parties' inability to reach agreements even on an interim basis as a holding pattern, pending a final hearing. It speaks volumes they could not even agree on a therapist to facilitate the family therapy they agreed to attend to address the conflict between them.

1. Between March and June 2025, the parties each attended four sessions with Ms E. They did not attend any joint sessions. Ms E prepared the family therapy report on 3 July 2025, providing a summary of three of the four sessions and making recommendations. She reported the therapeutic focus of the sessions was aimed at improving the communication between the parties regarding the care and wellbeing of X.
2. Ms E's observations of the parties at intake and their therapeutic engagement are in my view significant, according with my impressions of the parties.
3. In respect of the mother, Ms E reported:

[The mother] presented as highly motivated to engage in the therapeutic process. She reported significant distress relating to past experiences with [the father], including emotional manipulation, high-conflict communication, and trauma symptoms triggered by messaging. She has been self-represented in proceedings and described the legal process as overwhelming and exhausting.

Across four sessions, [the mother] frequently returned to historical patterns of perceived harm, feeling that past events must be understood. The therapist worked to validate her experience while maintaining a future-oriented approach. [The mother] trialled some strategies including limiting app use to [X]-focused topics and providing brief transition updates. However, her capacity to remain task-focused was limited by ongoing trauma responses and mistrust.

She declined to participate in a joint session, stating that this would impact her mental health.

[The father] expressed a desire to have more time with [X] and described frustration regarding schooling decisions, daycare attendance, and communication breakdowns. He reported feeling sidelined and misrepresented, and described his relationship with [the mother] as rigid and transactional.

[The father] was initially focused on correcting perceived injustices related to parenting time. Over the course of the sessions, he responded positively to communication coaching and demonstrated a willingness to implement tone moderation, delayed responses, and short, child-centred updates. He was open to the possibility of a joint session in future if conditions were constructive.

(a) A "parallel parenting model" to reduce conflict, in which each parent manages their responsibilities independently, with only essential communication between the parties occurring through a parenting app;

(b) Clear and unambiguous orders to reduce conflict arising from the interpretation of orders, reducing the need for negotiation between the parents and to protect X from conflict; and

(c) Ongoing therapeutic support, continuing for at least 12 months post-final orders, monthly or quarterly, to support the implementation of parallel parenting, tone and content of the parties' messages and support around transitions and anticipated friction points.

1. Whilst the father gave evidence he has learned strategies from his counselling with Ms E, including to avoid making a point in his communications with the mother, tendered copies of recent communications between the parties demonstrate continued problems in their communication.[10]

1. After considering the parties' trial material, the report of Ms E and the updated evidence shared with her at the hearing, the family report writer made the following further observations and assessment when giving her oral evidence:

(a) The conflict between the parties had increased; and

(b) The parties' capacity to co-parent appeared to be even more limited that she observed when undertaking her family report assessment.

1. During the course of her oral evidence, the family report writer provided the following updated recommendations:

(a) X's time with the father increase more slowly than she had previously recommended because of the ongoing conflict and poor co-parent relationship;

(b) The number of transitions for X between homes be reduced, but that reduction be balanced with X not spending too much time away from either parent;

(c) Changeovers take place at kindergarten and school where possible and otherwise at a public location or facilitated by third parties and not at the parties' homes;

(d) There be a further assessment before X's time with the father progresses;

(e) A parallel parenting approach as recommended by Ms E is not ideal, especially for a child of X's age, because parents need to communicate quite a lot about a young child regarding day-to-day matters;

(f) Parallel parenting might be appropriate in later primary school age or secondary school age;

(g) The one thing X needs the most is stability and consistency across both households and without that, the risk is he will become dysregulated;

(h) The parties seek professional assistance to try and achieve consistency in routine across their households, from someone such as Ms E; and

(i) X starting school will be a significant transition for him and that should be taken into account when making decisions about X's parenting arrangements.

1. X is aged four. He currently attends childcare, four days per week, which incorporates a kindergarten program. This accords with the recommendation of the manager of his childcare centre,[11] as shared with the family report writer, and the recommendations made in the family report.
2. The parties now agree he will start primary school at B School in 2026.
3. The parties confirmed X is currently spending time with each of the parties in accordance with the September 2024 orders. This means X currently sees the father on seven days each fortnight and stays with him for a total of three nights overnight each fortnight (for two consecutive nights on alternate weekends and one night mid-week in the intervening week). There have been some departures from those arrangements, including to cater for the father's work travel.

1. The mother is 41. She lives in Suburb H and works full-time as a retail worker, and deposed to flexible work arrangements which enable her to adapt her schedule and responsibilities where required to care for X. She has not re-partnered.
2. The father is 52. He lives in Suburb J. X now has his own room in the father's home. The father works full-time as a professional. He works from home and said his current travel requirements for work consist of approximately five weeks per year. He has not re-partnered.
3. The parties agree they do not communicate with one another at changeover and they do not communicate directly on a regular basis in relation to X's care. Neither knows about X's routine in the care of the other parent.

1. Part VII of the Act contains the statutory provisions applying to the making of parenting orders.
2. The objects of Part VII, as amended, are set out in section 60B of the Act, as follows:

(a) to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety; and

(b) to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989.

1. Those objects provide context and assist with interpretation of Part VII, and I have had regard to them.
2. Section 65D(1) of the Act provides that, subject to some other provisions, the court may make such parenting order as it thinks proper. Section 60CA makes clear that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, a court must regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration. In determining the best interests of a child, section 60CC(1)(a) provides the court must consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2), under the heading General considerations.
3. Section 43(1)(ca) of the Act requires the court to have regard to the need to ensure protection from family violence. Section 60CG(1) provides that in considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
4. In making my decision, I have considered all of the relevant sections of the Act. I am not required to specifically address each provision in my reasons and just because I have not mentioned a specific provision does not mean I have not considered it.

1. I now turn to the general considerations set out in section 60CC(2) as relevant to my decision to make final parenting orders in X's best interests.

What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of X and each person who has care of X (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for X): section 60CC(2)(a)

1. When considering those matters in section 60CC(2)(a), the court is required to consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2A) as follows:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

Any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving X or a person caring for X (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for X): section 60CC(2A)(a)

1. Family violence" is defined in section 4AB(1) of the Act as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means 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.

A non-exhaustive list of examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence are set out in section 4AB(2).

1. In relation to behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, the consideration of these terms by the Full Court in Pickford is informative and the following guidance can be taken from the judgments in that decision:

(a) Coercion or control essentially captures one family member's domination of another family member. That the victim may subjectively feel coerced or controlled is not enough. The coercion or control must be an objective actuality;[12]

(b) 'Coercion' will often involve a pattern of acts including, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats, designed to harm, punish or frighten the victim;[13]

(c) 'Controlling behaviour' involves a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy;[14]

(d) Aldridge & Carew JJ observed:[15]

Behaviour that coerces or controls may be innocuous, subtle, capable of different interpretations, complex, undermining, etc. Such behaviour may create impossible expectations for the other family member. It may be transactional and involve punishments for perceived failures.

(e) The focus is on the impact of the behaviour of the alleged perpetrator of family violence rather than the intention of that person. Whilst the intention of the alleged perpetrator will very often be a decisive factor, it is not an essential element for a finding that a party has been the subject of coercive or controlling behaviour; [16]

(f) Conflict or mere disagreement between parents, even if voluble, does not in itself equate to family violence.[17] Aldridge & Carew pointed out:[18]

It must be recognised that, particularly in parenting matters, parents will often disagree. Matters may be seen as proper or as coercive or controlling depending on the circumstances. For example, a proposal that a child be seen by a particular doctor, that changeovers take place in a particular manner or that a certain person not be alone with the children are all capable of being seen as both reasonable and proper parenting proposals or may also be examples of coercive or controlling behaviour.

(g) In relation to the impact of coercive or controlling behaviour, Aldridge & Carew JJ observed:[19]

The impact of the behaviour can be insidious. A confident and happy family member may lose their confidence, their self-esteem, question their sanity, shun their family and friends, become depressed, irritable, inefficient, and unhappy. There may be times when they strike out either verbally or physically.

(h) McClelland DCJ emphasised, "the key to determining whether a person has been the subject of such behaviours is an appreciation of a pattern or a series of acts, the impact of which will usually be both intersecting and cumulative, rather than incident specific";[20]

(i) Whilst patterns of behaviour may be particularly illuminative, they are not essential, and whilst a single act is unlikely to be coercive or controlling it may be;[21] and

(j) An evaluation of the alleged conduct and the context in which it occurred is required.[22] The assessment requires consideration of the totality of the evidence.[23]

1. In relation to the parental conflict described by the family report writer and apparent from the parties' evidence, the explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 records[24] the intention of parliament when introducing this provision to the Family Law Act with effect from 6 May 2024 [emphasis added]:

Inclusion of the broad term 'other harm' allows a court-wide discretion to consider the child's particular situation and to draw conclusions of what is in a child's best interests. It will allow, for example, consideration of whether certain arrangements are workable in a family situation where high conflict and poor communication is present (as is often the case in family law matters that proceed to court). This acknowledges the findings by the Australian Psychological Society that continuing inter-parental conflict is one of the strongest single predictors of negative child outcomes. [...]

1. It is therefore necessary for me to consider the impact on X of the conflict between his parents.

Any family violence order that applies or has applied to X or a member of X's family: section 60CC(2A)(b)

1. Neither party has applied for or obtained intervention orders against the other.

Consideration of section 60CC(2)(a) - arrangements that would promote the safety of X and each person who has care of X

1. As already explained in my reasons, neither party contends X will be unsafe in the care of the other party. However, the mother asks the court to make findings in respect of her allegations the father has engaged in coercive and controlling family violence towards her, being a matter she submits is relevant to the allocation of parental responsibility.
2. I note however the mother's own proposal to consult with the father before making decisions about medical and educational issues for X, from which I infer she does not submit it would be unsafe for her to consult with the father. It must therefore be the requirement to come to a joint decision that she asserts exposes her to a risk of being subjected to coercive and controlling behaviour by the father.
3. I have considered the evidence carefully in light of the mother's submissions, heeding the warning of the Full Court in Pickford that:[25]

[...] it is important to observe how parental conflict and family violence are not one and the same thing. Parents can be in conflict without one perpetrating family violence upon the other. Mere disagreement between parties, even if voluble, is not necessarily family violence.

1. After carefully considering the parties' evidence, I find the following conduct constitutes coercive behaviour by the father:

(a) His attendance at X's specialist appointment on 8 March 2024 without informing the mother;

(b) Attending at the mother's home on 8 April 2024 when he had been informed she would be travelling interstate with X that day;

(c) Phoning the police on 8 April 2024 and requesting a welfare check for X in the mother's care;

(d) Filing a response to the mother's application in May 2024 seeking X live with him and spend only limited supervised time with the mother; and

(e) Filing a notice of risk in May 2024 alleging X was at risk of abuse and of being abducted by the mother and asserting he did not know of X's whereabouts, which was untrue.

1. I find this particular conduct was not undertaken out of genuine concern for X's welfare or safety but was a course of conduct undertaken in retribution for what the father considered to be the mother unreasonably restricting his engagement and time with X and acting against his wishes, including not notifying him of the re-scheduled medical appointment, travelling interstate with X without his consent and commencing court proceedings. I find it was undertaken with the intention of intimidating the mother and coercing her to agree to his proposals. In this sense, I find it constitutes coercive behaviour, including in the nature of what is often described as systems abuse. However, it is significant this conduct was isolated to a particular point in time and the father has not recently engaged in like conduct. After hearing from the father in the witness box, I find it is unlikely to be repeated.
2. I distinguish this particular conduct from other aspects of the father's conduct in the litigation which I accept may have been perceived by the mother as coercive and contributed to the conflict between the parties but which I am not persuaded were coercive and controlling. For example, his insistence the mother share the cost of X attending B School and for the parties to participate in the N program.
3. Whilst I do not find on the balance of probabilities the father has engaged in a course of coercive and controlling behaviour beyond that I found occurred in 2024 and I am not persuaded there is a significant risk of the mother being subjected to further coercive behaviour now X's care arrangements are governed by court orders, I accept the mother's evidence that interacting with the father makes her feel anxious and stressed. This is not in my view surprising given the evidence of his views about her and his approach and conduct to date. I accept the mother experiences physiological symptoms as a result of that stress as reported to her counsellor, Ms O.[26] I find this has increasingly caused her to avoid communication with the father and to act unilaterally, for example, not informing the father of the rescheduled specialist appointment for X in March 2024, changing X's care arrangements in March 2024, and travelling interstate with X without the father's consent in April 2024. In this way, the mother's responses have also contributed to the conflict between the parties.
4. In relation to the impact on X of exposure to parental conflict, I accept the evidence of the family report writer, including as stated in the family report:

As [X] gets older, he will likely developer [sic] a greater understanding of his parents' feud. [X] is likely to blame himself as he is caught in the middle of the two people that love him the most. Regardless of what the other parent thinks of each other, they both represent a part of [X]. Both parents require immediate professional support and assistance to recognise their pattern of conflict and focus on [X]'s needs.

[...] in terms of the high conflict, it sounds like things have not progressed, in a way that, like I said, I would have predicted. The impact of that on [X] ... is that as he gets older he'll become more and more attuned to what that conflict is even if its subtle, even if it is an eye roll, even if it is an attitude or a vibe that he will pick up very very quickly from the parties. And so in increasing time, I think that can confuse things for him even more because of the parental conflict. It doesn't make it safe for him to go between the parents. I don't think the parents realise how much the conflict does impact on his development. He will be at risk of, potentially in the future, things like emotional and psychological issues and difficulties, because the two people he's relying on, particularly at this age, because they're the two most important people, don't get along and potentially don't like each other. And if Mum is correct in saying what I read in her affidavit that Dad is saying negative things about Mum while he is in Dad's care, then that's even more concerning because that's a really confusing message to [X] about someone that looks after him, cares for him, loves him, on a day to day basis.

1. I accept this expert evidence and find the ongoing conflict between X's parents is likely to cause him significant emotional harm, even if he is exposed to that conflict only indirectly.

Any views expressed by X: section 60CC(2)(b)

1. X is only four years old. Given his age, he was not interviewed for the purposes of the family report assessment. This was appropriate. He is too young for his views to be given significant weight.

The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of X: section 60CC(2)(c)

1. The parties agree X is in good health and meeting his developmental milestones. During her interactional observations of X with each of his parents, the family report writer observed X to be a sweet, playful and intelligent young boy, with good language and speech skills for his age, who demonstrated increased confidence in his new environment as he spent more time with her, supported by his parents' presence and lead.
2. I keep in mind X is among the youngest of his cohort at kindergarten and the information provided by X's childcare manager about his transition to the three-year old program in 2024. I note he will again be among the youngest in his cohort transitioning to school in 2026 and I take into account it may be more difficult for X to settle into school than his peers.
3. The father was born in Australia. His parents were born in Country P. The father has also spent time living in Country Q. X will have the opportunity to learn about his Country P heritage by spending time with his father and his paternal grandmother while in the care of the father. The father deposed to speaking predominantly in Country P language when X is in his care and to his hope for X to grow up bi-lingual, which the family report writer encouraged both parents to support.

The capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for X to provide for his developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs: section 60CC(2)(d)

1. It is apparent from each party's proposal they accept the other party has the required capacity to meet X's physical care needs. However, they each contend the other lacks capacity to meet X's emotional needs.
2. The mother submits the father lacks insight into X's needs and is instead focussed on his own wish to spend time with X. I agree with that assessment after considering all of the evidence, including the father's evidence from the witness box. I also agree with the family report writer's assessment that the father "had limited insight into his own contribution to the difficulties inherent in the co-parent relationship with [the mother]."
3. The father contends the mother has not demonstrated the capacity to support X's relationship with him and has acted to obstruct his relationship with X. When cross-examined he gave oral evidence standing by the statement made in his trial affidavit that he does not believe the mother will stop seeking to diminish his time with X "until she can destroy [his] relationship with [X]". About this, he said from the witness box that he believes "if it was up to her, [he] wouldn't exist". I do not accept that submission. It is apparent from the tendered parenting plans, the mother's filed applications, the interim parenting orders she has consented to and the close relationship X enjoys with the father, that the mother has acted to support X's relationship with the father. She gave evidence of steps she has taken at home to support X's transitions between the parties' care, including a visual aid on the fridge in her home showing when he will be at kinder or spending time with the father. She gave evidence she facilitates X calling the father when he is travelling for work, and volunteered she does not think it is good for X not to speak with his dad for extended periods. She has engaged with a counsellor to support her own wellbeing and communication with the father, in accordance with the recommendations made in the family report, without being compelled to do so by court orders. That the mother has different views about the parenting arrangements that would be best for X and has not agreed to the father's proposals does not mean she does not support their relationship.
4. I do have concerns about the father's capacity to promote a positive impression of the mother to X in light of his evidence. I have already referred to the wholly negative view of the mother portrayed in his affidavit and referred to the caveats he put on his oral evidence acknowledging she is a "good mum". I note in particular the claims he made about the mother in his notice of risk and to the family report writer, including that he considered her "volatile and erratic behaviour as being potentially explained by undiagnosed personality or mental health issues". When cross-examined, the father said he continues to believe the mother might have mental health issues that might impact on X, notwithstanding he had not pursued the application for psychological assessments to be undertaken made in his response filed in May 2024 and seeks final orders providing for X to continue living with her.
5. The mother gave evidence X has made comments to her leading her to be concerned the father is disparaging her to X or in his presence. The father denied those allegations. I do not make any findings about those allegations, accepting what X says to the mother at his age may not be an accurate reflection of what occurs when he is in the father's care. I do, however, accept the oral evidence of the family report writer that it is likely X will pick up even subtle indications from the parties of their attitudes towards the other and that this can be as subtle as an eyeroll, and being exposed to such attitudes is likely to have a detrimental impact on X. I find it likely X is exposed to the father's negative view of the mother, even if only inadvertently, and to the mother's anxiety and stress associated with her interactions with the father.
6. The mother asserts the father has neglected to provide her with important information impacting X. For example, the father did not inform her for some years that his father (X's paternal grandfather) had died. I accept the mother's evidence that she observed X display increasing levels of anxiety when she asked questions about his time with his grandparents, and that this led her to conduct an online search and to learn the paternal grandfather had died in 2022. I accept the father did not inform the mother he had moved from Suburb G to Suburb J in March 2024, that she first learned of this when served with an affidavit in May 2024, and she was not provided with his address until the first court event in June 2024. These matters were in my view important information for the father to share with the mother as a person who also cares for X and provides for his emotional support, being changes in X's life that are likely to have a significant impact on him. I also accept the mother's evidence that not knowing the father's address (where X was spending time with him), caused her distress. It is my view the father's failure to provide this information to the mother demonstrates a deficiency in his capacity to focus on X's needs and to support the mother to provide for those needs as the other parent upon whom X relies for his emotional support.
7. The mother gave evidence she had attended upon a psychologist once following the breakdown of the parties' relationship, Mr L, and she has more recently been attending counselling with Ms O. She had previously attended upon another psychologist in around 2020. This indicates the mother is someone who recognises the benefit of professional support and assistance to support her wellbeing and is willing to seek it out. The mother's ongoing work with Ms O demonstrates a positive parenting attitude, recognising she requires assistance with her communication with the father and is continuing to seek that assistance.
8. To the family report writer, the father advised he has never sought counselling in the past but he would be open to seeing someone to assist him to build a more positive co-parenting relationship with the mother. Notwithstanding that, he had not attended personal counselling by the time of the final hearing, only family therapy with Ms E. When asked why he had not sought counselling, the father gave oral evidence "I don't think I need a great deal of that, maybe I do". When it was put to him that the family report writer had suggested both parties attend family counselling, the father said he didn't remember reading that recommendation. I do not accept that to be true. Rather, I find that at least until recently, the father has considered the mother requires counselling assistance but he does not.
9. The father believes the mother "seeks to diminish any relationship [X] may have with his cultural identity or the [Country P] language" and that X is being coerced into not speaking anything other than "mummy's language". After hearing her evidence, I accept the mother supports X learning about his Country P heritage and culture, including learning the Country P language. I do not find the mother asking the father to speak English with X at changeover, so she can understand them, indicates a lack of support for X to learn Country P language.

The benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with his parents, and other people who are significant to him, where it is safe to do so: section 60CC(2)(e)

1. In relation to sub-section 60CC(2)(3), the explanatory memorandum to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 explains:[27]

This consideration recognises the importance of parental relationships, and relationships with other people who are significant to the child (such as grandparents or members of a broader kinship group) to a child's wellbeing. Where appropriate and safe, parenting orders that ensure children benefit from a close and nurturing relationship with their parents should be made.

No one particular arrangement will work for all children or all families, whose needs are diverse and will change over time. However, where safe and appropriate, most children benefit from spending time with their parents not only at the weekends and in school holidays, but also during the school week, and will also benefit from allowing each parent to be involved in the child's daily routine and occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child.

1. The mother acknowledges X and the father have a great relationship and they adore each other. It is not disputed X will benefit from being able to have a relationship with both parents and extended family members. It is only the extent of the time X spends with the father during school term periods that is in dispute.
2. I am satisfied the orders agreed by the parties (for X to spend four nights each fortnight with the father from term 3 in 2026, time for special occasions, and increasing time during school holidays), will allow X to continue to benefit from a close and nurturing relationship with the father. This arrangement will enable X to spend time with both of his parents during the school week, on weekends and on school holidays. X will benefit from both parties being involved in his daily routine and the orders they have agreed to will provide for both parents to attend events that are of particular significance to him.
3. I am satisfied X will also have the opportunity to spend time with his extended family when spending time with each parent.

1. As already noted, the mother seeks an order providing her with sole decision-making in respect of major long-term issues relating to X's education and medical issues, subject to a requirement to first consult with the father. The father seeks an order for joint decision-making responsibility.

1. The provisions of Part VII of the Act relevant to my determination of this issue, include:

(a) In the absence of a court order, each of the parents of a child has parental responsibility for the child.[28] This is the case despite any changes in the parents' relationship, including their separation;[29]

(b) Parental responsibility is defined to mean all of the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children;[30]

(c) Subject to any court orders, parents of a child are encouraged, where it is safe to do so, to consult each other about major long-term issues in relation to a child;[31]

(d) The power of the court to make parenting orders, includes the power to make an order that deals with the allocation of parental responsibility,[32] and specifically, the allocation of responsibility for making major long-term issues in relation to a child;[33]

(e) There is no longer any presumption in relation to the allocation of parental responsibility by the court and the court's focus is to be on the needs and best interests of the individual child;

(f) If a parenting order deals with the allocation of responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to a child, that order may provide for joint or sole decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues;[34]

(g) Major long-term issues in relation to a child are defined as follows:[35]

major long-term issues, in relation to a child, means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes (but is not limited to) issues of that nature about:

(a) the child's education (both current and future); and

(b) the child's religious and cultural upbringing; and

(c) the child's health; and

(d) the child's name; and

(e) changes to the child's living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.

(h) If a parenting order provides for joint decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues in relation to a child, then, except to the extent the order otherwise specifies, the order is taken to require each of the persons with decision-making responsibility to consult with one another in relation to each such decision and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision;[36] and

(i) The court can make an order dealing with the form of consultation parties are to have with one another about decisions to be made in exercise of their parental responsibility.[37]

1. It is agreed the parties will have joint decision-making responsibility in relation to all major long-term issues for X, save for decisions about his education and medical issues. I find such an order is in X's best interests, where:

(a) The parties have agreed to an order providing for them to apply to register a change in X's name, to include the mother's surname as his middle name, and they have agreed to an injunction restraining any further change of name without a court order;

(b) There is no dispute in relation to X's religious or cultural upbringing;

(c) There is no evidence either party intends to seek to move from the area in which they currently live with X; and

(d) Those issues are therefore unlikely to require decisions and if they do, they are unlikely to require regular or urgent decisions.

1. I find it is in X's best interests for the parties to have joint decision-making responsibility in respect of his current and future education, placing significant weight on the following:

(a) The parties have agreed to an order providing for X to attend B School, commencing in 2026;

(b) They have agreed to an injunction providing that neither party cancel X's enrolment in B School or enrol him in any other school without the prior written consent of the other parent;

(c) The parties have entered into a binding child support agreement providing for the father to meet all educational expenses in relation to X's schooling attendance at B School, inclusive of school fees and levies along with half of all unform expenses, camps, and other school expenses, including computer equipment and other incidental fees payable on request of the school;

(d) The parties previously agreed B School was a suitable school for X, indicating their views about his education were aligned, it was only the affordability of school fees that became an issue. That issue has now resolved, as provided in the binding child support agreement;

(e) The parties agree X will commence school in 2026, even though he will be close to the youngest age permitted to start school and likely among the youngest in his cohort. Their views about this are also aligned;

(f) B School provides for X's primary and secondary school education. Accordingly, a separate decision about his secondary school education is unlikely to be required;

(g) In light of these agreements, further major long-term decisions about X's education are unlikely. The mother did not point to any evidence suggesting a change in school would be likely, only speculated it might be, if something arises. Her counsel provided as an example, if X was bullied. However, the mother did not point to any evidence relating to X or the parties' circumstances that would suggest any particular issue is likely to arise warranting a change in school;

(h) In the event any further decisions arise in relation to X's education, it is unlikely they will need to be made urgently, meaning the parties will have time to seek assistance to help them attempt to reach an agreement or, failing agreement, to seek further orders of the court; and

(i) The family report writer gave expert evidence X will benefit by his parents being actively involved in and supporting his schooling and that is more likely if they have been involved in selecting the school he attends. I accept that evidence.

1. In relation to major long-term decisions about medical issues relating to X, I find it is in X's best interests for the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility, subject to a requirement to first consult with the father. I make this determination, taking into account the following matters in particular:

(a) X is in good health. Accordingly, there are not currently any anticipated major long-term issues the parties anticipate will require decisions, unless X is injured or experiences health issues in the future;

(b) However, if medical issues arise for X in the future, decisions may be required to be made with some regularity. They may need to be made urgently and under significant stress and worry for X's welfare and the evidence indicates the parties do not interact well when they feel stressed or pressured by the other;

(c) The parties agree their relationship is one of high conflict;

(d) The parties agree they do not communicate well with one another;

(e) To the family report writer, the father said he was at that time seeking sole parental responsibility because "he did not want to continue arguing with [the mother] about every aspect of [X]'s life, such as, education and medical needs". He stated he would be happy to have no communication with the mother and avoid her in future to prevent any further conflict;

(f) My findings in respect of the father's rigid views and uncompromising approach which I accept would make it difficult for the mother to negotiate with the father with a view to making joint decisions. I find the orders she has proposed, with a fixed process of consultation but not requiring negotiation with the father, will act to protect the mother's emotional safety when consulting with him and protect her from the father seeking to exert control over her through that consultation process;

(g) In the event the parties are unable to effectively consult with one another and make joint decisions about medical issues for X in a timely manner, his health and wellbeing may be compromised;

(h) There is also the potential for medical and health care professionals declining to work with X because of parental conflict. This risk was illustrated by the mother's evidence that the doctor engaged by the father to undertake a behavioural assessment for X in or around December 2024 was ultimately not prepared to assist the parties or X after learning her assessment was referenced by the father in his court documents contrary to his express instructions the assessment was not for court purposes; and

(i) The father does not assert the mother holds irregular views in respect of healthcare or has made poor decisions in respect of medical issues for X. He does not contend the mother has not kept him informed in respect of X's health and medical care, save for the one appointment she rescheduled with a specialist without him.

1. The order I make requiring the mother to consult with the father in relation to decisions she proposes making about major long-term issues in relation to medical issues for X will largely reflect the mother's proposal, requiring her to inform the father of her proposed decision at least 14 days prior to making a decision and to consider any views expressed by the father before making a decision and promptly informing the father of her decision. I will include a variation to this timeframe, for the mother to provide the father with as much notice as is practicable in the event an urgent medical decision is required. This order will provide X with the benefit of the father's input into major medical decisions about him but will enable the mother to make a decision in the event the parties do not agree, ensuring his health care will not be compromised by parental disputes and delayed decision-making. The parties have agreed to a range of other orders that will ensure both parties are kept informed and are involved in X's medical care. I find those orders will assist to safeguard against the risk that the father's parenting role is diminished in X's eyes as the family report writer warned is a risk associated with the allocation of decision-making responsibility to one parent.

1. I find the parties' agreement reached at the conclusion of the final hearing for X to spend time with the father for four nights each fortnight (on alternate weekends, from Friday to Monday; and overnight on Wednesdays in intervening weeks), from the commencement of term 3 in 2026, is in his best interests. That the parties were able to reach this compromise bodes well for X.
2. To elaborate on those reasons already provided, I find this arrangement balances the benefit to X of:

(a) Spending regular time with the father on weekends and mid-week;

(b) A stable care routine, with fewer transitions between his parents' care; and

(c) Changeovers taking place predominantly to and from school, reducing interactions between the parties and therefore the risk of X being exposed to conflict between them, and providing the father with the opportunity to be involved with X's school routine.

1. In the meantime, accepting the expert evidence and recommendations of the family report writer, I find it is in X's best interests to reduce the number of transitions between the parties' care so that he spends time with the father on a fortnightly basis:

(a) In week one: during the day on Wednesday (adopting the father's proposed times of 9.00 am to 4.00 pm); and then for two nights overnight on the weekend, from Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon; and

(b) In week two: overnight on Wednesday.

1. Once X starts school in 2026, he will no longer spend time with the father during the day on alternate Wednesdays because he will be at school. I have determined not to make an order providing for X to spend time with the father on alternate Wednesday afternoons for dinner as proposed by the mother, placing significant weight on the expert evidence of the family report writer that the short period of time and evening changeover is likely to be disruptive for X and changeover directly between the parents should be avoided to reduce the risk of X being exposed to parental conflict. I also take into account the expert opinion of the family report writer that this time is unnecessary for the maintenance of X's relationship with the father now he is older and I note X will be older again by the time this change is implemented. I have taken into account that this means X will spend time with the father less frequently, but am not persuaded that will adversely impact their relationship given the quantity and quality of time he will be spending with the father overall, in the context explained by the family report writer of X transitioning next year to spend much of his time at school, during school term periods.
2. The father seeks X's time continue to progress beyond four nights a fortnight, on an incremental basis, to a shared care basis. This was supported by the family report writer in her family report, subject to a recommendation that each stage should only progress if X is coping and the arrangements are working effectively. However, when cross-examined, the family report writer was very firm in her recommendation that the family be reassessed before considering any further progression in time for X.
3. Placing significant weight on that expert evidence and the evidence of the parties themselves, I am not persuaded it is in X's best interests for his time with the father to progress beyond four nights per fortnight during school term periods, given the poor communication and co-parenting relationship between the parties. On the evidence before me, I am not confident the making of final orders, the passage of time alone, or any particular intervention or professional assistance will change that dynamic, which the family report writer assessed had become worse, even with the benefit of the recommendations made in the family report. In any event, I accept the expert evidence of the family report writer that X spending four nights a fortnight with the father will provide X with sufficient quantity of time to provide quality in their time spent together and that the difference between four to five nights is not so significant for X.
4. In relation to the time X spends with the father during school holidays, the parties agree it is in X's best interests to ultimately spend half of the school holidays with each parent. The mother seeks a gradual increase of holiday time, whereby X would spend blocks of four nights with the father in 2026, five nights in 2027 and then progressing to half of the school holidays in 2028, in alternate weeks during the long summer school holidays in 2028/2029. This accords with the recommendations made by the family report writer in her oral evidence which the father said he accepted. I will make orders to that effect, finding this to be in X's best interests.
5. The considerations that cause me to find it is not in X's best interests for his time with the father to further increase in the future during school terms do not apply in the same way during school holidays. This is because consistency in parenting and effective co-parenting is not required in the same way during school holidays where there is less need to maintain routine for X and more leisure time.
6. The father seeks X's holiday time with the father progress to a point where he alternates between spending the first half and the second half of the long summer school holidays with each parent. The family report writer was unable to predict when X will be able to manage spending long blocks of time away from either parent and nor can I. I will therefore not make orders providing for X to spend time with the parties during the long summer school holidays other than in alternate weekends, unless agreed by them in writing. I accept this risks further litigation in the future if circumstances change and it becomes in his interests to spend longer blocks of time with both parties and they are unable to reach an agreement on that progression. However, on the evidence before me, I am unable to predict if such an extension of holiday time will be in X's best interests at a particular point in the future.

1. In light of the evidence confirming the parties do not know what goes on for X in one another's homes, counsel for the mother suggested during closing submissions, some exchange of information about X's routines, to support consistency in his care. I discussed with counsel the possibility of an order requiring the parties to each provide one another with a brief weekly update in relation to X, consisting of one paragraph sent on a Sunday for example, sharing information about his routine and matters of importance to X that have occurred that week. I suggested such emails be sent with no requirement or expectation of reply, with the aim of avoiding conflict. Both parties conveyed through their counsel they would support the making of such an order. As shared during my discussions with counsel, whilst I raised it as a possibility, I hold some reservations about making such an order, including because it may provide an avenue for further conflict. For example, these communications may be used to indirectly criticise what occurs in the other parent's home or be perceived as doing so. On balance, as foreshadowed to counsel, this is a matter I will leave to the parties to implement if they would like to, concerned that an order requiring it may result in further conflict, particularly given the report of Ms E indicating it had been necessary for her to provide both parties with coaching in respect of their communication and she had only just commenced that work with them.

1. The mother says she is open to continuing family therapy in the future but she opposes an order requiring the parties to attend family therapy. Rather than compelling the mother to attend family therapy, the father ultimately sought a final order providing that the parties "will attend family therapy with [Ms E] if agreed in writing" and they have leave to provide Ms E with a copy of the final orders and judgment.
2. My impression is the father views family therapy as a way of advancing parenting arrangements for X (to achieve an arrangement where X spends more time with him), rather than an avenue to support the parties' co-parenting relationship. I find there is a risk that if the mother is compelled to attend family therapy against her wishes, it will prove counterproductive, as she will perceive it as a form of control by the father and cause her more anxiety and stress with a likely adverse impact on X. I accept as genuine, the instructions conveyed by the mother's counsel, that she intends to attend further individual therapy with her existing counsellor once this proceeding is finalised before reconsidering further family therapy.
3. I find family therapy is likely to be most beneficial to the parties and therefore X, if the parties agree and are supported to attend, when they are ready, with this litigation behind them, knowing there is to be no further negotiation of parenting arrangements, and clear, unambiguous orders are in place to scaffold their co-parenting relationship. I will therefore not make any order requiring the parties to attend family therapy or to attend upon a particular therapist should they agree to participate in family therapy in the future.

1. The father advocated for orders to be made requiring the parties to appoint a parenting coordinator. In response to my request at the outset of the hearing for details about what exactly was proposed, the father proposed an order be made in the following terms:

(a) The Mother and Father will attend upon [Ms R] or such other parenting coordinator as agreed to in writing between the Mother and Father;

(b) The Mother and Father will attend upon [Ms R] every four months, with the first session to be within 2 months of the making of these Orders, and for such attendance to continue for 12 months from the first appointment (being a minimum of five sessions) and thereafter as agreed in writing between the Mother and Father;

(c) The parenting coordinator's role will be as follows;

(i) To facilitate communication between the Mother and Father and in particular to assist in improving communication when;

i. conflicts arise, so that both parents can express their concerns and work towards mutual agreements upon important decisions regarding [X];

ii. any concerns are raised by each parent that involve [X] and/or the other parent; and

iii. information needs to be shared and/or is sought with/from the other parent about [X]'s education, health, routine, needs and general wellbeing; and

(ii) To support the Mother and Father's compliance with the Final Orders and assist the parents to discuss and reach agreement upon any matters that arise regarding [X] that are outside of the Final Orders and require the cooperation of both parents.

(d) The costs of the Mother and Father's attendance upon the parenting coordinator will be met equally by the parents.

1. However, evidence was not adduced from Ms R or other parenting coordinators with information about the services they provide, how they would be provided, what the parties would be required to do, and the costs of their services.
2. The mother resists the making of an order appointing a parenting coordinator, for the same reasons she opposes orders compelling the parties to attend family therapy.
3. It is not disputed I have power to make an order requiring the parties to engage a parenting coordinator, pursuant to section 13C of the Act.
4. In relation to parenting coordination, the family report writer initially suggested a parenting coordinator for the purpose of reviewing X's time with the parents and determine if and when X's time with the father should further progress. This recommendation seemed to misunderstand the role of a parenting coordinator. It was also apparent from the father's evidence given under cross-examination that he was under the misunderstanding a parenting coordinator could make decisions in the event of future disagreements between the parties. Whilst parties may agree to follow recommendations of a parenting coordinator, it is not the role of a parenting coordinator to make decisions in relation to parenting disputes. That is the task of the court, which cannot be delegated.
5. I have determined not to make an order requiring the parties to engage a parenting coordinator for the same reasons I have determined not to make an order requiring them to attend family therapy. I find these forms of support are more likely be beneficial to the parties and therefore to X, if undertaken voluntarily rather than under compulsion, when the parties are ready and feel adequately supported to do so.
6. I make this decision taking into account the family report writer's alternate view that family therapy or parenting coordination might be the only mechanism for the parties to avoid further conflict given their inability to overcome that conflict so far. However, I find it could also be a cause of further ill will, conflict and feelings of coercion and stress, if one party is forced to attend against their wishes or if the parties are unable to agree on the details of the assistance to be provided to them, the logistics of how it is to be arranged, or in the event they do not agree to follow future recommendations of those experts. If that occurs, there will likely be a negative impact on X.

1. Bearing in mind the mother's evidence she is open to seeking further professional assistance in future to support the parties' co-parenting relationship, I will make an order permitting the parties to provide copies of the final orders, these reasons, the family report and the family therapy report to Ms E or another agreed psychologist or counsellor if they agree to attend for further family therapy and to any parenting coordinator they may agree engage. I will also make an order permitting them to provide those documents to any psychologist or counsellor they each attend upon for their own support, finding it to be in X's best interests for them to receive informed support.

1. The parties agreed on an order in the following terms:

The Respondent Father will provide not less than 30 days' notice in writing, unless for circumstances outside of his control he is unable to give 30 days' notice and in which case he will then provide 14 days notice in writing to the Applicant Mother ("14 days notice period" provided that he not be permitted to travel giving the 14 days notice period on more that one occasion per year) if he is travelling for work or otherwise is unable to care for [X] in accordance with these Orders.

1. The purpose of such an order is to ensure the mother is provided with 30 days' notice of the father's travel for work, recognising she cares for X when the father is travelling. I accept her evidence this takes quite a bit of organising for her and it is appropriate she be given as much notice as possible, so she can make arrangements to provide for X's care. Requiring the father to provide at least 14 days notice of travel where, for reasons "out of his control", he is unable to provide 30 days' notice and limiting his ability to do so on only one occasion each year, is in my view fraught with difficulty and risks further disputes and court proceedings in the event of non-compliance, including if this occurs more than once a year. If the father is unable to provide 30 days' notice of travel due to circumstances out of his control, then he should provide as much notice as practicable no matter how often that occurs and I will make an order requiring that he do so.
2. I am satisfied the other orders and injunctions agreed by the parties are in X's best interests and will make orders in those terms, with some minor changes to ensure the parties' obligations are clear and with the aim of reducing potential for conflict between them, as recommended by Ms E. For example, I will make it clear that all school term periods and school holidays referenced in the orders are as scheduled for X by the school he attends and that X's time with the father is to resume each term as if the school holidays had not occurred and the fortnightly cycle had continued during the holidays.
3. That being said, I cannot make orders governing all eventualities. In the event of further disputes, I urge the parties to heed the expert recommendations of the family report writer, reconsider the approach they have taken so far and endeavour to resolve their differences for X's benefit rather than seek to capitalise on the conflict in an effort to advance their preferred outcome and perpetuate the conflict between them to X's detriment.

1. Rule 5.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) provides that upon the making of final orders in a proceeding, any interlocutory order made in the proceeding pending further order is automatically discharged and ceases to have continuing effect. I will nevertheless make an order confirming this is the case, so it is clear for the parties and to any third party who may have been provided with copies of interim orders made in respect of X.

1. For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied the orders set out at the commencement of these reasons are in X's best interests and I make final orders in those terms.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-one (161) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge A. Humphreys.

[1] Amador & Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196; (2009) 43 Fam LR 268 at [88].

[2] [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230 ("Pickford") at [80].

[6] [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 77 ALJR 1598 at [62] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ.

[13] McClelland DCJ at [20]-[21] and [38] referring to the decision of Heyden J in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 ("F v M"), adopted and applied by the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448; [2022] 1 WLR 2681; [2022] 1 All ER 475.

[14] McClelland DCJ referring to _F v M_at [4].

[16] McClelland DCJ at [2], Austin & Williams at [111], and Aldridge & Carew JJ at [46]-[47] and [51].

[22] McClelland DCJ, at [4] and [29] and [31] referring to the analysis of Gill J in Olivier & Olivier [2020] FamCA 639 at [51]-[52]; Aldridge & Carew at [48].

[23] McClelland DCJ, at [35], referring to GK v PR [2021] EWFC 106 at [40] and [45].

[27] At [45] to [46] of Schedule 1.