Norton v Landell [2025] FedCFamC2F 1055 | Case summary

Norton v Landell [2025] FedCFamC2F 1055 | Case summary | Zoe

[17]

These parenting proceedings were commenced by the applicant mother ("the mother") on 23 October 2020 against the respondent father ("the father"). There are two children of the relationship, X, born in 2018, now six years old, and Y, born in 2020, now five years old ("the children").
The final parenting hearing commenced on 2 December 2024 and continued onto 3 December 2024, when it was adjourned until 22 July 2025, and concluded on 23 July 2025. The Court made interim parenting orders on 3 December 2024 for the children to spent two hours once every three weeks at a contact centre at Suburb K. Pursuant to those orders the father spent time with the children on 14 December 2024, 14 February 2025, 7 March 2025, 31 March 2025, 11 April 2025, 9 May 2025, 30 May 2025 and 20 June 2025.
The Court had earlier made by consent parenting orders on 5 September 2022. On 23 February 2023 the matter had been fixed for a final parenting hearing for 7 and 8 December 2023. On 24 August 2023 the Court suspended the interim parenting orders and ordered supervised time through a contact centre and use of a parenting app for communications and required a list of all practitioners that were attended upon by the father to be provided to the mother's solicitor and the ICL within 7 days.
Whilst initially there were issues joined between the parties of a broader nature, in final addresses there was no issue in respect of the mother having sole parental authority, including all major, long-term issues, and no dispute that the children live with the mother. The mother and the ICL pressed for orders, in essence, providing for identity contact between the father and the children four times a year with electronic communication on the last Sunday of each month, Father's Day, the children's birthdays, Christmas Day and Easter Sunday, and relevant restraints under s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act").
The father, who had since early 2025 seen the children at a supervised contact centre almost every third week, pressed for a continuation of the current supervised contact and the increasing of that time to unsupervised time and then overnight time every second weekend and half the school holidays.
On 23 July 2025, having heard the oral submissions and having concluded it was in the best interests of the children to do so the Court pronounced the above final parenting orders for identity contact only, vacating all earlier interim parenting orders and the Court reserved its written reasons.

[109]

The further consolidated trial affidavit relied upon by the mother, filed on 11 November 2024, identifies that the mother is presently 32 years of age and that the father is presently 39 years of age. The mother identified the relationship as commencing around 2014 and separating on a final basis in late 2020. The mother identified the two children of the relationship: X, now aged 6; and Y, now aged 5. The mother said that she was the primary carer. The mother explained she had two other children: H, who suffers from disabilities and mental health issues but is not currently under her care and has been in the Minister's care since October 2023, and her other child O.
The mother identified that H is residing at an alternative care arrangement where he is cared for by support workers 24/7 and that all contact between H and the two children subject to these proceedings are supervised. The mother stated she had no intention or interest in allowing H to come into contact with X and Y in an unsupervised capacity and that she undertakes to always be present or have an adult present when the children are spending time with each other. The mother identified that O's father is deceased.
The mother identified that the father has two children from a previous relationship, M and Mr L, who have been removed from his care. The mother identified that M was violent and aggressive even when the mother had Y in her arms; and that M did not follow rules and boundaries set for children; and that on one occasion, the mother was pushed up against a wall by M, who made threats to kill her. The mother believed that M would carry out her threats and called the police and obtained an apprehended violence order from the City S Local Court in late 2020. The mother deposed that M used the ADVO to leave the father's care and indicated that she was afraid she would breach it as she could not control her anger. The mother notes that M was scheduled under the Mental Health Act soon after she left.
The mother said the relationship became intimate in around 2016 and that she moved out of her house, into the father's property at N Street, Suburb P at around that time, and at that stage H was then aged eight and O was age three. The mother identified the father at that time was in difficulties with the Department of Community Services regarding his own two children, M and Mr L. The mother stated she believed the father got her to move in so as to improve his chances with DoCS.
When the mother moved in, she saw a great deal of abuse and neglect, including the father hitting the children with objects, dragging them, threats and verbal abuse. The mother said the father's children were neglected, but there was nothing she could do to turn the situation around because the father was so controlling. The mother said that she was shocked at what she saw and moved out soon after. The mother identified that the father then lost his job and suffered a mental breakdown from work. The mother deposed that the father went on medication which calmed him down, but did not alleviate the other problems.
The mother identified that in late 2016 she moved out and back to her mother's Housing Commission residence in Suburb Q with H and O. The mother stated that soon after that DoCS removed M and Mr L from the father's care. The mother believed that there were orders made placing the children under the parental responsibility of the Minister until they were 18.
In early 2017, the mother indicated she was not getting along with her mother, so she moved to City S, to get out of Suburb FF and give the children a better future and leased a property from City S Real Estate. The mother said four months later the father followed her to City S and begged her to let him move in, and by that stage his children had been removed from him, and he was in very low spirits. The mother stated she relented, and they resumed their relationship.
The mother stated that the father was on medication, but did not get himself a new doctor in City S and would visit an old doctor in Region T on occasions when he was there. The mother observed that the father ran out of medication frequently and noted that there was a dramatic difference in his behaviour and demeanour. The mother observed and experienced the father becoming verbally aggressive towards her and her children. The mother stated that the father would yell at H, calling him names, as well as calling both children names, and the mother would insist he get back on medication to settle things down.
The mother recorded the father spent nearly all his time playing video games. The mother observed that the father cooked dinner, but that was it, and did not assist in any other way around the household with the children. The mother identified she fell pregnant, and the father said he did not want the baby and as the mother was not confident of the father as a father, she terminated the pregnancy.
The mother identified that she became pregnant again and decided to go through with it, and X was born at City S Hospital in 2018. The mother said that following X's birth the father was very little help and that the mother did the majority of feeding, changing nappies and bathing, and on the odd occasion, grumbling about it, the father did a feed, and that the mother continued to do all the overwhelming majority of housework and parenting. The mother observed the father's behaviour continued to fluctuate, and he became more controlling of the mother. The mother observed that the father would answer for her and override her decisions. The mother said that the father became physically aggressive with H by tackling him to the ground and yelling at him. The mother observed that the father did not show the children any respect but expected to receive respect in full.
In 2019, the mother felt pregnant again and experienced the same pattern of behaviour from the father as she had during X's pregnancy. The mother recorded that the father did want X, but he did not want Y. The mother identified that Y was born in 2020 at City S Hospital. The mother records that by August 2020 she had had enough and that the father was no help, and they were arguing constantly. The mother asked the father to leave the house, and he begged her to be allowed to stay and promised he would go to counselling. The father did not keep the counselling appointments, and so, again, the mother asked him to leave, and he refused. The mother notes that by September 2020 the father had promised to leave but failed to do so even after he had secured temporary accommodation.
On 30 September 2020 the father moved out some of his stuff. The father on that occasion refused to move into temporary accommodation and tried to barge back into the house. He pushed and shoved the mother out of the room. The father took X and the children into X's room and closed the door and kept pushing and barging his way through, pushing the door into the mother's elbow, which really hurt the mother. The mother said she remembered the resounding pain in her elbow, and then the father suddenly grabbed her by both arms and threw her backwards. The mother said she was left with bruising to her elbow and upper arm. The mother said that while she was down, the father grabbed X, and the mother called the police, who attended. The mother asked the police to get the father out of the house, but they did not require him to leave as he was a co-tenant on the lease, it having been renewed in both names. The mother noted that she tried to make a statement to the police, but they did not come back to her.
On 1 October 2020, the mother said she and the father separated on a final basis. The mother says that shortly after they separated, the landlord, who was the father's friend, served a notice of termination, even though the mother had been up to date with their rent since they moved in, and that she had until 31 December 2020 to vacate the premises.
Upon separation, the father retained X in his care and did not take her to childcare. The mother records the father repeatedly asked her to sign Centrelink documents so that he could receive partial parenting payments for X, which the mother eventually did as she could see no other option. The mother observed she believed his motivation stemmed from money as he had never shown any interest in parenting in the past. The mother identified trying to have daily communication with X; however, more than half the time, the father would not facilitate the calls by not answering or not making X available. The father did allow the mother to have contact with X via telephone every second or third day, sometimes up to an hour, but he would cut off the call for no good reason, such as if H said hello to X.
The father did not allow X to have communication with her siblings. The father told the mother that he was under the impression that if X and Y were in his care, that she would resume her relationship with him. The mother believed that was the real motivation for the father taking X, not having any real concern as to X's welfare. The mother noted the father moved residence twice while retaining X. On 11 October 2020, the father sent an SMS text message to the mother offering to return X if the mother had sex with him.
In October 2020, the mother's son H exposed himself, which the mother reported to the Department of Communities and Justice. The mother deposed that she made that report in the best interests of the children. The mother recorded that the Department of Communities and Justice were satisfied that the mother was taking appropriate action and referred the mother to OO Service for case management, home visits and counselling. The mother identified that even after the Department of Communities and Justice were satisfied the matter had been dealt with, the mother continued to engage with the OO Service and accepted a referral to the PP Service in Region T. The mother identified that a Children Sex Educator at City S Community Health on 23 July 2020 said that there were no red flags and deemed H to be safe around the other children and that he had been only doing what his friend had showed him. The mother records that both H and O now understand it was not appropriate and there have been no further issues.
The mother observed the father keeps posting material about child molestation and identifying the children, which the mother said was just not true and said that she believed it was not in the best interests of the children for this to be posted online. The mother observed that the father has continued to name H online as a sexual predator, which the mother observed is a threat to his safety and well-being.
On 5 September 2022, interim orders were made for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father each alternate weekend from 5.30 pm Friday until 5 pm Sunday or at such other times as were agreed. On that occasion the father attended the children's day care for Father's Day. On 4 November 2022, the mother informed the father that X had preschool orientation on 15 November, and the mother also attended changeover. The father sent an SMS text message to the mother:

[123]

The mother expressed concern that the father had shared his phone with someone else and had shared intimate photos of herself with other people, as well. The mother said that she subsequently received photographs of herself giving birth to the children and photos of the father by her side and other family photos accompanied by further SMS text messages right through to 10 December 2022.
The father requested that police conduct a welfare check on the children in her care. The children were sighted happy and healthy in her care. The mother identified that despite the father's behaviour she was afraid not to comply with Court orders, and the mother messaged the father informing him that she would initiate the children's communication with him.
In late 2022, a provisional apprehended violence order was made naming the father as defendant and the mother as the protected person. The conditions included a non-approach order. The father breached the ADVO on several occasions, and the breaches were listed in the Suburb FF Local Court to be heard in early 2024. The mother received a text message from the father stating that he had lost his phone on Sunday afternoon. Despite the issues of the father's behaviour, the mother was afraid not to comply with the Court orders and sent a text message informing the father that she would initiate children's communication with him.
The mother recalled during the call, that the father commenced to denigrate the mother to the children, including telling them that she was the reason they were not seeing him. The mother had to terminate the call as the children commenced getting distressed. The mother followed up in a text message, and the father proceeded to say that the mother had stolen his phone and written messages to herself from his phone.
The mother subsequently received six voice messages from the father that were horrifying, including screaming at her and blaming her for the current orders in place. The mother noted the father can be heard professing his love for her and then, in others, he is threatening to kill himself. In one of the messages, the father can be heard saying words to the effect of:

[127]

The mother records that at approximately 11.08 am she received a message from the father stating that she had his mobile and sending the messages to herself from his phone. The father sent further 13 SMS messages from this different mobile phone. The mother identified that the messages and recordings are distressing and highly convoluted with the father's tirades. The mother stated that as a result of the father's persistent behaviour, she held concern for her safety, the children's safety, and concerns for the father's mental wellbeing.
The mother attended the Suburb FF police, and the police were equally concerned. A provisional apprehended violence order was made naming the father as the defendant and naming the mother as the protected persons, with conditions, and a non-approach order. After the ADVO was made, the mother continued to present the children to Mr Cagley as he was adamant to show the Court that she could not comply with orders, and the father threatened that the mother would get into trouble.
The mother referred to arrangements being made for the father's friend to collect the children from Suburb FF Police Station as the mother was fearful of the father and was not comfortable to be around or near him. The mother observed this continued for one and a half months, or three fortnightly visits, before the father and his friend had a falling-out and the friend stopped coming to the Suburb FF to collect the children or return them to the mother. The mother observed this continued until early 2023.
The mother referred to the Court child expert's family report release on 24 February 2023, and the father commencing a tirade of messages professing his love for the mother and sent a message of goodbye: "You will always be in my heart. I'm sorry I broke yours. Use the calls and text sent. Send them to the police send me away so you all are safe from me."
In around March 2023, the mother commenced receiving personalised letters in a mailbox that did not have an address or postage stamp. The mother observed the letter was signed by the father and contained apologies for him treating the mother so badly and pleas for time with the children and professing his undying love for the mother, asserting, "I would have done anything for you," and, "There's nothing I would not do to have a life with you." The mother observed that some of the letters with the children had contained inappropriate content.
The mother was concerned that the father was approaching her home while she was inside and reported the letters to the police. The mother was aware that the police breached the father for not complying with the ADVO because of sending those letters.
In early 2023, a no contact interim apprehended violence order was made for the mother's protection from the father. The mother observed the father breached the ADVO, which is being heard in Suburb FF in late 2023. The mother observed the father made no attempts to contact her through her lawyer to make new arrangements regarding the children between March and May 2023. In early '23, the father was charged with three counts of breach ADVO, as the father had contacted the mother numerously by payphone. The mother believed the father had contacted her in that way so that he would not be detected by the police.
The mother referred to a breach on 14 April '23, when the father requested the police conduct welfare checks on the children in her care, and the children were sighted happy and healthy in her care. In early '23, another provisional ADVO was made for the protection of the mother through the Town D Police. That ADVO was breached by the father. The father's behaviour significantly deteriorated since the making of the interim parenting orders. The mother expressed concern about the rapid decline in the co-parenting relationship and the father's erratic and clearly disturbed behaviour towards her and the children. The mother observed that she is fearful and cannot go on any longer with the current arrangements.
On 2 June 2023, the father requested the police conduct a welfare check on the children. The police were asking for the mother's location, as the father had requested they do a welfare check on the kids. Even when the police had seen her standing at the top of the stairs, the mother observed that, "Given you have sighted the children twice, is this absolutely necessary?", and the police officer said, "Unfortunately, it is, as we need to do what's requested." On 10 June '23, despite all these events occurring, the mother tried to call the father for his communication with the children. The father did not answer. Later that night, the father contacted the mother and arranged a video chat between the father and the children, which went for 19 minutes. The mother records that she facilitated another video call on 11 June '23 between the father and the children, as the children were missing him, and that the video chat lasted 29 minutes.
On 19 June 2023, the father commenced an SMS text to the mother, starting:

[133]

In late 2023, a final ADVO was made for the mother's protection in the Suburb FF Local Court. On 28 June '23, the father commenced contacting her lawyer and made threats to take legal action against her. The father alleged that he had been forced to complete an insurance job on her car to help her claim money on it that was not true. The father had spoken of burning the mother's car and making it look like theft, and the mother told him that she did not want him to commit a crime.
Without the mother's knowledge, the father took her car keys and car, and she thought it was, in fact, stolen. The father then threatened the mother that he would report her to the police for insurance fraud unless she agreed to drop the ADVO made for her protection. The mother fervently denied the allegations that she coerced him to steal the car and burn it for an insurance job. The father continued to email the mother's solicitor, and this continued even after he became legally represented.
The mother identified being extremely concerned as to the father's mental health and state of mind had deteriorated, leading him to act irrationally, erratically, and that he has no insight into his behaviour, leading to continued criminal behaviour and violence. The mother opined that the children are not safe in the father's care. The mother then turned to difficulties with changeover.
The mother observed the pursuant to orders made on 5 September 2022, the mother and father attending changeover at Town QQ McDonald's each fortnight for the commencement of the father's time and the father's driving the children back to the Suburb FF McDonald's which was closer to the mother's home.
On 14 October 2022 the mother drove the children to the father's friend at Suburb RR, and they came back with the mother and were happy.
On 21 October 2022 the father did not have a working vehicle, and time did not go ahead.
On 4 November 2022 the children spent overnight time with the father. When the children were returned to the mother's care, X could not sleep until late at night and O did not eat his dinner.
On 18 November 2022 the father requested commencing using a third party for changeovers, and the mother notes the father missed his visit on 15 November 2022 because he had been assaulted and could not drive for the next eight to 10 weeks.
On 19 November 2022 the father refused to agree changeover at Suburb V, and changeover commenced at U Store at Town QQ at the commencement of time and U Store at Suburb V for the conclusion of time. The mother records that the father often demanded a change of location for changeovers at the last minute. The father often said that he was unable to drop them off or pick them up and requested the mother collect the children or drop them off to him in Town QQ to make his time with the children possible. The mother records that when it came to time for collecting the children, the father would change the time or not show up and the entire thing was unworkable as the mother had limited financial means and had to care for the children.
On 16 December 2022 changeover took place at Town QQ Police Station at the commencement of the father's time and at Suburb SS Police Station at the conclusion. The mother observed that both X and Y were extremely unsettled on their return to her care, and that Y said words to the effect "I hate you, you're a bitch", and X said, "[Mr L] and [Y] is my only brother because [O] and [H] hurt me, and you do nothing to stop them. I hate you." The mother noted that these are not things the children had ever said to her before.
On 24 November 2022 the children spent time with the father overnight, and when returned to the mother at Suburb FF Police Station, X came home saying, "[H] and [O] are not my brothers because they are mean to me." The mother observed that X and Y were very unsettled, and also X saying that she hates the mother and wants to live with the father.
At the end of December 2022 to early 2023 the father gave up his time with the children. From mid-January 2023 the children attended changeover with the father's friend at Suburb FF Police Station, and this occurred three times.
In early February '23 X and Y were extremely unsettled whenever they were returned to the mother's care. The mother observed that X and Y would not settle well before going to bed, and that X was calling the mother hurtful names like bitch and that the mother is stupid and that she hates the mother.
Towards mid-February '23 X started to call the mother by her first name when she returned home from the father's care but would revert to calling her Mummy a day or two later.
On 23 February '23 the father refused to see the children after release of the family report. The mother ceased feeling safe to effect changeover herself, and the father made no attempt to arrange alternative changeovers with the mother after the early 2023 AVO.
The father missed Y's birthday in 2023 but attended the mother's home without her knowledge or consent and dropped off the children's belongings, toys, boxes of clothes and bedding.
On 11 May '23 the mother engaged new lawyers offering to make changeovers in a supervised capacity as the mother feared what the father may do if they came face to face. The mother did not effect changeover at Town QQ as demanded by the father because she wanted something safe to occur.
The mother on 1 June records that the father insisted through his lawyer that the mother affect changeover at his home. The mother records feeling pressured to offer some time and hoped that the denial of anything being wrong by the father's solicitor was true.
On 2 June the mother responded to the father's correspondence dated 1 June informing that she would agree to a public place halfway between Town D and Town QQ. The mother indicated that if she did not hear back from the father changeover would be effected at Suburb FF Police Station, and the father did not respond. The mother presented the children to Suburb FF Police Station and remained there for an hour, and the father did not attend the changeover.
On 2 June '23 arrangements were made through solicitors for the mother to take the children back to Suburb FF Police Station despite the mother's concern that the children would be tired and be subject to a long drive to Town QQ where the father resides after drop-off as the mother was desperate for assistance with the children while the mother moved to a new home. The mother waited for the father at the Suburb FF Police Station for approximately an hour and a half before leaving as the father did not attend. Whilst driving home the Suburb FF Police Station contacted the mother to identify they had been contacted by the father to conduct a welfare check on the children who had care as he was concerned they were not in their beds.
There was a third request for a changeover at 10 pm at night which the mother declined. The mother's lawyer recorded the events in correspondence sent to the father's lawyer.
On 16 June '23 the mother attempted to facilitate the father's time with the children and presented the children to the Suburb FF Station, and the father demanded the mother attend Town QQ and collect the children because he had car problems. Upon return of the children, Y was calling the mother by her first name, and X was upset that the father did not take her out of the house the entire weekend. X and Y both had a set of clothes missing.
On 22 June 2023 the mother received a message from the father meant for the children saying, "I have the steering wheel. Please stop." The mother took this as a suicide threat and did not facilitate the children's time with the father as a result.
On 28 June '23 the mother informed the father about the change to the children's practitioners and received a response, "Please stop contacting me. This is a form of harassment."
On 14 July '23 the father sent an email to the mother's lawyer that he could not have the children as he was moving houses. The mother referred to the telephone calls that take place being sporadic and the father being focused on asking questions of the mother about the court or directing slurs at the mother, and on one occasion in December '22 screamed, "Shut the fuck up, [Ms Hearst]", which X heard, and the mother was forced to terminate the call.
The mother recorded that the calls made in June and July '23 were not answered by the father. The mother referred to trying to keep the father informed of the children's circumstances to the best of her ability, but identified it was causing her stress, anxiety and fear that she will be subject to the father's tirades, threats, and in general, harassing behaviour.
The mother identified an inappropriate response by the father in relation to being informed about X's medical appointments on 24 July '23. The mother recorded that the father continued to say that she is in breach of family orders, and that the mother is stressed out about not complying with Court orders and fearful of the father. The mother identified it was difficult to co-parent with the father, including keeping him informed of things, as this always somehow opened the mother up to conflict and emotional and psychological stress.
The mother also identified receiving letters in the smashed up mobile in her letterbox from 8 March '23, and received a payphone voice message from the father confessing it was him who had left the items for her.
The mother records that since interim orders were made, the father uses video calls or attempts to communicate with the children to speak to the mother using inappropriate language, name calling, to question X about the mother's life and her parenting, and to simply put the mother down as a mother.
The mother records that the father repeatedly used a payphone to contact the mother and leave messages that were not related to the children, and then denied that he was the author of the payphone calls to the police.
The mother identified on 15 May '23 the children's child care centre contacted her regarding the father being quite upset and verbally abusive because of them not allowing the father to see Y while he was at the centre. The mother identified that she did not want Y's enrolment being jeopardised due to the father's persistence in going to the child care. The mother recorded that she is terrified the father will remove the children from the child care and not return them. The mother noted that the father had made repeated requests to contact him so that he could speak with the children, however when the mother does so, he does not answer.
The mother identified the father leaving voice messages inappropriately asserting that the mother is not following the Court orders and dropping her off and doing phone calls like she was meant to, and that he would see them soon, and asserting that there is a new house with new furniture, and that he has a new "fuck car", and that they would hear from him soon.
On 10 June '23 in a video call the father was telling the children that it is the mother's fault they have not seen him, using words to the effect, "Mummy has blocked me", and that he needed to go to Town D Police Station to sort a few things out. The father had a further conversation with the children on Sunday, and again told the children that he had not seen the kids, and that it is the mother's fault. This approach by the father continued in June until the mother made the last call on 30 June and the father did not answer.
The mother identified that the father had denigrated her and called her names on social media platforms, calling the mother "a deceitful, disrespectful, narcissistic, abusive, violent, aggressive, controlling, and manipulative person." The mother identified the father posting on Facebook the mother's full name attached to posts, and sending out a message to the two children and asserting that God takes his vengeance upon those who do harm and included the threat that "we are here to do God's work." The mother expressed concern that the father denigrates her to other people.
The mother identified having received repeated and numerous contacts through payphones from the father.
The mother identified that she had been the primary carer of both the children since birth and identified the numerous parenting activities and routines that she attended to.
The mother observed that the father rarely assisted around the home, and that the most he would do was cook dinner.
The mother observed the father has not worked full-time since she gave birth to X.
The mother referred to the children in her care being very happy, bubbly, and healthy.
The mother referred to Y having a minor speech delay.
The mother referred to the children saying that they miss the father, that is, referred to X saying that she misses the father, and Y asking about the father. The mother noted that to date, the father has made no attempt to contact the supervisors to engage in supervised time with the children.
The mother observed that the father appears to care for the kids when he does not have to do much for them but forgets about them when he must take active steps to care for them or do things for them.
The mother referred to completing the parenting after separation program on 15 December '22, and that she had been fortunate enough to obtain permanent housing in Town D, and relocated for many reasons, including that she did not feel safe due to the father and did not wish to disclose her address.
In mid-2023 the mother was contacted by City TT Police concerned for the father's welfare and as to his mental health.
On 30 July '23 the mother received a message from the father's mother, and the father posted online that he was homeless. The mother did not accept that the children should be sleeping at random places.
The mother observed that the father did not pursue time with the children between the interim hearing and until 10 October '23.
The mother notes the matter was listed for a final hearing on 7 December '23, and that the father's lawyers withdrew from the proceedings, and that the mother did not oppose an adjournment because she wanted the father to get the benefit of legal guidance and advice. The father acknowledged that he had mental health problems, and that he wanted to work on those problems. The mother was hopeful that the father would use time until the next hearing to improve his behaviour and that they could move on from the trauma and conflict. The mother observed that this has not occurred, and that she has been struggling and living with conflict and constant fear of what the father might do next.
The mother referred to a video posted by the father on Facebook which she identified was intimidatory where he declared he had successfully manipulated the Court and was proud of the manipulation, and that he was coming for the mother. In that video the father said words, as identified in the chronology. The mother was alarmed at the father's message that had clearly been intended for her and caused her lawyers to write to the father.
The father posted on his public Facebook profile a video of the mother giving birth to X without the mother's knowledge or consent.
The mother observed that a nude video of her entire body released on the internet for everyone around the world to see caused her extreme distress. The mother recalled shaking, feeling sick to her stomach, being embarrassed, mortified, horrified and scared. The mother observed the video was taken when she was under the influence of an epidural during a long labour by the father, and she did not agree to the father to take any such recording.
The mother observed the father had posted threats and comments such as "I am uploading everything uncut. Every fight, the birth of [X], every photo of you, me, the kids, every text I have, every recording. Goodbye, [Ms Hearst]." The mother reported the online video to the police.
The mother observed since the making of the interim orders on 7 December '23 the father has sent numerous proposals that he withdraws or takes back, and that the mother is exhausted. The mother observed that these proposals have included overnight time with the children, and that she is concerned about moving forward with overnight time arrangements or any unsupervised arrangements because the father has not demonstrated any reform.
The mother observed that the father has not offered any new information about his mental health treatment or progress, nor that his drug use has ceased, nor that his personal circumstances have improved.
The mother observed the father was homeless or living in a car or van, and that this was not suitable arrangements for the children.
The mother identified a string of horrendous names that the father has continued to call her in conversations and continues to denigrate the mother. The denigrating words and names include:

[135]

The mother observed that the correspondence from the father is ongoing and comes in bursts every few months. The mother observed a pattern of behaviour where the father will settle and then resume his tirade of attacks against the mother every few months.
The mother is concerned that when there is no more Court, the father's behaviour will be unmonitored, will increase, and the mother is concerned that the father will find her and harm her.
The mother identified the propensity of the father to blame her for things that are not her fault and gave an example of a tirade during Father's Day, blaming the mother for not facilitating the children.
The mother referred to a multiple of texts asserting that she was not complying with Court orders when there was no such arrangement in place and said those actions are a form of abuse and that she is extremely stressed out by the father's words.
The mother identified that the father has caused her to further fear his stalking and intimidatory behaviour. The mother referred to the father taking a photograph of her and the children leaving the contact centre. The father did not abide by the rules of the contact centre, and the mother found this extremely concerning as the father has located her whereabouts in the past which has caused her to fear for her life.
The mother identified the father continuing to post things using a false name "[...]", which includes threats towards the mother and threats of self-harm, and set out a tirade that was posted by the father.
The mother observed the father has been threatening towards her elder child, H, which raises the mother's concern as to the father's lethality and tendency towards acting in violent ways.
The father has publicly shamed and named H as a predator.
The father made a false report to DCJ that the mother broke X's arm, when X in fact broke her arm at school.
The mother referred to the father's reports to DCJ, welfare checks and home visits because of neglect allegations made by him in relation to the mother, including causing the mother to be investigated by PP Service.
The mother identified that communications on the app began on 15 February '24, and identified 10 unanswered calls made between 28 February '24 to 30 June '24.
The mother identified the father answered on 3 July '24 and informed the children that he would be residing in the USA, and he had to have the children blocked, and that they would never have a chance to do fun things again. The mother expressed concern that the father was seeking emotional validation from the children and set out the text of the assertions by the father he would be living in America. The mother recalls that the children were shocked.
The mother recalls in a call on 7 August '24 X telling the father that she had a boyfriend and that she did not need to lie to Daddy for Mummy.
On 4 September '24 X was crying and distressed and was being asked by the father questions about missing the father repeatedly, and the father then asked the children what they got their other Daddy, causing X to become distressed and the mother to intervene in the telephone call.
There were further telephone calls between 11 September '24 and 9 October '24, and on 6 November '24 the father asked X if a man named Mr UU is the mother's boyfriend and started asking intimate questions about the mother's personal life. The father also suggested to X that he had only one visit left and would not be seeing them again.
On 30 October '24 the father told the children there were only two more opportunities he had to see them. The mother records that the father said some very horrible things to the children including that he would abandon them, never see them again, and that he is relocating overseas, and that the mother is to blame for them not seeing him more often and more.
The mother records the father has consistently manipulated the children emotionally and undermined the mother during the audio visual calls and inserts false narratives, asking misleading questions that confuse the children and negatively affect their emotional wellbeing. As an example of an inappropriate question, the mother referred to the father asking:

[136]

The mother deposed that such questions it is also implied that the mother intentionally hurt the children and that they do not want to live with the mother.
The mother expressed concern about the impact of the father's behaviour on the children and concern about the children's mental, psychological, and emotional wellbeing in the future. The mother observed the children experience confusion and distress due to the lack of regular contact with the father which disrupts their sense of security and stability.
The mother observed that if the father is granted visitation, she is concerned that his inconsistency will continue further harming the children's emotional health and daily routines. The mother referred to the supervised visits as being inconsistent visits with the children.
The mother identified the father spending time with the children supervised on 2 March '24, 23 March '24, and that 13 April '24 was cancelled by the father, and on 10 May the father informed the mother that he would not be attending until further notice, and there were no further visits until 3 August '24, and that the father, on 3 August '24, cancelled that visit. The father cancelled the visit for 14 September '24. The father spent time with the children on 26 September '24, 12 October '24, and 2 November '24. The mother observed that the father is unpredictable, and the only consistency is his erratic and inconsistent and concerning behaviour that negatively impacts on the children's emotional and mental wellbeing.
The mother observed that the children experience confusion and distress due to the lack of regular contact which disrupts their sense of security and stability. The mother observed that if the father is granted visitation, she is concerned his inconsistency will continue further harming the children's emotional health and daily routines.
The mother referred to the struggle for the child O going on long drives and trips and that it takes another almost two hours to get to Suburb K.
The mother observed that the children's education is on track and that there are no development issues other than Y's speech delay.
The mother observed that X is helpful, kind, caring and shares and does everything asked when not spending time with the father, and that other than the times when she comes back from the father's care, X is pleasant and a well-behaved child.
The mother referred to the children having therapy, and that they attend those sessions as part of their ongoing emotional and psychological support.
The mother referred to the children regularly seeing a paediatrician and dentist, and additionally a support for Y's speech, emotional regulation and behaviour.
The mother referred to an assertion that she had punched Y in the face and said that the story was entirely false, and the mother was unclear where the allegation stemmed from.
The mother identified that she seeks support from doctors and counsellors when she feels it is necessary and currently undergoing domestic violence counselling to help process the trauma she has experienced in the relationship with the father.
The mother referred to a medical condition and two minor surgeries.
The mother referred to orders for a PO box for the father to send gifts, which the father has not used at all, and the expense of maintaining that PO box.
The annexures to the mother's affidavit include communications from the father to the mother's solicitor that were abusive and manipulative. On 4 September 2024, the father falsely alleged he had cameras inside the mother's home and accused the mother of narcissistic manipulative tactics to cause his mental health breakdown. On 2 September 2024 the father alleged abuse by the mother. On 6 May 2024, the father called the mother a

[145]

The Court notes exhibit F was dated 12 October 2020 and was filed at the same time as the originating application and an interim application by the mother seeking a recovery order in relation to the two children and that the mother filed an affidavit in support of the interim application and that there was a response filed on the same date by the father seeking to have the proceedings discontinued or transferred and that the father filed a notice of risk, which was marked exhibit E.
When asked whether there was no risk that the father presents to the safety of the children in cross-examination, the mother said, "I don't agree at all." The mother explained that she answered the question and noted a risk, assuming on the basis that it referred to physically harming the children. The mother did not accept that the father does not at present, present a risk of abuse to the children in relation to the suggestion of whether there were incidents of abuse by the father, the mother replied, "Yes, but not physical at the present time." The mother accepted that there had been no physical abuse by the father, of the children.
When the mother was asked about an incident involving H, being the mother's child from a previous relationship, involving sexual activity towards his younger brother, O, who was a child from a previous relationship, the mother was asked about the incident between H and O, and said he was led by another child to do so. The mother accepted that the father was justified in having a concern about X and Y being in the presence of H, and indicated that is why H is no longer in her care. The mother indicated that H has supervised contact with the other children. The mother identified she suggested supervised visits for H, who currently resides in a juvenile detention centre.
The mother agreed that there was a previous AVO applied for by the father, and recalled the incident where the father was taking her phone, and she tried to get it back. The mother said that when she tried to explain her side to the police officer, they did not want to listen, and when she explained she just tried to get back her phone, the police took it as an assault, and that is how the AVO came out against her. The mother confirmed that she tried to take her phone back from the father and that she tried to wrestle the phone out of his hands. The mother confirmed that before that she had asked for the phone to be returned by the father a number of times and he had told her to wait and that he was trying to put in contact numbers and that is what she was trying to stop him doing. The mother was not sure whether the incident was in 2018 or 2020. The mother disagreed that she could physically pin the father to the lounge and identified that he was able to stand. The mother disagreed that she shook or hit the father.
The mother was asked about ripping the TV off the wall, throwing it to the ground, and said that was another incident. The mother explained she did that because she felt as if she wasn't able to leave the room and that the father was preventing her from leaving the bedroom and that she had no other option but to do that so that she could get out of the room. The mother explained she thought it was her only option to get out of the room. The mother disagreed that when angry, she normally breaks things.
The mother agreed that when she separated from the father on September '20, she told the father to take both of the children to further prevent physical harm towards herself and the children witnessing that. The mother denied taking the father's keys and locking him out from his belongings. The mother disagreed that she told the father he would be doing her a favour by taking the children or that he would be helping her.
The mother agreed that after separation, up until early 2022, on a few occasions she slept with the father and described it as somewhat consensual. The mother said that the father had offered to trade sex with the mother for returning X. The mother explained that that was when she was asked by the father to have sex with him in relation to having time with X. The mother said she did not have consensual sex with him after that and that there were only two occasions after separation where they had sex.
The mother disagreed that she had sex with the father after he sent a message, and that it was a number of weeks before he had asked whether she would have sex with him for time with X.
The mother said she had only had sex with him twice and that was before he had said what he said and that there was no time after that.
The mother agreed that in December 2022 there was an occasion where she went to Region VV with the children and spent the day together with the father. The mother agreed that on that occasion, the children were happy on a boat with the father and that from the pictures she had seen, the father cared for the children and met their needs on that occasion. The mother indicated she did not recall leaving the children with the father unsupervised.
The mother agreed that she had postnatal depression after she gave birth to her oldest child, H.
The mother identified the mood swings were part of the postnatal depression and that she experienced then forgetfulness, and that she didn't feel good enough for her child.
The mother denied that she ever experienced extreme anger.
The mother explained that she only took medication for the initial onset of post-natal depression, and that she then worked with a counsellor for better ways to treat the condition without medication and said that she does not currently take medication.
The mother denied that she had a tendency to overreact to minor things. The mother identified that H stays with WW Organisation at the present time, being an organisation run through DCJ. The mother identified that H is allowed to visit every second weekend. Just for a few hours on one day. The mother said she is still a parent to H. The mother did not accept that she had care of H. The mother accepted, like every parent, she gets angry and with X, she asks her to give her time so she can gather her thoughts and then talks to her as a child. The mother denied calling X names and denied hitting X in the face. The mother denied, in 2016, deliberately running her vehicle into the back of the father's vehicle and denied that she blacked out. In 2017, the mother accepted she said to M, "Your dad is not here to protect you this time, is he?" The mother denied throwing a cup of coffee at the father in early 2019. The mother denied breaching the AVO for the protection of the father.
The mother identified being taunted by the father, daring her to throw the cup and said she picked it up and put it back down. The mother denied pushing M against a wall in 2020. The mother agreed that arguments with M had resulted in M hurting the mother not the mother hurting M with M being physical. The mother said she tried to get M to keep a routine, going to bedtime and took her phone, and M pushed her up against the wall and made threats towards her. The mother denied pushing M. The mother asked the father to physically remove M from her. The mother denied having repartnered. The mother explained that X would tell the father she has a new partner because she was trying to seek some form of attention from the father, but that the mother had not repartnered. The mother agreed that the children love the father and that they say they want to spend time with the father. The mother disagreed that the children should spend time with the father without being watched or monitored and said, given the history of the father's mental health, it should be supervised.
The mother said she had no mental health issue of relapse since 2008. The mother did not accept that if the father's mental health stabilised, it would be good for the children to have unsupervised contact with the father. The mother explained that it would then go back to family violence where the kids are being coerced into saying things and things like that which is currently happening and which the mother is trying to protect the children from. The mother agreed that there had been no instance of physical domestic violence by the father towards X and Y but that there had been to M and Mr L. The mother disagreed that she had been physically violent towards the father and that the father took her phone. The mother said she did call the police, and that she wanted to get the phone off him, and that he had no right to take her phone and did not want him putting contacts into her phone to make out that he was lying to the police which was what he was trying to do. The mother said the father was trying to manipulate the police into thinking that she was the issue when she was not.
The mother agreed that the children currently enjoy spending time with the father at supervised visits. The mother identified that the last unsupervised visit with X was when she was about three or four. The mother said that all children love to spend time with their parents. Whether that is good for them or not is another question altogether. The mother confirmed her position that there should be no unsupervised time between the father and the children. The mother was asked about changing her position from the application filed on 11 November 2024 that there be no face-to-face contact to proposing supervised contact.
The mother identified she was motivated by what makes the children happy, but also highly motivated by protecting them as well. The mother denied that she was motivated by enmity towards the father and puts herself in his shoes all the time. The mother denied that she was motivated by the practical inconvenience of facilitating contact with the father. The mother identified the only inconvenience she has is the fact the father doesn't have unsupervised time with them. The mother said it would be in the best interests of the children and herself for there to be unsupervised time, if it is safe to do so, and that this was her belief last year when they requested mental health assessments.
The independent children's lawyer, Mr Jackson, took the mother to the Court child expert's family report, and the mother confirmed that she consented to interim orders on 7 December '23 that permitted the children to spend time with the father at a contact centre. The mother agreed the children should have face-to-face time, as long as it's obviously safe. The mother said that X might have daddy issues later in her life if she didn't have contact with her father, and that it would be the same with Y. The mother said she believed the children should have both parents around in some way, shape or form. The mother confirmed that the children appeared quite happy to see their father in the supervised visit in March 2024.
The mother agreed the children were saying they really wanted to see their father. The mother confirmed that, up until today, her case had been no time, and that she had some regrets about the interim orders made on 7 December. The mother said she had recommended no time because of the high conflict between the father and her and didn't want the children witnessing that. The mother said she believed the children should have some time with the father, but it's going to be supervised, so there's minimal risk to what they see and hear when it comes to the father and mother. The mother said there has been high conflict from the father since 7 December 2023. The mother says this relates to video and text messages and when the father chats to the children on a Wednesday.
In relation to having sole parental responsibility, the mother said she and the father cannot agree on anything, and that the mother is able to identify what supports and services the children need, and she does not believe the father can do that, considering he cannot do it for himself. In relation to education arrangements, the mother referred to the father feeling there should be one school forever, and that she feels whatever school is catering to the children's needs. In relation to the family report, the mother agreed she spoke of a wish for the children to spend time with the father and his extended family if it's deemed safe.
When asked why the mother currently thinks it would not be safe for the children to spend time unsupervised with the father, the mother said it is because the father puts her in a position where the children are being coerced to do things that they do not really want to do. The mother said she is questioned extensively about her private life when it comes to pick-ups and drop-offs, and that they are quite volatile. The mother was asked about the problem with video chats on Wednesday, where the father made an assertion X disclosed information to a supervision lady, that X said that she told the lady that the mother had punched her in the leg. During the call, the father was telling X to go tell the school and the teachers, and if she did that, it would be okay.
The mother explained that there had never been any such incident where she hit X. When asked about whether the children would be safe with the father in the future, the mother said, "Given his current mental health at this point of time, I don't think that would be safe on an ongoing basis." The mother referred to the father's mental health and need for ongoing treatment and the past physical harm to M and Mr L. The mother was concerned that he might be fine now, but might not be fine in the future. The mother accepted that she needed some sort of convincing that his mental health had significantly improved and his parenting as well. The mother referred to going to counselling and that she would follow the recommendations given by XX Service. The mother explained the counselling services available through XX Service and that she had benefited from attending the same and improved herself as a parent. The mother said that the insights as to co-parenting did not work at all. The mother referred to effective communication and that the father never comes back to her proposed times, and that it keeps going back and forth and never agreed upon, and that the mother is left bending to what the father wants.
The mother identified trying, on a number of occasions, to introduce contact between the children and the paternal members of the family, and that she had contacted the paternal grandmother. The mother identified that the children had not been having communication with the paternal grandparents since last year and that father has allowed them to come into video calls. The mother identified that she was concerned that paternal family members would let the children come into contact with the father and that the mother would not encourage that. The mother identified feeling that the ongoing controlling stalking had continued, at some level, with the controlling, and referred to the father going to lengths to obtain information, like taking photographs of her at the contact centre, which happened recently. The mother identified feeling that is a form of stalking and that the father did not comply with the F Contact Service set policies and procedures. The mother said she did not feel confident to talk to the father about the incident she perceived occurred.
The mother confirmed she had felt a sense of vulnerability in the last few years in the context of her relationship with the father. The mother was asked about 2016 and whether she ever felt safer under the same roof as the father and said on occasions, she did. On other occasions, when he was frightening and escalated, she did not. The mother said she was cautious of what she would say and do and still is to an extent. The mother identified the father dragging his two children by the shirts and along the ground, or another way he would do it was grabbing by the arms and dragging them along the ground. The father made verbal threats not to push his temper or his limits, and that the father could do anything he wanted, really. The mother observed a lack of teaching and discipline, an absence of positive reinforcement and things like that. The mother raised her concerns in relation to his treatment of the stepchildren, but felt like she was never being heard and it got to a point where she was not being heard with her own children.
The mother was asked about the father's excessive discipline and confirmed that she feared he may do the same to X and Y if he struggles with managing their behaviours. The mother noted she was told by DCJ that if she did not leave the relationship with the father, then her own children will be removed from her care, because the father was not following the advice from DCJ. That advice was concerning his parenting techniques and removing himself from conflict in the home and preventing future arguments and further family domestic violence. The mother said the father had a lack of parenting strategies in relation to X and Y, and that he believes the children may be treated in the same way as Mr L and M. The mother said that she did not hit O. The mother said there had been regular attendance by the DCJ or police caused by the father. And that the father would request DCJ or police attend once a week, and ask the police to do a welfare check.
In relation to the father losing his job and having a mental breakdown, the mother said she saw the same behaviours that he was doing before. The mother referred to the father already having lost his children and was already getting looked into with physically disciplining his children, his marijuana use and lack of parenting skills towards the children, an unhealthy environment, and living arrangements. The mother said she has not seen anything since she was last in a relationship with the father regarding his mental health treatment or progress. The mother was asked about the father's threats of suicide or suicide ideation, and said that if he has bad thoughts, he will voice those to the children, seeking validation from X and Y. And that would severely emotionally affect the children's wellbeing in the long-term. The mother said the father has not got self-control to restrain himself from telling the children things.
The mother confirmed that she would require some sort of medical evidence relation to the assessment of the father's health, like ongoing evidence, and not just see a psychiatrist for a period of time and say this is medication. The mother said there needs to be consistent involvement with the psychologist and consistently following guidance. The mother said throughout her relationship, nothing like that has ever been done and that the father will not continue with counselling, and has not followed the recommendations of DCJ, and that he is not following the recommendations of anything, now, really. The mother referred to taking into account the opinion of the independent children's lawyer and that she has always wanted the children safe and herself safe mentally and physically. The mother referred to the children experiencing ongoing coercive control, manipulation and stuff via video, audio and at drop-off times, and does not consider that being safe for anybody and that is why she was putting forward no time. The mother identified that there were some real drawbacks in the children not having time with the father.
The mother was asked about the time by the father with the children not being very consistent and said that was a concern of hers and that the inconsistency is why she suggested no time, as she believes it would be detrimental to the children's mental health and wellbeing for the children to have time and then, no time at all. The mother agreed as to the importance of consistency if there was supervised time. The mother said the father had resumed supervised visits, she assumed, to find out information about her home life, because it showed up in the photo and then, the lawyer communication and continues in the video calls, as well as on Wednesday. The mother identified the children are impacted when the father sees them and then, when he does not see them. The mother referred to the children as starting to blame her as to why they cannot see the father. The mother said they are more confused and basically upset. The mother said the children are more unsettled during Wednesday video calls than anything, and that Y is highly escalated, and that there is nothing she can do to calm him down, unless the phone call has ended and that she sits Y down where he can self-regulate with her there. The mother identified that there is no way she can calm him down when the father is on the phone and it is like when a tiger sees prey, but they cannot physically get to the prey and it is left not knowing what. The mother said she feels that Y feels left out and does not know how to get a read on his father, where X is different, and she seems to be more settled on a Wednesday, but then, more heightened not on a Wednesday. When asked about the impact on the mother of the Wednesday video calls, she says it depends on the father's mood. But that there are times when the father has got a point to prove, or he wants the mother to know something which the children do not need to know and implying the mother is in a relationship or implying the children are lying to him and that she does not know how to console the children during those times and that she does not know whether to completely end the conversation, and that she is very conflicted during those times. The mother said when she ends the calls abruptly, she gets abused by X and she tries to explain that she is trying to protect her little ears from bad things that she could possibly hear.
The Court asked the mother how she would cope if the Court were to allow ongoing supervised access and weekly calls, and the mother said she cannot answer that, because anybody can change at any time. The mother said she has been hoping the father will change for their benefit and his own, but at this stage, it does not seem like anything is going to change. The mother referred to the problems in dropping the kids off and the location, and the change of time despite specific orders, and the uncertainty of whether the father will bring the children back to the mother. The mother said she was coping quite fine with the current supervised time, but that she is definitely struggling with the video calls, and that she could not predict the mood of the father would be in when he has the conversations with the children.
The mother confirmed she feels the children are safe in a supervised contact centre, and that they clearly love their father and get benefit from seeing the father in a safe environment. The mother confirmed the children do miss the father. The mother said there have been a number of occasions where the father did not make himself available at the last minute, and that the mother gets the blame for it. The mother confirmed that the children were upset they did not get to see their father on those occasions. The mother said it is even worse during video calls.
In December 2022, the mother said she did not think it was in the best interest of the children to spend unsupervised time with their father, but she was willing to put herself at risk for their benefit. The mother said she did not believe the children would be safe in their father's care, and made a decision based on a sense of intimidation, and that she had great regrets about that decision. The mother identified the concerns she had about conversations the father was having with the children. The mother said there have always been times when he said something that the children should not know or need to know, and it is purely for the mother to know, and that is on every phone call. The mother confirmed the children were shocked when the father told them he was going to be residing in the United States. The mother confirmed that X was quite upset in the conversation where the father was suggesting there was another dad in the home and that X is confused whether she lies and says her mother is in a relationship, or whether she tells him the truth, and the father calls her a liar, and that this is confusing.
The mother said the conversation with the father are very unpredictable and most of the communications are about the father, what he is doing, and nothing, really, about the children and what they are doing and it is all about the father receiving validation and telling the mother what is happening in his life and finding information about her home. The mother said if there was a no contact order in place, then she would feel able to confront the father, but says nothing she says is heard by the father and that is proven in previous text messages.
The mother's affidavit of 10 July 2025 was admitted into evidence without cross-examination and identified concerns that the father is unable to comply with and follow Court orders. The mother identified the father's failure to comply with orders 7, 8 and 13(d). the mother identified the visits that did and did not occur. The mother said the children love seeing the father and get extremely excited and love spending time with him. The mother said the daughter is a different person when she sees the father and tells her she hates the mother and exhibits the bad behaviour for 2 days after supervised visits and then settles down. The mother said the son is out of sought every Wednesday being the date of telephone communication and engages in bad behaviour kicking, yelling and slamming doors that he does not do every other day. The mother referred to the daughter being assessed for suspect ADHD and identified limited payments of child support from 2 January 2025 to 7 August 2025 with $1,727 in child support outstanding. The mother identified the difficulty with transportation costs with taking the children to Suburb K "if it is determined that it is in their best interest to spend time with the father".

[148]

The father alleged the mother would often tell him to leave with the children. The father alleged that the mother stole his house keys and locked him out from being able to get his belongings. The father alleged that he facilitated communication between mother and X when she was with him, and alleged the mother refused the arrangements to spend time with X. The father alleged she had significant care of the children throughout the relationship. The father said he kept the children in routine, and that the mother often sat on the lounge and watched television and was not interested in the children's schooling or care.
The father said he loved his children and missed them very much and that he has a close bond and it has been difficult not seeing them. The father referred to a history of Court proceedings when on 4 December 2020 Judge Newbrun made orders requiring the father to return X to the mother and for the father to spend time with X and Y once a week for four hours. The father alleged that he and the mother were still doing things together in November 2021 and said that in January 2022 he and the mother and children went on a holiday together and had a good holiday.
The father denied offering to trade sex with the mother for X. The father denied pressuring the mother to continue a sexual relationship and expressed the belief they were working on their relationship and bringing their family back together. The father said that on 12 July 2021 there were interim orders for him to spend five hours a week with the children and other times as agreed. In October and November 2021, the father said that they were still on and off, and that the mother invited him to spend time with her and to assist with the children.
In late 2022, the father said the mother took out an interim ADVO against him. The father referred to the children coming up to Region VV in December 2022 and taking the children out on a boat and being happy, and the mother leaving the children with a father for a period of time without any concerns, and that he cared for the children and their needs. The father identified that in late 2023 the ADVO proceedings where he was the defendant were finalised for the ADVO to remain in place for a period of two years.
The father referred to his mental health and said that in late 2016 he suffered from a workplace bullying and harassment incident that caused him to become very depressed, anxious and emotionally hypersensitive. The father referred to having workers compensation proceedings on foot and that he had been unable to work since the incident. The father says the Department of Community Services became involved with the father and the children due to his mental health, that he was diagnosed with PTSD and that his children were placed with his mother, being their parental grandmother.
The father said that when his children were removed from his care, he took advantage of the assistance provided and undertook the following courses:

[150]

The father said he sought professional help and underwent treatment and was medicated for a period of time, and that in 2019 the father ceased taking medication as it was no longer needed. The father said he has tele-consults with Dr YY in Queensland, who prescribes medicinal cannabis. The father said he has a consult every two to three months and does a review. The father said he had been prescribed other medication, but would feel like a zombie, and could not drive and that it impacted on his day-to-day life. The father reduced his other medications and now doesn't take anything else other than medicinal cannabis. The father alleged he is able to function day-to-day and feels much better than when he was taking the other prescribed medications.
The father says the mother does not like to go to doctors and is careful about what she tells them. The father alleges that the mother went to see a counsellor in 2017 and told the counsellor she wanted to kill herself and the children. The father alleges the mother in the past has been prescribed medication to stabilise her moods and would often have significant mood swings and overreact to small incidents. The father recalled on one occasion the mother started and continued an argument with the father for three hours. The father alleged concerns as to the mother's undiagnosed mental health. The father said he had attended his GP on multiple occasions to get a referral for his mental health assessment but had not been able to get one.
The father said he was frustrated in not being able to spend time with his children. The father said that in 2016 he and the mother mutually made a decision to move to City S as the mother was having issues with her mother and wanted to get away. The father says he organised the residence through a City S real estate agent. The father alleges after the property was secured, he and the mother moved all their property to City S.
The father identified concerns in relation to H, who has an intellectual disability and was allegedly sexually overactive. The father alleged he had seen H make advances towards X. The father said that during the 2019 Christmas holidays H, O, and another child had their pants down, touching their penises. The father alleges that he told the mother she had to report the incident. The father alleges he noticed concerning behaviour of H in April or May 2020. The father alleges he observed H touching O's penis again in or about July 2020, and that the mother refused to report the incident to the Department, and that after this the mother moved out with her two children. The father alleges that H became the root of their arguments. The father alleges on 30 September 2020 he told the mother he was leaving and taking Y and X as he was concerned as to their safety. The father recorded the mother packing items for about an hour, and that the police helped the father collect the rest of his belongings, and he left with X. The father alleges he contacted the Department and informed them of the situation on or about 1 October 2020 and advised them that X was now in his care.
The father expressed serious concerns about H being exposed to Y and X. The father alleges the mother had shown no insight in relation to H's behaviours. The father alleged that the mother had left the children with H. The father referred to a conversation with H's father, that the mother was going out with one of her old boyfriends, and that H could be very violent.
The father alleges a close bond with the children, and that they have been happy and comfortable in his care. The father alleged that he attended to all the children's needs during the relationship and following their separation. The father alleges he was involved in short-term/long-term decisions and prided himself about being involved in their day-to-day and long-term decisions. The father said he had not had contact with the children since June 2023. The father alleged at the end of his time with the children, they are upset, and they don't want to go home. The father alleges that X has told him the mother is:

[155]

The father alleged the mother would say he had no evidence of her abusing him. The father alleged that the mother and M ended up in verbal arguments, and that the mother was very controlling. The father alleges that the mother pushed M up against the wall, and that he attempted to separate them. The father alleges that the mother was abusive not only to himself, but to M and Mr L. The father alleges, the mother would yell and scream at himself and his children endlessly, and that the father didn't realise this was domestic violence. The father alleges the mother said very nasty things to M. The father alleges the mother taught the children to call us by our names, and that she didn't care what the father thought.
The father alleges on 3 December 2022, when he dropped off the children to the mother, his mobile phone went missing. The father deposed that he was later served with an ADVO and a message cancelling his time with the children. The father expressed a belief that the mother took the phone at changeover. The father alleges that the mother has a new partner, and that he has been told by X that the new partner has hit X and the mother. The father alleges he has recordings of the mother abusing M and abusing him.
The father said he currently lives in a four-bedroom home with his parents and his son Mr L. The father said he is looking for a place for himself and the children. The father said he is currently in receipt of the Centrelink New Start Allowance. The father alleges he has close family supports and misses his children and seeks for them to live with him, and if that's not possible, to spend regular and consistent time with them. The father alleges the mother has breached orders and not allowed him to spend time with the children, and that he did not believe this was in the best interests of the children as they need stability.
The father said he had a work injury in 2017 and expected the Workers' Compensation claim to be finalised in 2024. On 8 July 2025, the father swore a further affidavit in which he identified compliance with requests by the ICL for drug tests and the father said he only consumes medicinal cannabis as per the medical practitioner's prescription. The father said his work cover pays for the medicinal cannabis as his mental health issues/injuries are workplace related. In relation to mental health, the father attended a psychologist, Mr KK to obtain an assessment of his mental health for these proceedings. The father identified the assessment took place on 9 January, 23 January, 6 February and 20 February and an extra copy of the report.
The father, in his affidavit, referred to the psychologist Mr KK's concern as to how he had been represented to the Court by other parties and opinion that the father's psychopathology has not adversely affected his ability to attend to the appropriate developmental needs of his children.
The father referred to Mr KK, the psychologist, suggesting that he showed a relatively high degree of insight and awareness of his psychological triggers and ways to manage those, and that this insight was a protective factor and that in light of this, the father was not harmful for the children, who he very much loves.
The father referred to Mr KK's, the psychologist, report, that he displayed commitment and engaged in follow-up regarding developing his parenting skills prior to commencing therapy, and that he is committed to ongoing therapy to address PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression.
The father referred to the report of Mr KK, the psychologist, confirming the absence of any clinical evidence to suggest that his mental health poses any direct threat to his children, and suggests that more contact of the children with the father will be beneficial for the children. The father also referred to the report, suggesting ongoing targeted mental health intervention will support the father's capacity as a parent and increase his community participation. The father alleged that this commitment would serve as a powerful template for his children.
The father referred to the psychologist, Mr KK, suggesting that he is capable of extended visits with his children, and that he requires ongoing psychotherapy and additional psychosocial support to address his PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression. The father said he is committed to receiving the ongoing help to improve his mental health, by receiving individual trauma therapy from Dr KK, and social support from family and friends. The father said he is taking care of his health by exercising and going to the gym, and engaging with his friends, siblings and family more. The father said that he felt his life is changing for the better, after receiving this help.
The father alleged he booked therapy sessions and counselling sessions for Mr KK, for the rest of the year, and an annexed a screenshot of the booking.
The father referred to a report from Dr LL from MM Clinic, dated 3 July 2025, stating that he is compliant with her advice, and that he was keen to improve his mental and physical health. The father, again in his affidavit, referred to Dr LL's report, that he is engaging in counselling and has support from his psychologist, and that he is engaging in ongoing sessions arranged for the year.
The father further referred to Dr LL as confirming that his medicinal cannabis has reduced from 130 grams in a month, to under 80 grams in a month, and that he is on a stable and ongoing path to reduce usage further.
The father referred to completing a number of co-parenting and divorce education courses. The father alleged these provided him with useful insight in relation to the importance of co-parenting and how important it is for the children to have loving parents in life. The father alleges the courses taught him that the best interests of the children take precedence over parenting conflicts. The father says the courses also informed him that there is no space for a domestic violence in community, and the importance of ensuring the safety of everyone in the family and in the community. And also helped him overcome the abuse that had he had been inflicted to in his life. The father alleged the courses also helped him to overcome the grief, loss and trauma of himself not being able to see and spend time with the children.
The father said he had learned to be more positive, and was looking forward to spending more time with the children, and to provide them the best in their lives, so that they can be the happiest and best versions of themselves.
The father identified that he was thankful for being able to resume seeing and spending time with the children, and he had loved and enjoyed every bit of it. And that the children have been very happy and excited to see him. And that they have created very joyful moments in life.
The father said that he had not been provided with documentation from the contact centre, but had been told his visitations had been very successful and that the children had been happy and attached to him every time they had seen him. The father said he could not express in words how happy he is to see the children and love his children, to whom he can dedicate his life.
The father said that since the Court listing, he had regularly spent time with his children at F Contact Service, Suburb K, once every three weeks for two hours. And that the visitations were changed to Fridays, at the mother's request, which he agreed.
The father referred to video calls on Wednesday and on special occasions, but says that he did not receive a call on video on Father's Day.
The father explained the missed visitations at the contact centre being because the mother refused to bring the children to the contact centre on approximately three occasions. The father referred to the initial orders that required him to notify the mother directly. The father said the mother refused to bring the children to the contact centre due to technical requirements, pursuant to the Court's orders. The father referred the requirement to communicate directly through the parenting app being inserted through a slip rule that he said he was not aware of. The father referred to a visit being cancelled by the mother because she was in Queensland, and another visit being cancelled because she had to attend an ash spreading ceremony. The father said the time with his children has been very comforting and has re-established his children's attachment to him.
The father said he has never said anything denigrating or derogatory to his children regarding the mother or her family, during these visits, and that he has never mentioned anything to the children regarding Court proceedings or legal matters.
In cross-examination, the father says he chooses to reside in a fully self-contained caravan, and that he can reside in his mother's home. The father said there are bedrooms and shower facilities available inside the home.
The father said once he knows where his children are residing, he will be moving closer to that area so he can spend more time with them.
The father said he had been residing in the caravan for about four months now. The father then agreed that for eight months, he has resided in a caravan on that property. And before that, he said he was staying inside the home. The father said he had been paying rent for residing in the caravan, and that the amount depends on what his mother and father need. The father then said there is no fixed amount, and that he had given his mother and father, this year, about 3 to 4000 dollars.
The father said for a portion of 2023 he was homeless, living out of his car and a box trailer. The father said he came to live in his mother's home in December 2023. The father said he was homeless for about nine months. The father said the property had been living, had become storm damaged, and he had to move out, and that was about March or April 2023.
The father agreed at the time he was homeless, he was spending time with the children. The father said he was having every second weekend with his children, from Friday afternoon until Saturday afternoon, and then said from Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon. The father said when he became homeless, he had phone communication with his children, but he was not able to see them because he had nowhere to take them.
In answer to the question whether the father informed the mother that he was homeless, he said he tried to. And when he did, she had him arrested for breaching the AVO.
The father said the last time he spent time with the children unsupervised was around March 2023, before he became homeless. The father said he had an AVO taken out on him in late 2022, at a time when he was having overnight time. The father said the last unsupervised time with the children was March 2023, prior to becoming homeless. The father identified he tried to communicate this in a telephone call with the children. The father said he did not put it in writing that he had become homeless. The father then said that he spent overnight time with the children between March 2023 and June 2023. The father then said that he did not spend overnight time with the children while he was homeless. The father said he was not good with the order of months and sometimes gets confused in high-stress situations. The father said:

[157]

The father said that the mother even signed X into his care and now states that he forced her to do it. The father said he never raised a hand or forced the mother to do anything. The father said he is - in fact, he is scared of the mother.
The father said he suffered from workplace bullying and harassment in 2017. The father said it started at the beginning of 2017 up till about September 2017, when he had a breakdown and left work and the mother came to pick him up. The father said as a result of this, it caused him to become very depressed and anxious. The father said he is a very emotional and sensitive person. The father asserted he tries to avoid any sort of argumentative situation as much as possible. The father said his fight-flight response is more flight than fight. The father said instead of speaking, he would prefer to try and type something.
The father agreed he sometimes used abusive words. The father agreed he used "pathetic" when frustrated and stressed and that he does not think and just hits send. The father asserted he has never really threatened harm or abuse. The father referred to calling people a name sometimes when he just is so frustrated and called the mother's lawyer some pretty nasty names when he was homeless. In response to the proposition that until separation, the father called the mother "pathetic" he said, "No, actually. Bitch, no. Stupid, no. Useless, no." The father said he has not told them to her face or anything like that while they were together.
Since they were separated in answer to the question whether he had called the mother such terms the father said "maybe and maybe not". The father agreed he called the mother narcissistic. In response to a question that he called the mother a cunt, the father evaded the question. In response to a second question about communication with the mother using those names, the father was again unresponsive.
The Court informed the father that failing to answer a question directly affects the Court's assessment of his credit. In response to the question as to whether he had called the mother various names including narcissistic, the father answered "yes, possibly". Have you called her a cunt, "possibly". Dumb ass shit, "possibly". Piece of shit, "possibly". Shut her fucking mouth, "possibly". Shut the fuck up, "possibly". The vindictive manipulative piece of shit, "absolutely". Dirty piece of lying manipulative shit, "yes" and low life, "yes". "These were out of frustration".
When asked why the father could not remember the other names he had called the mother, the father unresponsively said:

[202]

The Court identified its concern that if the father is given an opportunity to spend time or communicate with the children, he will continue to denigrate and gaslight the mother. The father asserted, when spending time with the children he does not even bring up the mother unless they specify something or say something about the mother.
The father said him questioning the children on the telephone call is when he had had a visit with his children in person, and they say something, and he follows up on what they were talking about, at the communication centre.
The Court raised with the father that a further concern was the number of occasions he had contacted DoCS or the police, to attend upon the mother. And asked whether they were steps being taken by the father to control or impact on the mother in relation to her parenting. The father denied that, and said they were genuine concerns about the welfare of the children. The father asserted they were taken when the mother would not show up with the children on a Court-ordered specified time, and would not answer a phone call or text message.
The father said he did not want to denigrate the children to the mother, and that he had never done that to his ex-partner, and that he wouldn't do to the mother, because the children need to respect the mother. The mother said they need to have respect for the father, "They need to have respect for both of us, so we can nurture them". The Court raised with the father the concern that when he talks about respect and describes the mother as vindictive and manipulative, the words he's saying may now just be hollow. The father said, "No, it isn't. The children need to respect the mother", and that he needs to show the children that he would respect the mother. The father said they're not verbalised or spoken to the children, and asserted he would never put their children down to the mother. The father said he understood that denigrating the mother in front of the children would be extremely damaging, and he said he understood that.
On 3 December, the Court heard argument as to whether there should be an adjournment and identified that the adjournment would not be a fresh hearing but was an opportunity for the father to address the issue of his mental health, his use of medicinal cannabis and whether there is a wider drug or alcohol issue and to comply with the Court's orders in relation to providing a list of practitioners.
The Court at the end of the hearing before adjourning emphasised the importance of full compliance with the orders the Court had made in respect of the list of practitioners. The Court identified that a failure to comply with the orders may impact on whether there was time or no time.
The father agreed at the time of the adjournment on 3 December 2025, the Court - the father agreed that it was very clear he was going to make sure that he complied with the orders. The father confirmed he understood he was required to file an affidavit by 2 June. The father confirmed that he had read those orders. In relation to the question as to the father not filing it at that time, the father unresponsively said, "I contacted my lawyers several times." The father then agreed that he did not file the affidavit in accordance with the orders by 2 June. As to why it was not filed, the father proffered that he had several emails and texts to his lawyer that it needed to be filed and said, "They did not file it on time." The father said, "I have to throw my lawyers under the bus on this one." In response to the proposition as to whether his affidavit was prepared prior to 2 June, the father said, "No," and, again, referred to trying to contact his lawyers. The father confirmed that he swore the affidavit just last week on 8 July.
The father confirmed that he knew when he sworn the affidavit, it was out of time. The father alleged he gave his solicitors instructions to file it immediately. The father alleged that he told his solicitors to provide a copy of the affidavit, even though not yet filed, to the independent children's lawyer. In response to the question as to whether the father instructed the solicitors not to file it until 19 July, the father said, "No, I did not instruct my solicitors not to file it." The Court asked the father why he did not put an explanation in his affidavit as to it was late. And the father alleged that his lawyer said it should be all right and asserted, "If I needed to give an explanation in the affidavit, then I absolutely would have." The father was then asked about order 3, requiring a list of practitioners within 21 days and that he remembered that order. The father alleged that he contacted his lawyers that day or the next day and informed them to give out a list of his practitioners and he gave them the list of those practitioners. The father maintained that he had given that list to his lawyers within the 21 days.
The father, again, blamed his lawyers for the failure to comply with the Court's order. The father confirmed that he knew about the requirement of the orders. The father said he did not make any inquiries as to whether his solicitors had actually provided the information. Again, blamed the lawyers, stating he believed that they were doing the right thing by him and that he assumed the information had been distributed to the parties. The father said it was the lawyer's fault that he did not provide the information in accordance with the orders. The father confirmed that he did provide some details as to medical practitioners on 18 July '25, being Dr LL, and Dr AC, a psychologist. The father alleged that he had sent that information to his lawyers in December. In response to whether they were the medical practitioners the father had attended upon, he said, "No. Also, [Dr AD] at [AB Medical Centre]." The father confirmed that it was Dr AD who gave him the referral to attend on the psychologist.
The father was asked, being aware of the orders, whether the reason he did not provide the information was because of his solicitor's difficulties, not because he did not want the mother to see the information. The father said he was quite happy for the mother to see whatever information about his mental health and alleged it had greatly improved. The father was asked about an email he sent on 20 November '24, to the solicitor for the mother, saying that his medical information is not for the mother to have access. In contrary to the content of the email, the father said it was only for the mother not to be able to communicate directly with my doctors. Yes. The extract of the email read to the father identified the assertion that his medical information is not for Ms Hearst to have access to:

[206]

The father was asked who is Dr W, and he said another reporter. When asked what Dr W's qualifications were, the father said he didn't recall. They were all independent doctors that were done through lawyers to assess his ability to work for WorkCover reasons. The father said they weren't treating doctors.
The father agreed he saw Dr W on two occasions in 2023. In response to the question that he never provided any details about Dr W prior to providing the report attached to the affidavit, the father repeated that as far as his knowledge was, he was to give treating doctors, and that these aren't treating doctors. They're just doctors that gave reports.
The father denied that he knew the order was for a list of all practitioners he had seen in the last two years. In response to the question that the father deliberately decided not to provide those details, the father said he believed it was for treating doctors at the time
In response to a question of assessing the father's mental health and whether they may be relevant to the current proceedings, the father said he didn't have any idea whether or not they would be beneficial, and maintained he thought it was just treating doctors.
The father confirmed that Dr AE is a doctor at AB Family Practice and that Dr AF, is a psychologist. The father was asked whether he had provided any details in relation to his attendance on Dr AF in relation to these proceedings, and the father said that was also WorkCover related. The father agreed that this was the first time that the parties to these proceedings had heard of Dr AF.
In response to the question that the first time the father told the mother that he had attended on Dr AG, was by providing information attached to his recent affidavit. The father responded unresponsively. The mother knew all about his medical information previous to 2023. The father said he attended Dr AG in 2020. The father said he wasn't sure how many times he attended on Dr AG.
In response to the question as to what date, the father told the ICL he was attending on Mr KK. The father repeated that he gave the information to the lawyers in December, he believed.
The father confirmed that he received that report from Mr KK on 26 May '25. The father asserted he instructed solicitors to send that report to the children's lawyer when he received it. The father asserted he wanted to follow the orders as correctly as possible.
The father confirmed that he hadn't seen Mr KK since the four occasions between 9 and 20 February. The father was asked whether he provided Mr KK with any previous reports, and he said he did.
The father said he could not specifically say what reports they were that he sent to Mr KK. The father alleged he gave Mr KK the orders that were made last year. In response to the question whether he told Mr KK what orders he was seeking, the father said:

[209]

And made reference to having a tooth removed. The father was then asked about the second recommendation in relation to needing increased social support. The father was asked in relation to his affidavit that he provided no evidence in that regard. Unresponsively, the father asserted that there are men's groups, men's tables, dads in distress that talk.
The father was asked the question again as to not providing any evidence about that in his affidavit, and he said no. The father disagreed that that was because he had not done anything about it. In relation to the father's affidavit that he would book therapy sessions with Mr KK for the end of the year, he said yes. And he was then asked about a session that was due to occur on 13 June and he did not attend it, and proffered that he was not able to due to a tooth infection.
The father was asked about not making any reference to having failed to attend that session in his affidavit, and said he must have overlooked it. When asked by the court why the father did not continue regularly attending upon Mr KK every week or two weeks, right up until now, the father said it is $300 an appointment and it is quite expensive.
In relation to the worker's compensation proceedings, the father said he has a mediation on 15 August and said that he is receiving regular worker's compensation payments. The father was asked as to whether he had made reference to the worker's compensation continuing in his affidavit, and he said he did not.
The father was asked whether he understands his physical impairment is, and said he had an issue with work, a trauma issue with work. When asked whether he knows what the situation is, the father said he suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression. The father said he received about $50,000 in 2024. The father said it had been mostly spent on court and that there is not much left of it.
The father said he paid child support, whatever he was told he needed to pay. In response to the question that he currently pays the mother $80 a month from March in child support, the father said he is not sure, and he pays whatever child support requests of him.
The father then said he believed it was something like $80 a month. The father said in relation to the courses he had enrolled in, the certificates are quite expensive, but the courses are free. In response to the question as to why the father had not taken responsibility in his affidavit for his own conduct, the father said:

[221]

The father said he had undertaken 50 hours of work and that it's classified as 52 weeks of work. The father said he had had 103 lessons and finished. The date most recently was 14 May. The father said, "That was the date I ordered the certificates", but he had already finished the courses. The father was asked about putting in his affidavit the things he had learnt, and said "some of". When asked about what the father had put in his affidavit as to the things that have informed him, the father's answer was unresponsive: "If I was to list everything I learned, there is quite a lot of information". The father was asked about taking responsibility for matters. The father was asked whether that was something he has been doing, and he said "I've been taking responsibility for my part in these matters, yes".
The father was asked about missing a few visits with the children. The Court noted that there was an error by the Court omitting paragraphs (c) and (d) from order 13, and that the orders were corrected, on 3 December, and there was a further error in failing to identify what the amendments were made under the slip rule. The father said he was present when the orders were made and suggested he was of the understanding he had to cancel within 48 hours of the visit. The father was asked whether he refused to provide the information to confirm the visit to the mother up until April, and the father asserted that he told them during the week, on Wednesday, of the upcoming visit.
The father said he was not aware that he needed to communicate because he only had paragraphs (a) and (b), and then said that the mother has put him behind bars due to him accidentally breaching an ADVO. The Court observed that the father was being unresponsive to the question, and that impacts on its assessment of his credibility and cuts across the veracity of his evidence as to having any insight as to the problem.
The Court observed, for the benefit of the father that "You need to understand answers critical of the mother and making gratuitous comments adversely affects the Court's assessment of whether it can accept his evidence as to having a level of insight as to the harmfulness of undermining the mother if spending time with the children". In response to confirming the arrangements about the visits, the father said, yes. And then added that he had to confer with lawyers about the court orders being wrong and, also, confer with the police to ensure that he did not get arrested again for communicating with the mother 48 hours beforehand that he would be attending these visits. The father said he had been doing that in May and June.
The father was asked about a scheduled visit on 11 July. The father was asked whether he was made aware beforehand that the mother was going to Town AH to spread her nephew's ashes and unresponsively, the father said he confirmed with the mother, on Wednesday, that he would be attending the visit and that the mother then sent him a text saying she would not be attending and it was after he had confirmed the visit with the mother. When asked whether he was extremely angry about that, the father said "I was not angry". It was after he had communicated with his children via the video on Wednesday - the same day that he confirmed the text with the mother that he would be attending - that it would be two sleeps, due to the visits being on a Friday, before he saw them and that they were extremely excited and happy and that there was no comment about Town AH or any ashes ceremony.
The father said he was not angry. The father said he was frustrated that his children had already been informed that they were seeing him. The father added it made him look like a bad parent to his children. When asked whether he believed it was the mother's fault, the father responded he believed the ceremony would have been arranged less than 24 hours before the ceremony happened and that the day could have been rearranged sooner. When asked by the Court whether the father recognised it was controlling behaviour for the father to be telling the children that they would see him in two sleeps, the father unresponsively said "they were asking me when they would be seeing me next and I told them in a couple of sleeps. It is not me telling them. But when they ask me things, I tell them. It is not me trying to control the situation and communication".
The father was asked whether the mother arranged an alternative visit, on 14 July, and that that occurred and said, yes. It did occur. When asked whether the father was critical of the mother for not having rearranged and confirmed with the centre, prior to the 11th, the father provided a response in relation to the ashes ceremony and that the mother waited until 24 hours before the visitation to even inform him of the ceremony, or to inform the centre that the visit had been cancelled and then she arranged for a date to be remade. The father alleges that he had contacted the mother on Wednesday, at which point he could have confirmed the ceremony, and that she should have informed his lawyers there would be a ceremony and that they could have arranged the whole visit to be exchanged for another day instead of 24 hours beforehand.
When asked whether that was another example of the mother's fault in the father not spending time with the children, the father said "I did not say it was the mother's fault that I was not spending time with the children" and that she provided a make-up date for which he was thankful. When asked whether it was the mother's fault that it did not occur, on 11 July, the father said the mother did need to attend something else that could have been re-arranged. The father was asked about his relationship with his daughter, M, and when he last came in contact with her and said "it was last week". The father was asked about a communication by M to the mother seeking financial assistance and the father said his daughter is a drug addict, that she is under the care of the State; that she is a liar and a manipulator and that he can have many people come in and state the same.
The father said she has current ADVOs and said his daughter has seeked help and asked for money from multiple people, when she does not need it, to buy her drugs and that he would have told the mother if allowed to communicate, that his daughter is trying to get money for drugs. When asked whether the father was critical about the mother in relation to the compliance with current orders, the father said "That is how court orders are. The mother wants to follow them to the letter, and that is how it is. That is how it should be". That is how he will be doing it. When asked whether that is what the father had been doing, the father said "as best as my ability. I have not breached any ADVO recently or anything like that. I am following them to the letter. I am doing everything as best I can for my children". The father confirmed that he lives in his mother's house in a caravan still - at least in a caravan - but that he has access to the home.
The father confirmed that the mother is not on affidavit in these proceedings. The father said that his mother was too busy to take calls from the mother to arrange communication with the children. In response to the question whether the father is critical of the mother in respect of attempts to communicate with the father's mother, the father said, no and that "on my calls with the children" they ask him if they can speak with the mother, and he states that the mother has the ability to call his mother and should do so and that she can do that at any time. The Court asked the father whether he recognised that as controlling behaviour by him, and responded that "when the children ask".
The court repeated that "You are telling the children that they can get mummy to go and contact your mother. Do you recognise that as controlling behaviour, yes or no?" The father, unresponsively, said "your Honour". When asked again "no, yes?", the father said "if I could explain". When told by the court that it is yes or no, the father repeated, "in the way it is explained, yes or no is the answer". The father was asked and he said "Yes, your Honour". The father was asked whether he had been doing that on a number of occasions, encouraging the children to come to his house and that they ask when they can come and see him and, he says, he doesn't know. He is working on it. When asked whether he tells the children "mummy doesn't want me there. So I don't come", the father said, no and when asked on one of the occasions, he said:

[266]

The father was asked about his admission to Z Hospital in early 2023 and a reference to telling the hospital staff he was frustrated at current living situation whereby he is getting tired of the long custody battle. When I have asked whether it was his position he would remain living with his parents in the long-distant future, the father said no, not for the long-distant future - the father said not for the long distant future, no. The father was asked whether he was in a financial position right now to afford alternative accommodation away from the caravan and said yes. The father was asked whether he took any steps to obtain that alternate accommodation and identified he is waiting to find another suitable location to the outcome of the case and that if he does not have time with his children - when his children come over and stay with him, then he does not need a house. The father was asked about an admission to Z Hospital in mid-2023. He stated he lived alone and relevantly reports a poor relationship with his mother. The father responded that he didn't mean he had a poor relationship with her and said he was estranged from his son that was removed from his care and was removed when we were living together at this location that prevented him from living at this location which rendered him homeless. Which was one of the reasons why he was homeless and he couldn't come to stay with his parents at the time. So he did the best he could through that time.
The father was then asked about an admission record to Region VV Hospital in mid-2023. That the father made threats that he would kill himself. Banging his head on the door and demanding he go to hospital. The father said he remembered that particular occasion and that it had to do with the anxiety and fear of being locked in spaces. The father said that being locked in a room triggers this type of anxiety. The father was also asked about an entry that he was being belligerent. The father said his anxiety had fired up. The father was asked about the last entry that he was threatening to harm the sergeant and stated fuck up that bald cunt. The father said he thinks he would have said, fuck off bald cunt. The father said his mental health was not suitable at the time.
The father was asked about events that appear to have occurred 23 and 24 June 2023, where the father presented as agitated, dismissive and entitled. The father referred to disgusting efforts from the police and disgustingness from himself and said his mental health was so poor at the time that he had been locked in and his anxiety was flaring. He was asked by the Court what the father does to try and control the triggers - if he is exposed to a trigger. The father said most of the triggers are avoidable. The father was again asked what do you do to try and control those triggers so that you do not have the type of reaction where you are belligerent - which means angry or rude. The father said he had learnt breathing techniques and meditation. The father says that stops him from having an out of control reaction. The father was asked about an admission report in early 2023, that he had been trialled on multiple medications but reported side effects and responded, "Maybe I don't recall clearly."
The father confirmed that he had told the staff he had been on multiple medications in the past and that the medications were for his mental health, being PSD and anxiety. Yes. The father said the medications did help on some things but had caused massive side effects. When asked whether he was presently on any medication, the father said, my medicinal medication. The father said that other than the medicinal cannabis, he was not on any prescribed medication from a psychiatrist. The father was asked about the report identifying he had previous presentations in late 2022 following suicide ideation and he said it wasn't suicide thoughts, it was a suicide attempt, in fact. In response to the question when was that, the father provided an unresponsive answer advocating his case. The father said he attempted suicide in late 2022. The father said he moved in with his parents at the end of December 2023. Days before court in 2023. The father said he was homeless between March and December 2023. The father said he did not move in earlier because his son was living there. The father said he was not allowed to reside on the premises until he turned 18 or left.
The father was asked about an admission report dated mid-2023, where the father threatened suicide in the context of an eviction notice. The father said his mental health was failing due to other factors that he did not want to mention earlier and that he might have mentioned what was going on with his situation, his ex-partner and not having a home and said it was no one's fault - no one else's fault and said, "I did the best I could" and that he was still trying today to do better.
The father agreed that in July '23 he was still living in the rented property at the time he presented threatening suicide. The father was taken to an assessment that he has a history of personality vulnerabilities with angry temperament, and the father said, "Yes, I was quite angry at the situation that was going on". The father said that was not an accurate assessment of his personality and temperament at the current moment of this being written. The father was taken to a reference in Z Hospital where the father was admitted in late 2023, which recorded the father had presented multiple times in the past year for suicide attempts. The father confirmed that was an accurate statement and that it was a bad year.
The father did not recall being admitted for seven days. The father was asked that that was only 22 months ago and does not remember, and said he recalled the date that he was admitted. The father was taken to the assessment that there was drug-affected behaviour and that he had a diagnosis of antisocial personality structure and denied any thoughts of suicide or self-harm to others, and the father did not recall ever being in the hospital. The father said he had never been in hospital for seven days. The father said this was the last time he was in hospital for his mental health. The father was taken to his affidavit where he stated that he believed it was in the children's best interests that they live with him, and the father said, "I'm not sure what the children want".
The father said it is not his position that they live with him full-time, and that he stood by that position last year when he spoke to the Courts. When asked whether the family report writer, at least the court child expert, got wrong, that he wanted the children to live with him, the father said he can't remember what he said, and that he would like them to live with him, and that he does have his concerns of living with the mother on some levels. The father added, "There would be concerns about them living with me too, with my current history". The father was asked about telling the court child expert that he believed the children did not wish to live with the mother, and the father said, "Yes. On several occasions the children have expressed their interests on staying with me and not wanting to go home".
The father was asked about telling the court child expert that the children did not wish to live with the mother, and said that he does recall saying that, and that words to similar effect had come from his children's mouth, unasked for, unquestioned. The father said the children have turned around and said they don't want to live with their mum, and said he is not trying to gaslight, and that they are remarks his older daughter, X, had made. When asked when X said that, the father said, "Some time this year at the contact centre".
The ICL asked the father about his recent affidavit and the assertion that his current injury is not impacting on his parenting ability, and the father agreed that he believed missing the children was having a negative effect on his mental health. The father was asked about his affidavit filed on 19 July that came to the attention of the ICL on Sunday, and the reference to Mr KK, and that the last time he was seen was on 20 February 2025. The father indicated he wanted a break because he said he was in extreme amounts of pain.
The father said he is not able to specify the specific documents he gave Mr KK. The father said in the four months since he had Mr KK's report, he has not done any evidence-based trauma-informed therapy and he said that was due to his financial means. The father said his mental health was caused by work, and he cannot afford to pay for it himself. The father has asked about the entry in the report as to being committed to ongoing therapy to address the PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression. It was put to the father that he had not been committed to ongoing therapy, and the father said, "Yes. Well, I have appointments booked". The matter was then adjourned until Wednesday, 23 July 2025.
The father was asked about the court child expert report where the father during the interviews repeatedly referred to the mother as manipulative and a liar. When asked whether he maintains those criticisms, the father said, "It would be a lie if I said I didn't", and then said, "If you had lived with her as long as I did, you would understand. But that's my view of the mother. It's not what I present to the children, but that is my personal view of the mother, yes." When asked whether he had other criticisms of the mother, the father said none that he would like to discuss with the court.
The father then said he sometimes thinks she's a danger to the children. When asked in what way, the father alleged, she has episodes and blacks out. She can become abusive, violent and assault people. She has threatened to assault his older daughter in the past, and that he sometimes fears for the safety of his children when they are in her care. The father then proffered unresponsively, "I don't present these views to the children, though. These are views I keep to myself".
When asked if he had anything positive to say about the mother, the father said she has done a good job so far. The father then volunteered that his daughter, unresponsively, was in his care at one point of time, and that the mother signed her into his care in September 2019, and that the mother asked for a recovery order and that there had been a few incidents he has been worried about. When asked about what was positive that the mother had done, again by the Court, the father said she has been a mother to them, clothed them, kept them fed, kept them schooled, and he referred to his son's education when he is speaking and said it could be the mother not helping more to educate him.
The father alleged that his using physical force, being observed by the mother, to discipline M and Mr L was false. The father said he did use physical discipline towards his older two children, and he had smacked those children and that is how his parents had smacked him if he misbehaved and did not listen to his parents respectfully. When asked whether he understands the use of physical discipline is not permitted today, the father said, "It was not permitted, no".
When asked whether the father denied the mother's observation that when she moved in she saw a great deal of abuse and neglect, including hitting the children with objects, dragging them, threats and verbal abuse, the father said he did not deny there were threats, and that there were threats of physical violence and there were threats of removing toys and that they were physically disciplined at the time, and this was over 10 years ago. That was the way he was raised, that he was smacked, and they did not realise at the time you could not physically discipline your children anymore. The father said he learned that, and stopped that. The father said he learned that over 10 years ago, when the children were removed from his and the mother's care. The ICL asked you - the ICL pointed out the father keeps saying the children were removed from the mother's care, and was asked:

[270]

The father was taken to the report of Dr W, dated 14 April 2023, which was marked exhibit K, and that this was a report dated 14 April '23, provided to the independent children's lawyer this morning, being 23 July 2025. The father was asked was there any reason why he had waited until the fourth day of the trial to provide the report, and he said he did not remember things that happened many years ago. The father was taken to page 7 of the report, and the psychiatric diagnosis as per the DSMV is major depressive disorder with anxious distress, and the father said he was aware of that diagnosis, and added, "That's what PTSD is".
The father was taken to the view expressed in the report that there is not likely to have much improvement. The father said, "Yes, it's a stable condition that prevents me from working". The father acknowledged that treatment is very important in relation to his mental health. The father was taken to a reference that he had attended a psychologist at a frequency of once every two weeks, and had not been able to attend appointments since 2018 owing to financial constraints.
The father said he saw a couple of free counsellors. The father said the last time he had counselling with C Organisation was almost two years ago now. The father said it is a drop-in centre. The father agreed he was seeing a psychiatrist based on advice from a general practitioner. The father could not remember who the psychiatrist was he was seeing, he said it was two different people, and they saw him once.
The father was asked about the medications he was taking, and he transferred off that because they were all causing anxiety and depression. The father was asked by the ICL that he did not have any medical evidence to support his position that he could not continue taking the prescribed medication because of side effects and the father said, "No." But referred to the list of problems that these medications can cause and said he had to go back to his doctor several times, change medications, change doses.
The father was asked whether he had the recordings that he alleges are in his possession, including the mother threatening M, and whether they are available in these proceedings, and the father said, "I have them available." And said:

[272]

The father was asked about a public post on Facebook and volunteered that he was not aware of it and referred to a video during the birth where, unfortunately, you could see part of the mother's nipple, and that he did not understand that was a violation. The Court then had played the video recording identified in paragraph 147 of the mother's affidavit, being exhibit to that affidavit ...10 set out in the chronology.
The court then asked the father whether that video that was played was posted on Facebook, and he said yes, it was. The father said that the purpose of the video was satire. When asked what he was trying to achieve, the father said "Nothing," and referred to posting hundreds and thousands of videos. The father has referred to the lawyers not doing what they were told and were not listening to him, and that they needed to withdraw because he had lost confidence in them, and this is how he got that adjournment, which was pretty wise, and he lost confidence in his legal team.
The father continued, saying he made lots of films about a lot of stuff. The father said the mother was literally Facebook stalking him for a while, and just picking and choosing bits of video. When asked by the court whether the father recognised that the video was extremely intimidatory for his partner, the father said it was not, because if she was that intimidated by - the court then again asked the father whether he recognised that video was highly intimidatory, and that he had answered no. "Do you want to change that answer?" and the father said, "Yes, I recognise that if she viewed that video, that would be intimidating." The court raised with the father, "Extremely intimidating; do you recognise that?" and he said, "No, I don't, so I don't understand. There were no threats of violence or harm, or anything of the sort," then said, "Getting a new lawyer, that's not intimidating."
The court again asked the father, "Do you recognise that that Facebook post was extremely manipulative by you?" and the father said, "No, I don't understand how, your Honour." The father said to the ICL that the Facebook post was not for anyone in particular, it was for himself. In response to the question from the ICL that it was for the mother, the father said, "For just whatever." The father was pressed that it was for the mother and he was intending to intimidate her, and said no, it was not and said, "Don't try and intimidate me into saying yes. It was not intimidating anybody. It was a recording of my feelings and thoughts and stuff onto video."
The father said he would not try and intimidate anyone, and that he would like counsel to stop saying that he was trying to intimidate the mother. The father continued, "there are plenty of evidence of abuse the mother has laid against me. Assault, battering. If you don't want to hear those claims, then I can't do this." The father then continued, "I keep getting told - the mother has not gotten told once that she should stop this, or stop that, and just because I want to tell the truth, I get nailed for it." When I asked what was the truth he was telling in the video the father said, "The truth in that video was that I had bad legal representation at the time and I got rid of - for lack of confidence, that I got an adjournment. So I could get good legal counsel. So I could try and fight this."
The father said, "The intimidation, the intimidation is being Facebook stalked knowing that everything you put on Facebook is being looked at by the mother, and therefore I can't communicate. I can't post. Anything that I can post could be used against me in any type of way. Quite upset. Quite intimidating." The father said, "Maybe this video wasn't posted for amusement" and said, "The mother has Facebook stalked the father's Facebook profile and picked and chose what she wished to use in court. What could be looked at as being bad or threatening or harmful." The father said, "She plays a very good victim. She does."
Asked whether he had regrets about posting the Facebook video the father said, "no, I do." When I asked what those regrets are, the father said, "I'm sorry that the mother saw it and felt intimidated by it, but it was not by any intimidating means." The father said that if the mother was upset by the video he absolutely would have apologised to her and removed it the instant she told him that she was upset and that the mother got the police involved instead. When asked whether it came as a complete surprise to the father that she appeared to be intimidated by the video, the father said, "Like I said, the mother plays a very good victim." The Father denied that the landlord who served the termination notice was a friend of the father's. Father agreed the notice was served after he had left the premises.
The father agreed that, to his knowledge, the rent was up to date. When asked whether the father knows the circumstances as to why the termination was served on the mother, in that situation, the father gave unresponsive answer, asking for the termination letter. In answer to the question whether, upon separation, the father retained X in his care, the father said, "Yes, that is correct," and added, quote, "After the mother told him to take [X] and [Y] with him and that she would pack their things before them," and added, "I've got her audio recording, too."
The father confirmed that he did not take his daughter to childcare, and added, quote, "Due to the abuse that I suffered from [Ms Hearst] - due to the abuse I suffered from the mother, I left the property, and I took her and went and stayed at my mum's house." The ICL pressed for an answer to his question that whilst X was in his care in 20 October 2020, he did not take her to childcare. The father was asked about repeatedly asking the mother to sign Centrelink documents so he could receive parenting payments for X in October 2020, and said that is incorrect. Alleged the mother signed the daughter over to him through Centrelink, and said the mother did it willingly.
The father was asked in the period that he had care of X what attempts he made for X to actually physically see the mother in that period, and the father said, "The month and a half or two months that I had away from the mother, the mother had several video calls with the daughter during that time," and that the father had offered for the mother to come and see the daughter at that time. The father alleged he was not withholding the daughter at all.
The father alleged he tried and that he offered, but she would not come anywhere near him. The father was asked about a text sent on 11 October by SMS offering to return X to the mother if she had sex with him and was asked whether that was accurate. There was an unresponsive statement. The father was asked, "Did you send such a text message to her on 11 October 2020?" and unresponsively said:

[276]

The father said he could see it on the screen. The father was asked whether he recognised the inappropriateness of sending such a text message and responded, "out of context, absolutely, your Honour". The father was asked, do you recognise that it displays a lack of parenting capacity by you and manipulation by you, and the father responded, "taken out of context, your Honour, yes. The father was asked about telling the court child expert that he felt the mother's mental care was impacting on her care of the children. The father said he recalled saying the mother's mental health could affect her parenting abilities. When asked in what way, the father says she gets too angry, she blacks out and can't remember what she does during those blackouts, and that she admits this herself, and she admits to being violent to me in counselling sessions.
These blackouts occur where she has split my mouth open with her telephone, and said it is quite concerning that someone that has a blackout is looking after my kids, if she gets too angry. The father said the mother has also rammed into his car on occasion when she blacked out, and a few other instances of violence and violent outbursts from the mother when she has blacked out that she has stated to a counsellor. The father added, and also that, at that same counsellor, the mother said she would kill, that she threatened to kill herself, and if she did, she would kill the children too, because no one else is suitable to look after them. When asked by the court whether he recognised his answer was wholly unresponsive to the question asked, the father said, my concerns are about her looking after my children.
When asked whether the father recognised his answer was wholly unresponsive and he was advocating his case, the father said, no, I was just worried, concerned about the safety of my children, that's what I'm stating. The father repeated, the safety of his children in her care at those times is not the best. The father said he can't be honest without stating, and said I'm not trying to be mean in any way, I'm not trying to be hurtful or nasty in any way, I have evidence to back this up. The court observed that the speech the father just gave was unresponsive to the question asked.
The father was asked by the ICL about the co-parenting and divorce education that he had done that included 52 lessons of family violence. The father was asked what the reason was he did that course, and he said "for a better understanding of the things I was going through and the things that I may have put the mother through". When asked whether he accepted that he was violent to the mother, the father said, I was never physically - I was never physically violent to the mother, no. When asked, do you accept that you were emotionally violent towards the mother, he said, after understanding the full grasp of all these different domestic violence things, which is quite varied and quite vast. The father volunteered, it means - sorry - delete that last, the father volunteered.
The father said that, as far as he understands, emotional is me withholding love and emotions from the mother so, no, I never emotionally abused the mother. The independent children's lawyer - at least, counsel for the independent children's lawyer, asked, why were you doing the domestic violence course if you never physically abused her and never emotionally abused her, and said to better understand what I might have put the mother through and what the mother had put me through. In response to the question as to whether he did these courses because he perceived the mother was violent to him, the father said, I know she was violent to me, there is evidence of her being violent to me. When asked, was that the reason you did the course, the father said, well, the violence was perpetrated against me. The father repeated that he needed to get a better understanding of the domestic violence that he may have perpetrated against the mother and that the mother may have perpetrated against him.
When asked whether the father believed, after doing the course, that he was never physically violent or emotionally violent towards the mother, repeated I was never physically violent and did not withhold his love and affection, and stated he was not emotionally violent. When asked whether the video he posted on Facebook that was played to the court was a form of emotional violence. The father said that was not directed at the mother, and that he did that for his own emotional release. The father added:

[280]

The father was asked about a post he made - sorry. The father was asked about a message he sent on Facebook on 13 November 2022 saying he is going to kill himself and accepted that he sent that message. The father interrupted counsel for the independent children's lawyer, trying to put a question, and volunteered offering an explanation about the message and it not being black and white and was reminded by the Court that unresponsive answers adversely affect his credit. The father was asked about an SMS message at paragraph 49 of the mother's affidavit demanding changes be made to the interim orders to suit the father and said he might have sent it, adding, "It's so many years ago."
The father said a lot has happened since 2022. The father was taken to paragraph 50 of the mother's affidavit, and the sending of messages asking to say goodbye to the children, and provided unresponsive answers as to whether he remembered that audio recording, and gave a further unresponsive answer when asked a third time. The father was taken to paragraph 50 of the affidavit and said, yes, I may have said something to that effect, yes. When asked, what was the purpose of sending that message, unresponsively, the witness said, it would take a large, lengthier explanation than I fear the court would like. When asked what the purpose of sending the message was - the text was to the mother, the father replied "frustration".
When asked about the mother's affidavit at paragraph 149 and the father posting a video of the mother giving birth, without her knowledge or consent, uncovering a nude video of her entire body, the father denied that he posted that video without her knowledge and consent. The father said he thought it was locked for the mother to be able to view because she didn't have it and that he uploaded it so the mother could retrieve it. The father said she was not fully naked and that he did remove the content. The father was pressed as to whether he posted it without her knowledge and consent, and unresponsively said, I uploaded it, I did not post it, I uploaded it to a Facebook file that the mother was tagged in, and alleged she was able to actually view that footage, only she was able to view that footage, to his knowledge.
When pressed again for an answer, the father said, yes, I uploaded it to my Facebook for the mother's viewing. When asked again whether that was without her knowledge or consent, the father gave an evasive answer, I think I've already answered your question. The father was taken to the mother's statement that she was - recalled shaking, feeling sick to her stomach, embarrassed, mortified, horrified and scared, and was asked for his response to that evidence, and the father said, I find the mother to be a liar, unfortunately, and a very good manipulator, and there is evidence to see that fact. The father said, I cannot say it without sounding like I'm being nasty. The father referred to statements about the mother's lies, and that is, she might say she felt sick, but she probably didn't. When asked whether the father posted things using the name Mr Cagley on Facebook, the father said he had to delete things from his other Facebook because it was being accessed by a third party, unresponsibly. The father then answered, yes.
The father was taken to paragraph 159 of the mother's affidavit which included a post - included in the post, quote: Here I am - at least, "here I motherfucking am bitch, time for you to run and hide", "after I'm done you will realise that what you did was wrong and punishing someone to the point they would rather die than be alive for their children", and in response to the question, whether he posted that the father said I'm not quite sure. The father said, there is another Mr Cagley.

[288]

The court child expert interviewed relevantly the mother and father and two children. The qualified recommendation by the court child expert was that the children live with the mother and that the mother have sole parental responsibility for the children. The qualification in relation to the recommendations identified that it was based on the information gathered at the time of assessment and what further evidentiary material should indicate. At the time of the report the court child expert recommended the father spending two hours of supervised time with the children every second Saturday.
The mother indicated to the court child expert that she wished for the children to spend time with the father if it is deemed safe.
The court child expert noted that the father presented with a strong focus on perceived injustices towards him. The father asserted that he was currently awaiting a payout and that he intends to rent a home suitable for the children after he receives his payment. The father indicated that he was not able to return to paid employment due to psychological injury from his previous employer and that his injury is not impacting on his parenting ability and stated that he is missing the children which negatively impact on his mental health. The court child expert identified that the father presented with a persistently negative view of the mother and when asked about other matters would return to this line of conversation. The father asserted that the mother was manipulative and a liar. The father asserted to the court child expert that he felt disadvantaged and that the Court is biased towards mothers.
The court child expert noted that both parents alleged family violence by the other and that both denied the others allegations.
The mother identified to the court child expert that she had suffered verbal and emotional abuse from father as well as ongoing controlling behaviours, stalking and sexual coercion. The mother recalled that she witnessed the father using excessive physical discipline towards his other two children M and Mr L. The mother reported that she did not feel safe in her own home when cohabiting with the father and that he had threatened should she end the relationship he would take X. The mother stated that she believed the father would carry out his threat with the purpose of hurting the mother because X was her only daughter. The mother recalled the father calling her names during the relationship, stating that she was not good enough and that he had pushed her and threatened violence. The mother identified an occasion where the father did not let her leave the bedroom and she broke the TV for the purpose of creating a distraction to leave the room. The mother stated that her personal freedom was limited during the relationship with the father and that when she started working the father told her he had enough of minding the children and therefore she ceased her employment. The mother identified the father controlled what you could use in the shared home. The mother spoke of sexual coercion in a relationship with the father and that he asked her to do sexual things she was not comfortable with and that this behaviour continued after they broke up and he was spending time in the home. The mother became emotional and stated that she did not feel she was able to reject the father sexual answers because she was worried about negative repercussions. The mother said that at handovers the father would make it difficult by trying to kiss her and engaged in placing items in her car. The mother expressed the view that the father continued to be obsessed about her after separation and that the father broke the ADVO on several occasions by contacting her. The mother identified concerned as to the father's posts on social media stating that he intends to tell the children the truth about the current Court matter.
The father alleged abuse by the mother and that she is not scared of him, but he is scared of her and alleged that she was very controlling. The father had made recordings over the years as to what he alleged was a mother acting in a manipulating manner, the court child expert noted that it was not clear how the father had obtained the information or recordings he alleged he had made.
The court child expert made reference to what happened to the father's older children and the classification of risk of significant harm for those older children of the father. The mother also informed the court child expert that the father was verbally aggressive to her two older children. The father alleged that in a recent telephone call X asserted that the mother had hit O and had made a hole in the wall in her home. The mother denied those allegations and expressed concern that X may tell the father things that she believes the father wants to hear to please him. The mother said that the father withheld X after separation in October 2020 and that he had retained custody until an order was made on 4 December 2020. The father denied withholding X and asserted that the mother had agreed that X should live with him.
The father made reference to the fact that he used to smoke marijuana in the past and that he has since been prescribed medical marijuana and that he had thus ceased smoking the substance. The father asserted that marijuana helped him sleep at night and that he did not believe it affected his day-to-day functioning.
The mother noted that she suffered from postnatal depression following the birth of H and that she is currently attending domestic violence counselling. The father asserted that the mother has undiagnosed covert narcissism and reiterated that the mother is manipulative and very smart and knows what to say. The father asserted the mother's mental health issues are impacting on her care of the children and alleged that she has not been truthful when speaking to police, DCJ and the Court. The father was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he stated that this was caused by his traumatic experiences at his previous workplace. The father stated everyone is concerned about his mental health. The court child expert identified from the NSW Health subpoenaed material that medical assistance for suicidal ideation was sought by the father in 2023 having made two attempts of suicide in the same year. The father stated that his mental health was affected by not seeing the children and the mother having him arrested on multiple occasions which are court child expert understood to mean his breaching of the ADVO during 2023
The mother was aware of the father's PTSD diagnosis and expressed concern about the father's suicide attempts in 2023, and how his mental health may impact on his parenting. The mother expressed concern in relation to the father being obsessed with her and also about the false allegations from the father. The mother expressed concern as to the father's capacity to safely care for the children. The court child expert recorded that the mother presented as focused on the children's needs.
The court child expert recorded that the father struggled to engage in conversation about the children's needs without reverting to his grievances with the mother. The court child expert also referred to the father describing the children as ecstatic when reunited with him for their first visit and reflected that the father may struggle to differentiate between his own feelings and those of others. The father asserted he had learned other strategies rather than smacking children when they are misbehaving and minimised the reasons why his older children were assumed into care. The father made comment about his older daughter M and spoke negatively about her referring to her lies and describing her as aggressive and manipulative. The court child expert identified that these comments raise concerns about the father's level of empathy for his children's experiences.
The mother expressed concern that the father may use excessive discipline towards X and Y should he struggle with managing their behaviours and the court child expert record the mother wanted a health assessment that the father can care for the children unsupervised.
The court child expert recorded the views of the children and their interactions with both the mother and father and recommended given X's young age that her views should not be a major determining factor. The court child expert identified the importance for the children, their stability and emotional safety for them to thrive. The child expert identified the likely benefit of the children from empathy and stability from their main caregiver to provide a safe place for the children to develop and express themselves and for the children to develop the unique identities.
The court child expert noted that if the Court accepts the allegations of the mother, the children have been exposed to family violence during the relationship between mother and father. The court child expert observed that children who have been exposed to family violence have increased stress levels which can affect their emotions, learning, and behaviours later in life. The court child expert observed that the children may have been able to notice that the mother was fearful and that this may have caused them to feel scared, worried, or angry. The court child expert observed in these circumstances there is a risk that the children will continue to be exposed to family violence from the father especially at changeovers and in communication between the parents.
The court child expert made reference to the power discrepancy between the parties noting the mother's young age and that the father presented as a more dominant person and that the mother presented with a genuine fear of the father as she had repeatedly taken decisions, including moving homes to feel safe. The court child expert identified that the breaching of the ADVO if it has merit raises concerns as to the father in relation to his inclination to follow Court orders. The court child expert also identified a concern that the alleged family violence continued by the father after the parties separated and were living in different areas. The court child expert expressed a high level of concern in relation to the allegations of sexual coercion by the father of the mother as it indicated a strong level of control by the father and a vulnerability on the part of the mother. The court child expert also expressed concern over the recordings that have been made and the filming of the mother and children by the father.
The court child expert identified that the mother having sole parental responsibility and the children living with the mother would involve minimal change and be positive for the children's overall stability. The court child expert noted that the children have lived with the mother for most of the time and it would provide the children with a sense of familiarity and security.
The mother presented as emotionally attuned with the children and responded warmly to them. The court child expert asserted that the mother has the ability to support children's emotions now and in the future. It was also observed that the mother has a level of vulnerability. The court child expert identified that the benefit of the children spending time with the father needs to be weighed up against the risk that he may speak negatively about the mother. The court child expert identified that the father's then proposal for the children to live with him would involve an upheaval that would be very distressing. The court child expert observed that the father presented with persistently negative views of the mother and that there was a risk that he would not support children spending meaningful time with the mother, which would be a loss for the children. The court child expert identified concern as to the father taking minimal responsibility for his two older children's assumption into care by the DCJ. The court child expert expressed concern about the father's past methods of discipline and that he was largely dismissive of child protection concerns for his older children and blamed others such as stating that his daughter M lied. The court child expert identified the father's lack of demonstrated empathy for his older children's experiences is alarming. The court child expert identified that this raises concern regarding the father's emotional capacity to support X and Y's emotional needs.
The court child expert taking into account the father's negative view of his own daughter and the mothers eldest son identified a concern as to the father's capacity to manage challenging behaviours of children and how he would manage any potential future behaviours of X and Y. The court child expert also identified concern as to the father's interpretation of others' feelings and intentions such as interpreting the view that the children wish to live with him although the children had not said that. The court child expert identified that the father may find it difficult to differentiate between other people's feelings and those of his own. The court child expert also identified that the father's ongoing mental health may pose a concern regarding how he would safely care for the children. The court child expert referred to the father asserting that his suicide attempts related to him not seeing the children, whereas, it was apparent from the material filed that the father's mental health was a concern early in his relationship with the mother which is indicative of the father's mental health being an ongoing matter. The court child expert identified that this raises a concern as to the father's mental health affecting his care of the children.
The court child expert identified serious risks associated with the father's proposals. The court child expert of identified that when considering the ongoing nature of the allegations of family violence towards the mother as well as the father's consistently negative view of the mother the safety of the children may be compromised should the father have unsupervised time with the children. The court child expert referred to the children's best interest being to live with mother so as to provide the children with the best chance of stability and emotional safety. The court child expert identified that it is unlikely that the children would benefit from spending unsupervised time with the father considering the father's mental health concerns, his past child protection involvement and his persistent negative views of mother. The court child expert identified those persistent negative views were likely to cause the children unnecessary stress and may cause a sense of double loyalty and the feeling that they need to report between the two households.
The court child expert made reference to the likely psychological impact on the mother from contact with the father and said it would be beneficial for the mother to continue to attend counselling. The court child expert also recommended in paragraph 71 that the father is likely to benefit from engaging in ongoing mental health support and/or counselling.
The court child expert gave evidence that she supported the identity contact proposed in the orders of the ICL, and that her main concern was the lack of empathy shown by the father for his own children, and the impact of that lack of empathy his parenting capacity.
The court child expert identified another concern was the father's mental health, and its impact on his parenting capacity.
The court child expert identified that another concern was the persistent denigration by the father of the mother. The court child expert gave evidence that as this denigration of the mother had continued since the commencement of these proceedings, being almost five years, that she believed the denigration of the father would continue. The court child expert was also concerned that the father would not comply with orders, if made by the Court, requiring the father not to denigrate the mother in front of the children.
The court child expert also gave evidence as to the mother's apparent vulnerability to the father, and the adverse impact on the mother, as the primary carer, if the children were to spend ongoing time, or supervised time, with the father, other than the identity contact. The court child expert, in relation to her concerns in that regard, referred to the defiant behaviour by the older child, X, after visits with the father, trying to win the father's approval. The court child expert identified, further in that regard, the false allegation advanced by X, to seek the father's approval, of the mother allegedly hitting her.
The court child expert identified the importance for the emotional and psychological well-being of the children to have stability. And that for the mother, demonstrated a good parenting relationship with the two children. And expressed no concern as to the mother's parenting capacity.
In relation to the father and his use of what was called medicinal cannabis, the court child expert identified that as a further concern in respect of daily use, not being an orthodox medication in which there is a controlled dose and an identifiable measure of medication. The court child expert identified the father's daily use of cannabis as a further concern in relation to the safety of the children with the father. The court child expert was shown the report of Dr W dated 14 April 2023, who, as a psychiatrist, gave a diagnosis that the father was suffering from a major depressive disorder, with anxious distress, within DSM-5. The court child expert identified that diagnosis was of further concern in relation to the safety of the children in the absence of the father having taken appropriate steps to manage his condition and obtain regular counselling and therapy.
The court child expert identified her concern, given the psychiatric diagnosis by the psychiatrist, which had effectively been present for the five years of these proceedings, and was not confident that it could be said there would be a recovery in the future.

[295]

In understanding the objects of Part VII in s60B(b) in giving effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Children at New York on 20 November 1989 the Court has taken into account the whole of the provisions of the said Convention, including in particular, the reference in the Preamble to growing up in a family environment in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, as well as the refence to a child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needing special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection as well as the importance of traditions and culture. Including Article 3 Rule 1 identifies the best interests of the child to be a primary consideration and Article 3 Rule 2 refers to ensuring such child protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents.
This also includes Article 5 which refers to respecting the rights and duties of parents and the evolving capacities of a child. Article 6 requires ensuring to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. Article 8 refers to respecting the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations. Article 9 refers to no separating a child from his or her parents except when judicially determined that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Article 12 refers to the views of the child being given due weight. Article 13 refers to rights of freedom of expression. Article 14 refers to the right of a child to freedom of thought conscience and religion as well as respecting the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to the child. Article 15 refers to the rights of the child to freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly. Article 16 refers to no arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence. Article 18 refers to both parents having common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Article 19 refers to appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. Article 20 deals with special protection and assistance where a child is deprived of his or her family environment or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment. This regard includes the other rights and obligations in Articles 21 to Article 41 in Part 1 of the Convention.
The Court has taken into account, in the conduct of the proceedings, the five principles in s 102NE of the Act which are as follow:

[340]

The Court has taken into account the meaning and balancing exercise required in relation to unacceptable risk of the Full Court of the Family Court in Stott & Holgar [2017] FamCAFC 152 at [35] to [38]. The Court must take into account implications arising from findings on the possibilities in determining the nature and magnitude of the alleged unacceptable risk: Isles v Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 at [45].
The Court has also taken into account the principles identified in Clayton & Minshall [2021] FedCFamC1F 183 at [88] to [90] as to the high standard required to justify elimination of a parent from the children's lives in respect of the risk of loss of parental capacity. The Court has taken into account the need for the fears in respect of capacity of the primary carer to be genuine and rational: Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 at [79].
The Court has also taken into account the decision Bielen & Kozma (2022) FLC 94-123 at [67] as to the disapproval of parenting orders that see protracted or indefinite supervision of the child's time with a parent and the Court has also had regard to the observations at [27,30] of children having the benefit of both parents to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child, as well as the consideration of matters impacting upon the welfare of the child necessarily involving focusing upon the immediate, medium and long term impact of the proposed orders on the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being.
From the decisions in B and B [1993] FamCA 143 the Court is mindful of the observations to situations where supervised access is intended to assist the re-establishment of a relationship between the access parent and the child and that if there is an acceptable risk of the child or children being exposed to physical or emotional or psychological harm by reason of contact with the abusing parent, and if supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure, then an order for supervised access is not appropriate because of the Court's obligation to protect children from such harm. The Court has also had regard to the proposition that it is not unreasonable for the Court to take into account, in assessing whether an unacceptable risk of harm exists, the need for a custodial parent to be assured of the child's protection, as the primary carer's anxiety about the children's exposure to harm is likely to impact adversely upon the parent's ability to care for the children.
The Court has also had regard to the undesirability of and practical difficulties associated with long term supervision in a children's contact centre in Champness & Hansen [2009] FamCAFC 96; (2009) FLC 93-407 at [209]- [216].
The Court has also taken into account Norton v Landell (Consent Final Parenting Orders) [2015] FamCA 96 at [19] and [20] ("Norton") that in identifying an acceptable risk there is a need to identify and assess the nature and magnitude of the risk, the standard of proof to be applied in determining passed alleged abuse. Norton also refers to Slater & Light [2013] FamCA 4 and in that case at [37] - [38] the Court is mindful of the caution in finding unacceptable risk where only some of the accumulated factors identified in Johnson & Page (2007) FLC 93 -344 are established as well as the observation as to the undesirability of long-term supervision at [40].

[346]

In summary the Court accepts the submissions of the mother and finds that the father has engaged in family violence as described in those submissions. The Court accepts the submissions concerning unacceptable risk presented by the father advanced by both the mother and the ICL. The Court finds that the mother was a credible and truthful witness and accepts the whole of her evidence. The mother has suffered sustained family violence primarily in the nature of abuse, denigration, threatening, manipulative and controlling behaviour by the father that has continued, after ceasing to live together, to date. The father has inadequately managed mental health issues for past seven and half years. The father lacks empathy for his children and for the mother. The father has no genuine insight or acceptance of responsibility for his behaviour and its adverse impact on the mother or children. An ADVO was obtained for the protection of the mother in late 2022, on two occasions in early 2023 and a final ADVO in late 2023. The father has breached ADVO's and bail conditions for the protection of the mother on several occasions.
The father has persistently failed to comply with orders of this Court. The degree of compliance by the father has been erratic and inconsistent. The father is unlikely to comply with Court orders as to restraints in communications with the children or restraints as to physical discipline and is likely currently, the medium term and in the long term to continue to try to undermine and destroy the relationship of the children with their primary carer being the mother. The Court finds there is an unacceptable risk of failure by the father to comply with Court orders as to changeover and time with the children. That risk is of emotional and psychological harm to both the mother and the children resulting in undermining or destroying the mother's primary care role for the children. The degree of that risk is high and the outcome of the risk outweighs the benefit to the children of a relationship with the father through orders other than the ICL proposed identity orders. The Court does not accept that this is a case where there can be effective court orders to ameliorate or minimise the risk because of the father's likely failure to comply with the same.
The father's repetitive requests for police checks were an inappropriate attempt of control and systems abuse by the father. Whilst the Court accepts that the mother's elder child from an earlier relationship H, with indigenous heritage on his paternal side, engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct and that restraints are appropriate, the mother's conduct was prompt and insightful and the Court finds that she self- reported, without influence of the father, and the father's taunting public posts on H, identified in the mother's evidence, are a form of abuse and family violence by the father and display a empathy and parenting capacity by the father.
The duration of the mental health issues as identified in the report of the psychiatrist Dr W in April 2023 as being of enduring severity and chronic of what was then five and a half years and the duration of the family violence identified by the independent children's lawyer that has continued over the last five years of these proceedings, support the finding, which the Court makes, that the father presents an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children that is not just current or in the short or medium term but continuing in the long term. The father has over the period of these proceedings repeatedly failed to seek proper psychiatric treatment, failed to take medication prescribed by a psychiatrist, failed to attend counselling, failed to follow psychological recommendations and self-medicated with unidentifiable dosage and quantities of marijuana. The father's inadequately managed mental health issues, over now 7 and half years, are likely to continue into the long term and heighten the unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm by the father to the children. The father's lack of empathy for his children and for the mother heighten the unacceptable risk as does the father's lack of parenting capacity. The nature of the unacceptable risk is the undermining or destructive of the relationship of the children with the mother who is their primary carer. Destroying or undermining that relationship is a greater unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children than that of the psychological and emotional harm from the loss of the relationship with their father. The identity orders are likely to further diminish that harm for the children. The degree or likelihood of that unacceptable risk if other than identity time orders were made is extremely high.
The father's assertion in evidence after allegedly undertaking hours of family violence courses that he did not engage in emotional abuse or violence because he loves the mother and has acted out of love is disturbing, lacking in insight and heightens the unacceptable risks presented by the father. The projection by the father as to his beliefs or state of mind onto the children, reflects a difficulty recognising and meeting the separate children's needs as identified by the Court Child Expert and heightens the unacceptable risk presented by the father. The Court finds that the mother did not voluntarily hand over her daughter to the father on 1 October 2020 and that the taking by the father of his daughter and then depriving the mother of contact until an order for return on 4 December 2020 was a form of family violence by the father.
The Court finds that the mother did not assault the father in mid-2018 as alleged by the father. The Court finds it was the father who engaged in domestic violence taking the mother's mobile and physically preventing her from recovering the same whilst he entered details into her mobile contrary to the mother's wishes. The Court finds that in a separate incident the father prevented the mother leaving the bedroom, depriving her of her liberty and in an act of fear and diversion to escape she broke a TV and that this incident was actually a form of family violence by the father. The Court finds that the AVO obtained by the father in 2018 was in circumstances where it was, in fact, the father who had engaged in family violence. The Court finds the arrest of the mother for allegedly breaching the ADVO in early 2019 was controlling behaviour and family violence by the father.
On 30 September 2020 the father pushed a door onto the mother's elbow, hurting her elbow, grabbing her by both arms and pushing her backwards causing bruising and that this was physical family violence by the father to the mother.
The abusive and denigrating communications by the father to the mother and to her solicitor, and posted on Facebook, identified in the mother's evidence, and partially summarised in the chronology, reflects the father continuing to engage in manipulative, gaslighting, and threatening behaviour towards the mother that the Court finds is controlling conduct that constitutes family violence. The father's lack of empathy, lack of insight, lack of acceptance of accountability for his family violence and continuing inadequately managed mental health are likely to endure currently, in the medium term and in the long term and this supports the finding of a lack of parenting capacity by the father. The father has been and is likely to continue trying to control, denigrate and instil fear in the mother and undermine or destroy her primary relationship with the children.
The Court also finds that there is an unacceptable risk of physical harm to the mother and children given the father's past physical violence to the mother, given the father's physical discipline and violence to his older children and given the father's ongoing inadequately managed mental health issues. The Court finds the father's threats of suicide to the mother and in relation to a landlord were manipulative conduct by the father. The Court finds the farewells and goodbyes by the father to the mother and children were manipulative conduct by the father. The Court accepting the mother's evidence finds the father's physical discipline of his older children was vicious and damaging to those children. Given the father's ongoing issues to which the Court has referred the Court does not accept the father's evidence that he would not engage in physical punishment of his children. The relatively young age of the children heightens that unacceptable risk. The degree of the unacceptable risk to the children and mother of physical violence is high given the duration of the family violence by the father to which the Court has referred including lack of insight and lack of empathy by the father. The consequences of that unacceptable risk of physical harm could be catastrophic. The Court finds the unacceptable risk of physical harm to the children and mother outweighs the harm the children will suffer from the loss of the relationship with the father by having identity orders.
The Court finds the father is an unreliable, untruthful and unsatisfactory witness. The father was an evasive witness that repeatedly gave unresponsive answers, advocated his case and gave inconsistent and contradictory answers. For example the father's denial of an offer to return his daughter for sex, contradicted by his own text was patently untruthful. The Court accepts the veracity and truthfulness of the mother's evidence over that of the father who was not a credible witness. The father persistently engaged in any opportunity presented to denigrate the mother and make derogatory observations of her. The father demonstrated himself to have a fixed state of mind that he was the victim, and revealed no insight in relation to the family violence, identified by the mother, that he had engaged in. The father took no accountability for his conduct, which the Court finds is a significant factor in weighing the safety of the children and the mother. The Court accepts the submissions of the applicant and the ICL that this is a case where the Court cannot find, within s 60CC(2)(e), that the benefit the children would have from being able to have a meaningful relationship with the father:

[347]

The Court has taken into account the objects in s 60B, to which the Court has referred, and finds that the identity contact orders, proposed by the ICL and the mother, is an arrangement that would best promote the safety of the children and the mother, and best prevent the mother and the children being exposed to family violence. In relation to s 60CC(b), the Court accepts that the children love their father, and, by inference, wish to spend more time with him; however, the Court has taken into account the young age of the children, and in all the circumstances gives the views of the children little weight. The Court is satisfied that the developmental, psychological and emotional needs of the children, under s 60CC(2)(c) are best advanced by the identity contact orders proposed by the ICL and the mother. The Court finds that there is a real and unacceptable risk of serious adverse psychological and emotional harm to the children if other than identity contact were ordered in relation to the father. The Court finds that the nature of that harm is the undermining or attempted destruction of the primary carer's relationship with the children and the manipulation and denigration of the mother by the father that has a real likelihood of serious developmental, psychological and emotional harm.
The Court accepts the court child expert's evidence that ongoing supervised time is a greater adverse risk of developmental, psychological and emotional harm than the proposed identity contact orders. The Court finds that the mother has ample capacity to and has been meeting the needs of the children for their developmental, psychological and emotional advancement within s 60CC(2)(d). The Court finds the father lacks parental capacity to properly meet the children's developmental, psychological and emotional needs given his ongoing inadequate mental health management, lack of insight and lack of empathy that the Court finds, given the long duration and history, has no prognosis of advancement.
The Court does not accept the submissions that the psychologist's report demonstrates the father's mental condition has improved. The Court finds the father continues to suffer from the major disorder with anxious distress identified by the psychiatrist Dr W, and the Court finds that that major depressive disorder with anxious distress is not properly managed by the father and the Court finds the father, given the history of the matter, is unlikely to take steps to properly manage his mental health in the future so as to acquire an adequate level of self-control, insight and empathy needed to possess parenting capacity for the children.
The Court finds the continued use of marijuana by the father on a daily basis is a further significant risk factor in relation to the father's mental health and a further reflection of his lack of parenting capacity. In relation to s 60CC(2)(e), the Court finds that it is not safe to do so for the children to have the benefit of a relationship with the father beyond the identity contact orders.
In finding that it is not safe to do so in terms of other than identity contact relationship with the father, the Court finds that the lack of empathy identified by the court child expert of the father in relation to his children reveals an ongoing state that was reflected in the evidence that he gave before this Court, in which he made a stunning disparagement of his daughter, that he described as a drug addict and a liar. The Court finds that the continued denigration of the mother after being informed of its potential adverse impact in the course of the hearing reinforces a real lack of empathy that continues in relation to the father in respect of a want of parenting capacity. The Court finds that the father's lack of empathy extends to both the mother and the children, the subject of these proceedings.
The Court finds that this lack of empathy as identified by the court child expert is of considerable concern, given the relatively young age of the children the subject of these proceedings, and that this factor further supports the finding that it is not safe to do so within s 60CC(2)(e) for the children to have the benefit of having a more meaningful relationship with the father than identity contact. The Court also finds, in relation to it not being safe to do so, that the father continues to suffer from a major depressive disorder with anxious distress which is not properly treated or managed, other than by the self-medicating unregulated steps of the father in smoking daily marijuana.
The Court finds the absence of specified and identifiable doses in the medicinal cannabis taken by the father increases the risk to the children of physical, psychological and emotional harm from the father.
The Court finds the continuing failure of the father to obtain proper and continuing counselling means that his mental health is inadequately managed and this is likely to continue in the long-distant future. The Court in this regard has taken into account the failure of the father to comply with orders made by this Court on two separate occasions to disclose the names and details of the medical practitioners he has been seeing which were not complied with. The belated filing by the father of the affidavit dated 8 July 2025, which was more than a month outside the time ordered by this Court, meant that the mother and the ICL were unable to take advantage of subpoenaing further material from the medical practitioners identified in the material provided by the father in his supplementary affidavit.
The Court did hear argument as to whether the father's affidavit of 8 July 2025 should be received into evidence and determined that it was in the best interests of the children for the Court to receive that material into evidence. The report provided by the father in that affidavit of his clinical psychologist, Mr KK, identified only four attendances between 9 January 2025 and 20 February 2025 upon that psychologist. The report itself was dated 26 May 2025. The report in its recommendations identified that the father requires ongoing psychotherapy and additional psychological support to address PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression and referred to both individual trauma therapy and needing social support.
It is apparent from the terms of the report itself and its date that the father did not continue with his therapy from the psychologist after 20 February 2025. The Court rejects the father's evidence that he was unable to afford to do so. The Court accepts the evidence given in cross-examination that he had preserved financial funds so that he could obtain accommodation and accepts the submission of the ICL and the mother that in these circumstances the father's explanation for the cessation of the therapy with the psychologist being due to a lack of funds must be rejected. The failure to continue with that therapy with the psychologist is consistent with the history of the father in dealing with mental health practitioners and further supports the finding by the Court that his mental state is not likely to improve in the long term.
The Court prefers the opinion and evidence of the psychiatrist Dr W, to that of the psychologist, Mr KK. Given the identified limitations expressed by Mr KK, that he is the father's treating psychologist and has a bias in his report and that his conclusions are based on that relationship and the request made by the father, the Court places no weight on the opinions expressed favourable to the father in that report, suggesting that the father is capable of extended visits with the children and that it will motivate the engagement of the father with his therapy. The Court rejects the opinion by Mr KK that there is no clinical evidence to suggest the father's mental health poses a direct risk to his children. The Court rejects the opinion by Mr KK that the contact will be beneficial for the children. The foundation for the opinions expressed by Mr KK were wanting and amount to generalised conclusions on which no weight can be placed.
The Court finds that there is no ongoing targeted mental health intervention that the father is undertaking that supports the conclusion of Mr KK as to the father's capacity as a parent. The Court rejects the opinion by Mr KK that the father has shown any understanding or insight in relation to parenting from his online courses. In that regard, the father, in the affidavit that annexed that report, included in paragraph 13 a voluminous number of courses in respect of which he said relevantly:

[351]

The conclusion expressed by the psychologist reflects an actual bias that undermines any weight being given to the opinions that he has expressed and for this independent reason, the Court place no weight on the opinions supportive of the father expressed in that report.
Further, that conclusion just identified reflects the ongoing victim role of the father and a complete lack of insight as to the current position in respect of the limited visitation to the children, being one in respect of which it is the father's fault and he has taken no responsibility or accountability for that state of affairs.
This reinforces the Court's concern that it is not safe to do so in respect of promoting more meaningful time than identity contact between the father and the children.
The Court finds that the opinion expressed by Mr KK as to the father's ability to meet the children's needs can be given no weight, and the opinion as to the father showing a relatively high degree of insight and awareness with psychological triggers and ways to manage these and that this insight is a protective factor can also be given no weight. There is no proper foundation for these opinions and they amount to no more than generalised conclusions.
The opinion expressed that the father has displayed commitment and engaged to follow up in regards to developing parenting skills prior to commencing therapy have no proper foundation, and the Court gives that opinion no weight.
The Court also finds that the opinion that the father is committed to ongoing therapy to address PTSD and comorbid anxiety and depression can be given no weight and that there is no foundation to support that generalised opinion.
It is not necessary for the Court to repeat the derogatory terms used by the father to describe the mother, and the Court finds, on the father's evidence, that he remains of the belief that his issue of time with the children is the fault of the mother, and due to the mother's manipulation. The father suggested in evidence that he would not make disparaging remarks in front of the children. The Court does not accept that the father has the capacity to restrain from making such derogatory remarks. The father was clearly unable to do so throughout his evidence to this Court and displayed a similar state of mind in the interview with the court child expert.
Further, the Court finds as explained above that this is not a case where the Court can find that the father will comply with Court orders. The history of the matter, in relation to the provision of details in respect of medical practitioners, as well as the failure to comply with the order in respect of the filing of the father's most recent affidavit, is a sufficient evidentiary basis of itself to support the Court's conclusion that the father would not be capable of complying with Court orders in relation to trying to frame constraints that might protect the children from the father denigrating the primary carer, and undermining/ destroying the relationship of the children with the primary carer. In the course of his evidence, the father made reference to criticising the mother for complying with the strict letter of the orders made by the Court. Implicit in that characterisation is the recognition of the father's willingness to disregard Court orders.
Further, the Court finds that the father has regularly, when engaging with the children, engaged in manipulative conduct by seeking to identify, with the children present, when he will next see them. The Court does not accept that this was other than intentional coercive behaviour, by the father, to control the mother. As identified above the Court accepts the mother's evidence that the father threatened to withhold the daughter unless the mother had sex with the father. That type of controlling behaviour is family violence and reflects a want of parenting capacity and a complete absence of empathy for the child in relation to seeing the child's primary carer while withholding the child until a recovery order was made.
As earlier explained the Court finds that the father's lack of empathy in relation to his children is a further basis upon which spending meaningful time with the father other than identity contact is not safe to do so. For the reasons the Court has already given, the Court is not satisfied that there are orders of restraint in relation to time with the father that could adequately protect the children from psychological and emotional harm by the father by denigrating the mother and undermining or destroying the primary care relationship between the children and the mother. The Court finds that the risk of significant harm to the psychological and emotional development of the children through the father's denigration and manipulation is highly likely.
The Court finds the incident of X asserting that she had been hit by the mother was both untrue, was induced by the father and was an attempt by the daughter to try and ingratiate herself in the eyes of the father. That type of manipulation is likely to cause greater significant unacceptable risk of harm to the psychological and emotional development of the children by undermining or destroying the relationship with the primary carer, than the harm the children will suffer from the loss of more meaningful contact than that of the identity contact orders. The Court finds the unacceptable risk of harm to the children if there was other than identity contact orders with the father is highly likely. The Court finds that this unacceptable risk of harm is a greater harm than the children will suffer from the loss of a more meaningful relationship with the father. The identity contact orders are not no time orders and this also reduces the harm the children will suffer from the identify contact orders in the loss of their more meaningly relationship with the father.
Further, the Court finds that unsupervised time by the children with the father creates a real risk of psychological and emotional harm by the father, denigrating and undermining the primary relationship of the mother. The Court finds that the degree of that risk is extremely high given the father's daily smoking use of marijuana. The Court also finds that this self-administered medication for the father's mental health is not one that has achieved a stability or removed the current diagnosis of which the father continues to suffer as identified by the psychiatrist, Dr W.
In these circumstances, the father consuming unidentifiable quantities and dosage of marijuana, creates a real risk of the father being unable to restrain himself from physically disciplining the children. The Court finds that that risk is real given the prior physical corporal punishment that the father identified he had given his two older children and to which he was subjected. The Court places no weight on the assertion of the father that he would not do so.
The Court also finds that that consumption of marijuana if there were overnight time gives rise to the real risk of neglect of the children, amounting to family violence. The Court finds the degree of that risk is high given the unknown quantities of marijuana being consumed by the father every night. The Court finds that the proposals advanced on behalf of the father are ones that are not safe to do so for the children. Further, the Court finds that the proposals advanced by the father give rise to a real risk of significant psychological and emotional harm by the father, undermining and destroying the primary relationship of the mother with the children by denigrating the mother and by manipulation. The Court finds that the likelihood of that risk is extremely high.
The Court finds given the history of the failure to comply with the Court's orders that the father would be unable to comply with Court orders to protect the children in a way that would not undermine and manipulate the children so as to impair, if not destroy, the primary carer's relationship with the children.
In relation to s 60CC(2)(f) the Court has taken into account that these children are at a young age and unlikely to be able to emotionally and psychologically cope with the denigration of the mother, likely to occur by the father, and will be unable to appreciate when being manipulated by the father to impair or destroy the primary relationship with the mother. In relation to s 60CC(2)(a), the Court finds the history of family violence is one perpetrated by the father upon the mother. In relation to the AVOs that were obtained by the mother, the Court finds that the mother's evidence is to be accepted and that this breaches by the father heighten the unacceptable risk to the children and the mother.
As explained above the Court does not accept that the mother assaulted the father and that the AVO against the mother in favour of the father, was actually family violence by the father and the circumstances explained by the mother, accepted by the Court, do not support any want parenting capacity by the mother. The AVO for alleged protection of the father should not have been granted. The father was at no time in need of protection from the mother and the Court rejects his evidence that he was scared of the mother. That evidence by the father was untruthful. As explained above the Court has taken into account that there is a risk that is imposed by the child H, which is addressed by constraints imposed upon the mother. Given the credibility of the mother, the Court is satisfied the mother will comply with those constraints.
The Court finds that the family violence perpetrated by the father as identified in the mother's evidence and as reflected in the continuing denigration of the mother in the evidence given by the father reinforces the finding that this is not a case where the Court can make a more favourable order for more meaningful time by the father with the children. The Court has taken into account that the identity contact order does give rise to a risk of psychological emotional harm to the children, but accepts the court child expert's evidence that such potential harm is outweighed by the harm that would be done to the children, in terms of their psychological and emotional development, by the father undermining and destroying the primary relationship with the mother. The Court finds the degree of risk of the father engaging in that conduct is, as earlier identified, extremely high.
The Court also finds that the mother is a person who is vulnerable, having been able to be manipulated by the father, a proposition supported by the court child expert, and that her capacity to cope with her primary role in meeting the children's needs is likely to be materially impaired, if not destroyed, if the father were to spend more than the identity contact time with the children. The Court finds that the identity time reflects a lesser level of risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children than if the Court made a no-time order. The Court is satisfied that the mother will be able to cope with meeting the children's parenting needs if the identity contact orders are made by the Court.
The Court finds that the restraints proposed by the ICL are all ones appropriate and necessary, in the best interests of the children. The Court finds that the proposed parenting orders are in the best interests of the children. It is for these reasons the Court has made the proposed parenting orders.
The Court finds that this is a case where no costs order should be made in favour of the ICL, under s 114UC. In this regard, the Court considers that each party would suffer financial hardship if either party had to bear a proportion of the costs of the independent children's lawyer.
The Court notes that it raised with the ICL whether this was an appropriate matter in which the Court should pronounce its final orders, and reserve its written reasons. The Court identified that this would bring to an end the interim parenting arrangements, and that continuing the same would have an impact on the children.
The ICL supported the making of such orders, and reserving written reasons if the Court was in a position to do so. The Court was satisfied, having heard the evidence, that it was in a position to make final orders and that it would publish its written reasons as soon as practicable and would preserve time to appeal until the publication of the written reasons. The Court took into account the best interests of the children and s 102NE, the objects in s 60B and the principles in s 43 in deciding to pronounce orders and reserve the written reasons.

Norton v Landell

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (352 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)