Oughtred & Palvetic [2026] FedCFamC1F 50 (23 January 2026)

1. On 19 November 2025, at a hearing at which the father was in attendance, in light of his persistent failure to comply with orders of the Court, his expressions of intention to continue to fail to comply with court orders, and the resulting lack of evidence as to the assessment of the child's safety in his care, the matter was listed for an undefended hearing of the mother's application to take place on this day.
2. By the orders of 19 November 2025, the father was given leave to seek to vacate the undefended hearing. The relevant orders and notations made that day provided as follows:
   1. The father has persistently failed to comply with orders made on 10 July 2025 requiring him to undergo a psychological assessment and hair follicle testing and has been warned by the Court this day that compliance with court is not optional and non-compliance can have serious consequences
   2. The father's attention is drawn to rule 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and Core Principle 6 of Schedule A to the Court's Central Practice Direction: Family Law Case Management with respect to the consequences of non-compliance with court orders.

...

1. The father has liberty to make an application to vacate the listing for an undefended hearing by filing an Application in a Proceeding in proper form accompanied by an affidavit:

(a) demonstrating full compliance with orders 1 and 2 of the made on 10 July 2025; and

(b) explaining his failure to comply with those orders within the timeframes provided for within those orders.

1. The father filed no such application. Nor did he file any evidence demonstrating his compliance with the orders in question or explaining his failure to comply.
2. At the hearing on 19 November 2025, an order was made pursuant to section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). It was made clear to the father that he was entitled to obtain legal representation pursuant to the Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, and that he would need to do so if he sought to cross-examine the mother at the undefended hearing. Notations made on 19 November 2025 provided as follows:
   1. The father has been charged with an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence to the other party and the Court has made an order that the requirements of section 102NA are to apply as between the mother and the father in this matter and accordingly s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 applied and:
      1. the Honourable Justice Parker has this day advised the unrepresented party that he will not be permitted to personally cross examine the other party at trial;
      2. that the cross examination must be conducted by a legal practitioner; and
      3. the unrepresented party has been advised by the Honourable Justie Parker to apply to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia for a grant of funding pursuant to the Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme.
   2. The father has been advised by the Court of the need to make urgent application to the Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme to obtain legal representation in the event that he seeks to cross-examine the mother at the undefended hearing.
3. No Notice of Address for Service was subsequently filed by any lawyer on behalf of the father.
4. As foreshadowed in the listing orders made on 19 November 2025, the mother was permitted to proceed on an undefended basis. That was for the following reasons.
5. The Court has a discretion pursuant to rule 10.27 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules") to allow a party to proceed on an undefended basis when the other party is in default. A similar power is contained within subsections 69(3) and (4) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) which provide as follows:

(3) If a party failed to comply with a direction given by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) of a Judge under subsection (1), the Court of Judge may make such order or direction as the Court or Judge thinks appropriate.

(4) In particular, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) or Judge may do any of the following:

(a) dismiss the proceeding in whole or in part;

(b) strike out, amend or limit any party of a party's claim or defence;

(c) disallow or reject any evidence;

...

1. The Central Practice Direction makes it clear that non-compliance by parties with their obligations may lead to liberty being granted to the compliant party to proceed on an undefended basis.
2. I have had regard to the overarching purpose as set out in section 95 of the Act which provides as follows:

95 Overarching purpose of the family law practice and procedure provisions

(1) The overarching purpose of the family law practice and procedure provisions is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes:

(a) in a way that ensures the safety of families and children; and

(b) in relation to proceedings under this Act in which the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration - in a way that promotes the best interests of the child; and

(c) according to law; and

(d) as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.

Note: For family law practice and procedure provisions, see subsection (4).

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the overarching purpose includes the following objectives in relation to proceedings under this Act:

(a) the just determination of all such proceedings;

(b) the efficient use of the judicial and administrative resources available for the purposes of courts exercising jurisdiction in such proceedings;

(c) the efficient disposal of the overall caseload of courts exercising jurisdiction in such proceedings;

(d) the disposal of all such proceedings in a timely manner;

(e) the resolution of disputes at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.

(3) The family law practice and procedure provisions must be interpreted and applied, and any power conferred or duty imposed by them (including the power to make applicable Rules of Court) must be exercised or carried out, in the way that best promotes the overarching purpose.

(4) The family law practice and procedure provisions are the following, so far as they apply in relation to proceedings under this Act:

(a) the applicable Rules of Court;

(b) any other provision made by or under this Act, or any other Act, with respect to the practice and procedure of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or any other court_._

1. I have also had regard to the principles espoused by section 102NE of the Act which provide as follows:

102NE Principles for conducting child‑related proceedings and property or other proceedings

Application of the principles

(1) The court must give effect to the principles in this section:

(a) in performing duties and exercising powers (whether under this Division or otherwise) in relation to child‑related proceedings or property or other non‑child‑related proceedings; and

(b) in making other decisions about the conduct of child‑related proceedings or property or other non‑child‑related proceedings.

Failure to do so does not invalidate the proceedings or any order made in them.

(2) Regard is to be had to the principles that are relevant to the particular proceedings in interpreting this Division.

Note: All the principles are relevant to child‑related proceedings. The principles in subsection (3), paragraph (5)(a) and subsection (6) do not apply in relation to property or other non‑child‑related proceedings.

Principle 1

(3) The first principle is that the court is to consider the needs of the child concerned and the impact that the conduct of the proceedings may have on the child in determining the conduct of the proceedings.

(4) The second principle is that the court is to actively direct, control and manage the conduct of the proceedings.

(5) The third principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted in a way that will safeguard:

(a) the child concerned from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

(b) the parties to the proceedings against family violence.

(6) The fourth principle is that the proceedings are, as far as possible, to be conducted in a way that will promote cooperative and child‑focused parenting by the parties.

(7) The fifth principle is that the proceedings are to be conducted without undue delay and with as little formality, and legal technicality and form, as possible.

1. These proceedings have been on foot since July 2024. They have been marked by persistent and defiant non-compliance of the father with orders designed to enable the Court to undertake a fully informed assessment of the child's best interests. There is no basis for optimism that there will be any improvement in the father's attitude or behaviour in this regard.
2. It is highly unlikely to be serving the child's best interests for his primary carer to continue to be involved in ongoing litigation, particularly in the circumstances of the dynamics of the relationship between the parties to this matter, to which I will soon turn.
3. During the course of his submissions at the hearing this day, the father made assertions as to a lack of procedural fairness. He complained about his lack of access to a copy of the child impact report, copies of which had not been released to the parties personally, resulting in the need for him to rely on his memory as to the contents of the report, which had previously been relayed to him by a duty lawyer, in making submissions as to the contents of the report. In response to that issue being raised, the father was provided with, and took, a further opportunity to review the report with the assistance of the duty lawyer.
4. I note in this regard that although the conditions placed on the release of sensitive documents may sometimes render access to them less than optimal, the safety of parties and children must be prioritised. I note also that had the father taken up the opportunity to engage a lawyer through the Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme, that lawyer would have had access to that document, but he elected instead to remain unrepresented.
5. The father has had the opportunity to be heard. He was given extremely clear notice that the matter would proceed on an undefended basis today unless he took specified steps to rectify his wilful non-compliance with extant court orders. He persisted in his refusal to do so, and did not take up the opportunity of legal representation afforded to him by virtue of the section 102NA order.
6. The father has been represented by three separate sets of solicitors during the course of these proceedings, and he was represented at the hearing on 10 July 2025. I infer that he has received legal advice about the proceedings generally, and about the orders made that day in particular. I emphasise, however, that being unrepresented does not constitute an excuse for failing to comply with binding court orders.
7. The father spent some time with the duty lawyer prior to the commencement of the hearing this day.
8. At the hearing this day, the father sought to justify his failure to comply with the orders of 10 July 2025 by asserting he had not agreed with their contents, and that their characterisation as having been made by consent was erroneous. That position, even assuming it is true, misses two important points. Firstly, it is necessary that a party comply with court orders whether they were made with that party's consent or not; and secondly, the result of his non-compliance was that the Court has been deprived of evidence that would have been crucial for any determination that the child was safe in his care.
9. The father complained that has been refused the opportunity to put evidence before the Court. I do not accept that that is accurate. The father was given numerous opportunities to participate fully in the proceedings, including a clear pathway for this undefended hearing to be vacated as provided for in the orders of 19 November 2025, and he chose not to take those opportunities. That is fundamentally different from the opportunities not having been provided.
10. The father also complained that he is being "punished" in circumstances where he believes that the mother may not have undertaken courses she has been ordered to undertake. The mother was required by court order to undertake the Circle of Security and Kids are First courses, and has adduced evidence of having done so, including certificates of completion. I am not persuaded that the mother has failed to comply with her obligations in this regard.
11. In Allesch v Maunz[1] Kirby J held that:
    1. ...Having regard to the circumstances in which the initial proceedings took place in the absence of Mr Allesch (the appellant), it is worth emphasising that the principle just described does not require that the decision-maker actually hear (or receive the submissions of) the party potentially liable to be adversely affected. Sometimes, through stubbornness, confusion, misunderstanding, fear or other emotions, a party may not take advantage of the opportunity to be heard, although such opportunity is provided. Affording the opportunity is all that the law and principle require.
    2. Decision-makers, including the courts, cannot generally force people to protect their own rights, to adduce evidence or other materials, to present submissions or to act rationally in their own best interests. This consideration may be especially relevant in relation to the Family Court where emotions, often engendered by the highly personal issues involved, can sometimes cloud rational thought.
    3. Nor are courts obliged to delay proceedings indefinitely because one party, although proved to be on notice of the proceedings, refuses or fails to appear in person or to be represented by a lawyer or some other individual permitted to speak for them who can explain the need for an adjournment. The rights of other parties are commonly involved. In the Family Court, the rights of non-parties (especially children) may be affected. Additionally (as this Court has itself accepted), the rights of the public in the efficient discharge by courts of their functions must be weighed against unreasonable delay in concluding litigation.

1. In all the circumstances, I was satisfied that the father has been afforded procedural fairness, and that it was in the interests of justice to permit the mother to proceed on an undefended basis in accordance with the listing.
2. The only application and evidence before me are therefore those relied upon by the mother, together with some documents tendered by the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL").
3. As a consequence of the combined effect of the section 102NA order and the father's failure or refusal to obtain legal representation despite it being made available to him pursuant to the Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, he was unable to cross-examine the mother. The ICL did not seek to cross-examine the mother.
4. Order 8 of the orders of 19 November 2025 provided as follows:
   1. In the event that either party seeks to cross-examine any witness or the author of any report relied upon by the other party at the undefended hearing, the party seeking to cross-examine must provide notice to the other party and the Independent Children's Lawyer, and in the case of a professional witness, make arrangements for the witness to be available at the undefended hearing.
5. No party took advantage of the process as provided for in that order in relation to the court child expert.
6. The mother's evidence was not challenged by cross-examination. It is not inherently improbable or implausible, and as a consequence I accept it.
7. I heard submissions in relation to the proposed orders from the counsel for the mother, counsel for the ICL, and from the father, who made detailed and lengthy submissions to the Court this day.

1. The child has resided with his mother his entire life, and in her sole care since the parties separated when he was very young. He has not spent unsupervised time with the father since separation and has not spent time with him at all since June 2025, being a period of approximately seven months.
2. The mother deposes to a history of extremely serious family violence[2] perpetrated against her by the father, including the following:

(a) using physical violence to exert dominance during sexual activity, causing the mother physical harm and distress;

(b) denigration and belittling, including calling her "worthless," "broken," a "stupid bitch" and a "whore;"

(c) deliberately locking her (and the child) out of the house, without access to her keys or phone;

(d) controlling behaviour, including ordering her to clean the house;

(e) hitting her in the face while she was driving;

(f) grabbing her in a headlock and applying pressure to her neck, restricting her from breathing, causing her to come close to losing consciousness, and on other occasions putting his hands around her neck and applying pressure, including during her pregnancy, and on occasion causing her to fear for her life;

(g) deliberately preventing her from sleeping;

(h) using threats to publish intimate photos of her to attempt to coerce her to resume their relationship, including photos taken when she was a child;

(i) preventing her from leaving with the child at the conclusion of periods of time spending facilitated by her following separation at his parents' home;

(j) approaching her with a knife during an incident following separation;

(k) informing her that he could kill her, and would "probably get away with it;"

(l) throwing her phone onto the ground, causing it to crack;

(m) grabbing her, forcing his arm around her neck, and tightening his grip;

(n) posting TikTok videos and making other social media posts of a threatening nature;

(o) repeatedly slapping her to the face;

(p) forcibly pushing her causing her to fall over; and

(q) threatening, intimidating and controlling behaviour, including psychological manipulation.

1. Some of the behaviour outlined above is said to have occurred in the child's presence.
2. The mother deposes that the parties' sexual relationship began when she was 15 years old and the father was 17, and that the father took sexual photos and videos of her commencing when she was that age.
3. The mother deposes that the father's conduct has caused her to be fearful of him.
4. The mother further deposes to concerning conduct on the part of the father which gives rise to concerns about his mental health and/or state of mind, including the following:

(a) referring to himself as "Lord [Mr Palvetic]," proclaiming himself to be God, and claiming to be in control of significant world events;

(b) expressing ambitions to create and govern his own country within Australia, and having taken steps to achieve this goal, including having written a book about it;

(c) sending her a message saying "the more traumatising shit a man sees the better. I've watched hundreds of people die;" and

(d) subscribing to extremist ideologies.

61. [Mr Palvetic] today believes that he is 'god'. [Mr Palvetic] on [social media platform] has said "I am God" "The Heavens prepare for my command" "I am divine intellect in physical form and manifestation" "[Country G] belongs to me." "I AM Judgment Day, I AM the hour, And I come back Armed - with the Sword of Truth. The Heavens prepare for my command, I am God. As Above, As Below." [Mr Palvetic's] posts take passages from the Christian Bible and he substitutes himself into the place of the Christian God.

1. [Mr Palvetic's] posts have hints that allude to violence; "The Lord's mercy is not infinite, It's a resource but not a weakness. It is stored and it fills with every second withheld." These are actual beliefs of [Mr Palvetic's]. [Mr Palvetic's] holds long [social media] Chat Room Sessions and I have recorded parts of these chats. In [January 2025] [Mr Palvetic's] said on [social media] Chat that he was going to "bomb [Country G] and nuke [Country G]". In [June 2025] [Mr Palvetic's] told another chat forum about "His Divinity" [Mr Palvetic's] actively defends the fact that he is God in these forums. The [social media] posts of [Mr Palvetic's] are voluminous, and his chat forums are long. In [June 2025] [Mr Palvetic's] participated in a 9.5 hour chatroom session, where [Mr Palvetic's] detailed his divinity and his violent intentions towards [Country G].

2. [Mr Palvetic's] posts take passages from the Christian Bible and he substitutes himself into the place of the Christian God. The [...] Protocol is an adaption of chapter 1 of John 1 in the Christian Bible and adapted to put [Mr Palvetic's] in the place of Jesus. "And the Father called upon his son: [Mr Palvetic's], the signal is broken again. Can you fix it? And I descended down the heavenly white marble stairs yet again" [Mr Palvetic's] then goes onto make a reference to a connection that he made with a female ethernet cable, the product of which was a successful 'portal connection' called [X].

(As per the original)

1. It was submitted on behalf of the mother, and I accept, that her evidence of serious, erratic, dangerous and threatening conduct raises questions of potential psychological, and perhaps psychiatric complexities, and that not only is the evidence that would enable the Court to make an assessment of the associated risks not available, it is not available by dint of the father's refusal to comply with court orders.
2. Any opportunity the Court may otherwise have had to be reassured about the state of the father's mental health by way of a psychological assessment is not available as a result of the father's recalcitrant behaviour. In the absence of any expert evidence about this important issue, caution is warranted.
3. The mother also deposes that the father has a history of illicit drug use. In this regard, too, the father's position with respect to compliance with the orders has meant that there is no evidence before the Court to demonstrate whether or not he is presently using illicit substances and the Court must therefore be cautious.
4. The mother further deposes to conduct on behalf of the father which represented a risk to the child's safety and physical and emotional well-being directly, including:

(a) giving him food containing hazelnuts, despite knowing he has a nut allergy;

(b) holding a lighter close to him and lighting it while he was wearing flammable pyjamas;

(c) vaping in his presence and blowing vapour in his direction;

(d) indicating an intention to smack the child "until he could sit down and look him in the eyes" so that he could "focus in pain;"

(e) threatening to take him shooting without the mother's consent;

(f) refusing to use a child car seat; and

(g) threatening to teach the child that he need not do anything the mother tells him.

1. The mother's evidence as to the father's conduct is supported, and in some cases overtly demonstrated, by copies of text messages and posts tendered on her behalf.
2. The mother's evidence is that the child has exhibited signs of stress, distress and regression associated with time and communication with the father.
3. In June 2025, the father was arrested. He was charged with three counts of aggravated assault, one count of choking, suffocating and strangulation, and one count of adult sexual abuse of a child, all with respect to the mother. The father was released on bail and an interim intervention order was made for the protection of the mother. The charges against the father have not yet been determined.
4. In June 2025, the supervised contact service through which the child had been spending time with the mother terminated the arrangements for supervised contact after three unsuccessful attempts at facilitating time during which the child refused to spend time with the father. They have not spent any time together since that time.

1. A child impact report was prepared on 19 March 2025 by court child expert, Ms B. I have regard to the entirety of that document. Relevant passages include the following:
   1. [Ms Oughtred] alleged significant family violence and controlling behaviour by [Mr Palvetic] during the relationship which has continued post separation. [Ms Oughtred] stated that at the commencement of the relationship she was a young and vulnerable fifteen-year-old adolescent, she expressed having low self-esteem and insecurities that made her vulnerable to [Mr Palvetic's] "power games" and psychological abuse. [Ms Oughtred] alleged there was verbal abuse such as, name calling (put downs, called boring, too pale, ugly) and she was mocked with derogatory comments about her physical appearance (acne, ugly feet). [Ms Oughtred] reported being constantly belittled and that this was "insidious and happened slowly". She alleged physical abuse, and that [Mr Palvetic] would push her and shove her, she claimed he did not punch her on the face as "he knew that was obvious". [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic's] behaviour was unpredictable and that at times he was "charming" and that after incidents of degradation or violence he would apologise. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] used gaslighting techniques, whereby he rarely yelled at her or was "super angry", he would use a calm voice to threaten or intimidate and if she responded using a heightened tone, he would continue to be reasonable whereby "it made me feel like I was crazy". [Ms Oughtred] stated when [Mr Palvetic] was in this state his eyes would be dark and black and that she was terrified of him.
   2. During the pregnancy, [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] would stop the vehicle and tell her to dismount, leaving her on the footpath alone until he returned, she alleged this was to intimidate and scare her, forcing her to be reliant on him. [Ms Oughtred] alleged during the pregnancy she was regularly made to sleep on the floor at the end of the bed and in the closet on the floor at times. [Ms Oughtred] stated the paternal grandmother was aware of this behaviour by [Mr Palvetic] and told [Ms Oughtred], "It was normal". [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] choked her using his hands around her neck (other times he used one arm around her neck) during the pregnancy.
   3. [Ms Oughtred] alleged this violence continued after the birth of [X], she alleged when [X] was one month old the parents were arguing, and she was crying while [Mr Palvetic] was "screaming' at her. She reported placing [X] on the bed to keep him out of any physical harm and that [Mr Palvetic] placed her in a choke hold and "choked me out". [Ms Oughtred] stated she "passed out and I hit the floor", she expressed being terrified and thinking "what if this one kills me". [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] just left the room and that [X] had been crying unattended on the bed throughout the entire incident. [Ms Oughtred] alleged after the birth of [X] the verbal abuse, denigration and emotional abuse became worse. She alleged [Mr Palvetic] told her "I wasn't thin, didn't look as good" and told her that no one would love a single mother like her, he would tell her "Your vagina is ugly". [Ms Oughtred] alleged during the pregnancy and after [X's] birth [Mr Palvetic] would lock her outside of the home and deny her entry. She claimed at times [X] as an infant would require a clean nappy or a blanket and [Mr Palvetic] would deny these requests or allow her inside. [Ms Oughtred] claimed at times she phoned the paternal grandmother to collect her, and she and [X] would sleep at the paternal grandparents' home.
   4. [Ms Oughtred] alleged intimate partner sexual violence and coercion throughout the relationship and continuing post separation. [Ms Oughtred] reported [Mr Palvetic] has naked photos of herself taken when she approximately fifteen years of age, and that [Mr Palvetic] has threatened to upload this to the internet via an 'Only Fans' account and disseminate them to any new partner in the future. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] has sent an email with her nude photos attached threatening he would file the photos in affidavit material if she proceeded with court litigation. [Ms Oughtred] alleged she was coerced to perform sexual acts that "I didn't want", she alleged [Mr Palvetic] would persistently request she participate in "threesomes", and he would request she pretend to be his sister or cousin in sexual role play. [Mr Palvetic] would use his sisters name ([Ms C]) during sexual intercourse. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] threatened to make an artificial intelligence video of herself using the nude photos in his possession should she proceed with court litigation. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] sexually abused her using "consensual rape" whereby the act of rape was role played between the parents. [Ms Oughtred] reported "he did this a lot" and that she would be crying into the pillow, which "he thought was part of the act". [Ms Oughtred] alleged he would turn her over and engage in sexual intercourse from behind, she reported she was not asked to engage in this sexual activity, there was no safe word and "I had no choice". [Ms Oughtred] alleged the sexual activity extended to slapping her and spitting on her. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] would have sexual intercourse with random woman during the relationship, she alleged that when he went clubbing in Adelaide city he would often return with a rose as a gift for his infidelities and to invoke her forgiveness. [Ms Oughtred] expressed feeling vulnerable due to her age, understanding of sexual relations and the shame and stigma of her experiences, these combined with her fear of not conforming to [Mr Palvetic's] requests disempowered her ability to seek support. [Ms Oughtred] was highly emotional and distressed while discussing this alleged behaviour, it was evident she found this difficult to discuss.
   5. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] has made threats to kill her such as "do you think I could kill you and get away with it" she stated that he would then go on to tell her how he would re-partner with a younger woman and that she would be [X's] stepmother.
   6. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] isolated her from her family and would inform her that "they're not good for you" continuously, and to the point where she felt unable to confide in them. She reported that eventually her only friends were [Mr Palvetic's] sisters and that in her mind "I had nowhere to go". [Ms Oughtred] alleged attempting to complete an eyelash course and that [Mr Palvetic] ridiculed her and destroyed her equipment in an attempt to control her ability to have an independent income.
   7. [Ms Oughtred] reported on the evening prior to the child impact report she was sent fourteen messages in the space of fifteen messages on the parenting app by [Mr Palvetic], asking to reach an agreement without external court influence. [Ms Oughtred] stated she felt that [Mr Palvetic] was attempting "to guilt me" into ceasing the court process. She reported the messages were not about [X] other than she "was making [X's] life hard". [Mr Palvetic] reported there may have been eight or nine messages and they were respectful.
   8. [Mr Palvetic] alleged he was "disrespected" by [Ms Oughtred], he used the term disrespected several times throughout the assessment as a crucial condition for [Ms Oughtred] during the relationship. [Mr Palvetic] stated that feeling disrespected to him is when "you are treated like you don't matter, you're a tool", or "treated like you're not worth anything" he expressed feeling [Ms Oughtred] did not appreciate him. [Mr Palvetic] alleged that [Ms Oughtred] would "purposefully push my buttons" and that this disrespect caused him emotional abuse. [Mr Palvetic] alleged [Ms Oughtred] would start arguments, scream and hit him and at times would twist his fingers to incite pain to him.
   9. [Mr Palvetic] described the relationship as "mutually dysfunctional". He predominantly denied the allegations of family violence, he denied throwing [Ms Oughtred] out of the vehicle whilst pregnant, making [Ms Oughtred] sleep on the floor or in the closet, threatening to post naked photos of [Ms Oughtred] on the Only Fans site or locking her and [X] out of the home. He did acknowledge calling [Ms Oughtred] names at times, and that he "put her down (when he was mad)" and he pushed her on occasion, he "never punched her". [Mr Palvetic] stated he told [Ms Oughtred] if she was to hit him "I'll hit you ten times harder". [Mr Palvetic] claimed he has been "rude to her on Facebook" and that this response is just his "personality" and how he responds to issues.
   10. [Mr Palvetic] denied the allegations of sexual abuse, sexual coercion and choking. He reported the parents had a sexual relationship whereby, he would choke [Ms Oughtred] for sexual pleasure, hit each other and slap each other. [Mr Palvetic] denied ever choking [Ms Oughtred] to the point of passing out, he claimed he would choke her as part of their sexual foreplay and sometimes this occurred in the kitchen or outside of the bedroom. [Mr Palvetic] claimed the parents engaged in "consensual non consent sex", where you "pretend not to consent" and that they used the safe word "orange". [Mr Palvetic] acknowledged seeking sexual intercourse outside of the relationship, he reported this was mostly while [Ms Oughtred] was pregnant and after [X's] birth. He claimed it was an impulsive decision made in the moment when he was out at clubs. [Mr Palvetic] reported [Ms Oughtred] would be upset with his behaviour; however, he believed that she secretly held fantasies regarding his infidelity, and he felt "like she liked it".
   11. [Mr Palvetic] alleged [Ms Oughtred] is withholding [X] from him and the paternal family, and that she is attempting to control his relationship with the child, determining when and where he can see [X]. [Mr Palvetic] then talked about how [Ms Oughtred] used to facilitate time spending with [X] but when she came to the paternal family home, she would disrespect him and "push his buttons". [Mr Palvetic] denied using any controlling behaviour or coercion toward [Ms Oughtred].
   12. The allegations of family violence made by [Ms Oughtred] are serious and include aspects of coercive control that may indicate a high risk of future violence and lethality, including threats to kill, violence during pregnancy, threats of online abuse, sexual abuse and coercion and non-lethal strangulation. If the court accepts these allegations there may be significant risk of future violence and coercion by [Mr Palvetic] in the future and [X] being exposed to further incidents. [X] is a young child and as such he relies on his caregivers to provide a predictable, safe and nurturing environment/behaviour in order for him to develop a sense of safety and secure with his caregivers. At [X's] age children are vulnerable, they do not have the capacity to self-protect or remove themselves from an unsafe environment. Exposure to family violence can have significant impacts on their emotional and psychological development, they can be injured if caught in the direct line of violence and they can experience neglect as a carer is unavailable due to their own emotional and physical incapacity.

Additional Risk and Harm Issues

Child safety and wellbeing

1. [Ms Oughtred] identified no risks for [X] in her care. [Ms Oughtred] raised concerns for [X] in [Mr Palvetic's] care and that he lacked awareness of child safety and parenting skills. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] has smacked [X] as an infant and views physical discipline as an appropriate behavioural tool for a child. [Ms Oughtred] alleged during a face time phone call with [X] [Mr Palvetic] had threatened to smack the child if he did not hold eye contact and sit down during the video call. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] was raised using physical discipline as a disciplinary tool from his parents and that the paternal family continues to use violence towards each other. SAPOL material reports on the [...] January 2024, the paternal grandmother phoned triple zero stating the paternal grandfather was "beating her up". Police attended the home, and no offences were disclosed at this time.

2. [Ms Oughtred] is highly concerned for [X's] mental health, emotional and psychological wellbeing if he spends time with [Mr Palvetic]. She described [Mr Palvetic] putting [X] down by making comments such as "what is he fucking autistic" and placing unreasonable expectations on him. [Ms Oughtred] gave the example of [Mr Palvetic] goading [X] when he would not climb high on the playground equipment, calling him "a fucking pussy" and making chicken noises to humiliate the child. [Ms Oughtred] raised concerns that [Mr Palvetic] will place [X] at risk and push him to complete tasks/activities that he does not feel comfortable to do. [Ms Oughtred] claimed that [Mr Palvetic] wants [X] to be "manly man" and that he views the child as an extension of himself. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] told her that all men require some trauma to shape their development.

3. [Ms Oughtred] alleged when [X] was a small infant [Mr Palvetic] was holding the child who was wearing a flammable grow suit and lighting a cigarette lighter at close proximity to the infant. [Ms Oughtred] claimed that the maternal grandmother screamed at him to stop, and that [Mr Palvetic] claimed he was "teaching him to deal with a thrill". [Mr Palvetic] denied this and claimed he would have been showing [X] the lighter to teach him how it worked. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] would use a VAPE and blow the smoke directly into [X's] face when he was an infant, [Mr Palvetic] denied doing this. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] wanted to take [X] shooting at the age of two years, and that he held a gun licence and fascination for firearms. [Mr Palvetic] acknowledged wanting to take [X] shooting and expressed the paternal grandfather was in the [Country D] army and that he took him shooting as a young child. This was an experience that [Mr Palvetic] wished to share with [X]. [Mr Palvetic] stated, "every guy likes guns to a degree". SAPOL information from [July 2024] states "[Mr Palvetic] has a current firearms license however has no registered firearms". Further SAPOL information states the firearms licence expired in [November 2024].

4. [Ms Oughtred] alleged that [Mr Palvetic] does not value traditional education and mainstream schooling, she raised concerns that [X] would be at risk of a home education and being taught/influenced about/by [Mr Palvetic's] world views.

5. [Mr Palvetic] claimed there were no concerns for [X's] safety and wellbeing in his care, he claimed to understand [X] daily living needs, although stated the paternal grandmother was responsible for cooking the child's food. [Mr Palvetic] stated that he has smacked [X] in the past when the child has not listened to him. [Mr Palvetic] stated "I don't think hitting is that bad I got hit" he gave the rationale that he would first give instructions then threaten to smack the child as a consequence for misbehaviour. [Mr Palvetic] claimed he would explain his requests but if [X] misbehaved there would be consequences "that what's parents do" and these included physical discipline.

Mental Health

1. [Ms Oughtred] did not identify any mental health diagnosis for herself, she did express the experiences of the relationship have weighed on her emotional and psychological wellbeing. [Ms Oughtred] expressed that she felt "he had robbed me of my childhood" and that her experiences had been difficult and at times caused her emotional pain and feelings of shame that she had allowed this to happen. [Ms Oughtred] did not believe her mental health impacted her parenting, and she has the support of the maternal grandparents, she acknowledged some counselling/psychological support may be of benefit.

2. [Ms Oughtred] was not aware of any mental health diagnosis for [Mr Palvetic], however she suspected based on his behaviour there were underlying psychological concerns. She based this on his observed "calculated behaviour", "lack of empathy and remorse" and "charm and manipulation".

3. [Mr Palvetic] did not identify any issues with his current mental health, he was recently diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and is prescribed Vyvanse. [Mr Palvetic] stated he was hospitalised as a teenager; he gave limited information other than it may have drug related. [Mr Palvetic] claimed [Ms Oughtred] may demonstrate signs of depression, but he did not believe her mental health impacted her parenting.

Alcohol and substance use

1. [Ms Oughtred] does not use alcohol or illicit substances. [Ms Oughtred] raised concerns regarding [Mr Palvetic's] substance use, she alleged during the relationship he used 'shrooms' and psychedelics (LSD) every couple of weeks. She alleged that when he was under the influence of psychedelics he was fixatedly interested in [X's] behaviour, analysing his actions/movements and intensely curious making statements such as "babies are odd". [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] liked to analyse mental states, and his substance use would heighten his curiosity. [Ms Oughtred] raised concerns that this altered [Mr Palvetic's] sense of reality, life was like a dream and there were no consequences, she was concerned what risk this would pose for [X]. [Ms Oughtred] alleged [Mr Palvetic] believed "life is a simulation" and that [X] is perceived as a social experiment. She alleged that after the twenty-week scan, and it was ascertained that [X] was a male child [Mr Palvetic] posted on social media content that included with [X] "my army begins".

2. [Mr Palvetic] reported [Ms Oughtred] does not use alcohol or illicit substances. [Mr Palvetic] claimed to consume "a couple of beers on the weekend" and this would not pose a concern for his parenting. [Mr Palvetic] claimed in the past he has used [illicit substances], "recreationally" he reported the last time was two years ago when he was overseas. He denied currently using any illicit substances.

CHILD IMPACT ANALYSIS

1. [X] is a four-year-old child, at this age children are reliant on their caregivers to meet their physical and emotional needs, they are commencing to understand relationships, feelings and language. At this stage children can be at risk of regressions (toileting, language, emotional understanding) and developmental delays when exposed to stress, unpredictable arrangements and inconsistent caregiving. There is multiple risk matters identified in this report, family violence, mental health, substance use and poor parenting practices, and these can all undermine a child's ability to believe a parent can provide them with safety, security, predictability, and an environment that will protect them from harm. When children experience events in life which are confusing and frightening, they require a caregiver who is emotionally attuned to scaffold their emotions and allow them to recover and develop functional coping mechanisms and emotional regulation. Sometimes, these experiences of violence and unpredictability can impact a parent so dramatically that their capacity to respond in this manner is also impeded. It would be important for [X] that his safety and security are prioritised and that his caregiving arrangement provides him with stability and security from which he can manage his developmental progress and transition to school in the future.

PARENTAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE CHILD/REN'S NEEDS

1. [Ms Oughtred] presented as child focused during her interview, she is highly concerned for [X's] safety and wellbeing in the care of [Mr Palvetic]. [Ms Oughtred] could articulate that [X] needs a "loving secure family, a calm, kind and safe home with a good routine and stable household". [Ms Oughtred] has attempted to provide this to [X] and has the support of the maternal grandparents in ensuring [X] is afforded a safe and nurturing home environment. Should the court accept [Ms Oughtred's] account she has most likely experienced violent behaviour that combined with her young age and inexperience most likely rendered her powerless and vulnerable. While [Ms Oughtred] has continued to facilitate supervised time spending for [Mr Palvetic] and [X] since separation this may be a further extension of the alleged coercion during the relationship and her own fears should she cease any time spending. [Ms Oughtred's] allegations of sexual photos being added to 'Only Fans' and ongoing underlying threats over the parenting app may support her fears of retaliation should she attempt to change any arrangements. Should the court accept the allegations made by [Ms Oughtred] it would suggest that power and control has been present in the relationship and this continues post separation, with [Ms Oughtred] feeling powerless and forced to agree to things she feels may not be in [X's] best interest in order to appease [Mr Palvetic] and prevent him from acting on threats or being aggressive towards her, the child or her parents.

2. [Mr Palvetic] presented as measured and confident regarding his role as [X's] father and his narrative contained features of his belief that it is his right to spend time with [X] raising concerns that his narrative was adult focused, rather than child focused. [Mr Palvetic] presented with a tendency to deny, minimise or deflect any responsibility seemingly suggesting any such behaviour was either consensual or justified. [Mr Palvetic] presented with strong views regarding self-determination, government, education and parenting which may make it difficult for him to accept and understand other experiences and those of [X]. This suggested he may have low parental reflective capacity, and fixed thinking which may make it difficult for [Mr Palvetic] to prioritise [X's] emotional and physical needs outside of his own beliefs and ideologies. [Mr Palvetic's] account was at times concerning, for example his explanation of using a cigarette lighter to provide a "thrill", that all men like guns, and the use of physical discipline as a preferred method of behaviour management appeared acceptable to him. At other times it appeared that [X] was an extension of his own ideology to be instilled with his views and beliefs, which may cause concerns such as alignment and influence in the future.

3. [Mr Palvetic] stated a "fascination of mine" is the concept of how countries commenced, and he has written a book [on the subject]. [Mr Palvetic] stated he overseas an online movement where the intention is to build a city state form of government whereby "citizens decide the laws not elected members". There are approximately 10,000 members in this movement. [Mr Palvetic] stated it is his "life's ambition" to build this country. [Mr Palvetic] discussed the benefits of immunisations as dependent on what it is for, he expressed having a good knowledge of medical literature and would research the vaccine prior to agreement. [Mr Palvetic] viewed schooling as important for social skills, he queried the benefit of any education being instilled at school and talked about commencing a university solely for [X] in the future. [Mr Palvetic] has commenced an online university "[E University]" he writes the course programs and is focused on personalised education. [Mr Palvetic] reported this is a philanthropic venture "to teach people about my skills".

...

1. The serious nature of the concerns raised may indicate [X] is at risk of psychological, emotional and physical harm even when spending supervised time with [Mr Palvetic]. Whilst it is acknowledged the parties agreed by consent to supervised time spending in a contact centre this may be premature, and [Ms Oughtred] may have felt pressured to acquiesce. This assessment would suggest the court would benefit from further assessments such as [Mr Palvetic's] psychiatric assessment, attendance at a men's behavioural change program and hair follicle test prior to any further time spending taking place.

...

1. Based on the allegations made during this assessment it would benefit the court for [Mr Palvetic] to attend a hair follicle test.

...

1. Based on the information received during this assessment it would benefit the court if [Mr Palvetic] attends a Psychiatric assessment to understand his views, psychological wellbeing, and parenting capacity further. It may be beneficial to provide the Child Impact Report prior to the assessment taking place.

1. The father complained that the child impact report was biased for reasons including but not limited to the fact that the child was observed with the mother and not with him. The conduct of interviews and observations was a professional decision made by the court child expert, whom the father did not require for cross-examination.
2. Furthermore, father failed to take the steps necessary to properly progress the matter towards a trial, by complying with the court orders regarding a psychological assessment and a hair follicle test, which would have resulted in the preparation of the family report. The preparation of such a report would not only have involved a more detailed assessment, but would have obviated the need for reliance on the child impact report, which by its nature is more limited in scope.
3. In these circumstances, I do not accept that there has been unfairness to the father in relation to the child impact report. Rather, he has been visited with the consequences of his own choices. Nonetheless, I have regard to the lack of observation, between the father and the child, when considering the contents of the report.

1. I have otherwise admitted into evidence,[3] and have regard to, the contents of a South Australia Police Incident Summary Report dated 10 October 2025, which was produced pursuant to an order made under section 67ZBD of the Act.
2. The following incidents were recorded in relation to both parties of the matter:

[...] - [07/2025] - Street check - Police received a call from the reporting person (RP) regarding [MR PALVETIC]. The RP stated that [MR PALVETIC] has been posting violent posts online including about atom bombs and cyanide as well as posting podcasts. In these posts he says that he is God and will not listen to the court and the court will feel the wrath of his atom bombs. He has further postings about cleansing protocols. There is an ongoing custody battle, currently in court and the RP was concerned that he was going to do something at the court date or prior. Police attended an address and spoke with [MS OUGHTRED]. [MS OUGHTRED] stated that [MR PALVETIC] had escalated his religious beliefs in the last 3 months and believes that he has gone crazy. [MS OUGHTRED] showed police his X account, the account has posts of religious thoughts and images. Some posts cite the word "Hitler" and references to the cleansing. There is a link on the account to a website which appears to be creating a new government. [MS OUGHTRED] emailed police a copy of a child act that he has written which names himself as the Messiah and God and makes some inferences that people who go against the new act will pay. [MS OUGHTRED] told police that she does not know what he does for a living but says that he is highly intelligent and works with computers and coding. She told police that he has made no direct threats towards her, however, she has listened to a podcast where he mentions their son and taking revenge on the courts and judges that rule against him. Police found posts on X which appear to be podcasts but are unable to listen as they are hours in length. She stated to police that he is obsessed with firearms and at

one point in their relationship he looked at making and selling 3d printed guns. She says that he has a samurai sword in his house and replica metal grenades. Police were unable to locate any direct threats towards any person.

[...] - [06/2025] - Domestic Abuse Offence [High Risk] - [MS OUGHTRED] attended a police station to make a report of historic domestic abuse. [MS OUGHTRED] stated that when she was 15yo in 2017, she commenced a relationship with [MR PALVETIC], who was 17yo at the time. [MS OUGHTRED] states that they have a child in the relationship, born [2020]. From the commencement of their relationship, until it ended in January 2022, [MR PALVETIC] was emotionally, mentally and physically abuse towards [MS OUGHTRED]. [MS OUGHTRED] stated that in June 2021, while at [MR PALVETIC'S] cousin's birthday party, she had a verbal argument with him. While out the front of the house, on the road, [MR PALVETIC], pushed her, causing her to fall backwards on to her bottom. [MS OUGHTRED] received grazes to her hands as a result of being pushed over. In September or October 2021, [MS OUGHTRED] and [MR PALVETIC] were having an argument while in their bedroom. [MS OUGHTRED] was holding their son, who was [an infant]. [MS OUGHTRED] fearing something was about to happen, placed their son on the bed. [MR PALVETIC] reached around her neck with his arm and started to choke her. [MS OUGHTRED] lost consciousness and collapsed to the floor. [MS OUGHTRED] remembers their son crying while she lost consciousness. [MR PALVETIC] would display coercive/controlling behaviour towards [MS OUGHTRED] by confiscating her phone/keys, and locking her out of the house. He would force [MS OUGHTRED] to sleep on the floor, allowing her back on the bed as a 'reward.' [MR PALVETIC] would restrict [MS OUGHTRED]'s movements, not allowing her to see her family and friends. He had control of their finances and contacted Centrelink to cancel [MS OUGHTRED'S] family payments. After separating, [MR PALVETIC] would taunt [MS OUGHTRED] by calling her worthless, telling her to 'kill herself.' [MS OUGHTRED] lives in constant fear of [MR PALVETIC] and is unsure what he is capable of doing. She is seeking an Intervention Order to protect her and their son from [MR PALVETIC], with conditions not have any further contact with him. Police arrested and charged [MR PALVETIC] with Strangulation, 3 counts of Aggravated Assault and Adult Sexual Abuse of a Child. [MR PALVETIC] was issued with an Intervention Order.

Outcome: Next in Court [11/2025]

[...] - [07/2024] - Domestic Abuse No Offence - Police attended a Lawyer's Office after a barrister called police with concerns about information supplied by [MS OUGHTRED] in an affidavit in her application for full custody of [X]. Main points of concerns were: - A message to [MS OUGHTRED] from [MR PALVETIC] stating "if he can't sit down and look me in the eyes then I'm going to smack him until he does and that's normal". - Messages stating [MR PALVETIC] was going to take [X] shooting / he has access to firearms. - Shared TikToks with captions of 'The door to my heart is closed', 'Unfortunately the only way out is death' and 'POV: when you have a mental break down and everyone must go'. [MS OUGHTRED] stated there had been no assault against [X] to her knowledge. Does not appear the Tiktoks were sent directly to [MS OUGHTRED]. [MR PALVETIC] has shared them to his public profile. [MS OUGHTRED] has seen them which caused concern. [MR PALVETIC] has a current firearms licence however has no registered firearms. [MS OUGHTRED] stated no further assaults or offences since assault reported on [02/2024]. [MS OUGHTRED'S] main concerns were how [MR PALVETIC] would react to being served custody paperwork and was afraid of what he might do. No offences disclosed, parties wanted concerns recorded in case anything further occurred.

[...] - [02/2024] - Domestic Abuse Offence - Police attended an address in relation to a domestic disturbance. The mother of [MS OUGHTRED] called police reporting a disturbance at the address. On police arrival police spoke to [MS OUGHTRED]. [MS OUGHTRED] stated that the couple had separated in 2022 and had a 3yo child together. She stated that she allowed [MR PALVETIC'S] to visit his child at her home address which she also shared with her parents. On this occasion [MR PALVETIC] had attended the address with lollies. An argument broke out in regard to him giving the child lollies. While the couple were arguing [MR PALVETIC] allegedly took hold of [MS OUGHTRED] from behind in a loose choke hold. [MS OUGHTRED] broke free and allegedly punched [MR PALVETIC]. [MS OUGHTRED] then informed her mother of what had occurred and she called police. [MS OUGHTRED] initially stated that she did not wish to report the incident but she was told that police would make a report any way. She did not wish to provide a statement. [MS OUGHTRED] stated that the child was present during the altercation. [MS OUGHTRED] was given advice in regard to child custody. [MR F] submitted. A couple weeks later police reattended [MS OUGHTRED'S] address, she reiterated she did not want any police action in relation to this matter and did not want a report to even be recorded (matter was reported by her mother). [MS OUGHTRED] believed [MR PALVETIC] would become aggravated and seek further custody of their child, if she were to seek further police action, as currently he only sees the child once a week for a couple of hours. When this occurs, custody handover occurs at [MR PALVETIC'S] mother's [business], and [MS OUGHTRED] feels safe with this arrangement as [MS OUGHTRED] has a good relationship with [MR PALVETIC'S] mother. [MS OUGHTRED] is well supported by her parents, whom she and her son reside with.

Outcome: Finalised

(As per the original)

1. I also have regard to two children's contact service reports tendered by the ICL, detailing the supervised time between the child and the father, which took place during the course of these proceedings. I note that these reports detail some positive and warm interactions between the child and the father. They also reveal that on three consecutive occasions in July and August 2025, the child refused to spend time with the father, following which contact service terminated the arrangements. On one such occasion of refusal, the father told the contact service worker of his view that the system is "run by paedophiles" and is "satanic."

1. In terms of orders sought, the mother seeks, in summary:

(a) that she have sole parental responsibility for the child;

(b) that the child live with her; and

(c) that the child spend no time with the father.

1. The mother's application is strongly supported, in its entirety, by the ICL.

1. I am required to have regard to the child's best interests, as a paramount consideration, pursuant to section 60CA of the Act. I am guided in my determination by the objects in section 60B.
2. In determining the child's best interests, I have regard to the factors in section 60CC of the Act. Those relevant to the present matter are as follows:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety including the safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm of the child, and each person who has care of the child

1. When considering these matters, I am required to have regard to any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, whether, or not, that person has parental responsibility for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
2. The definitions of the "family violence" and "abuse" set out in the Act are as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.

(2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to):

(a) an assault; or

(b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or

(c) stalking; or

(d) repeated derogatory taunts; or

(e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or

(f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or

(g) economic or financial abuse; or

(i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or

(j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, of his or her liberty.

(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(g), examples of behaviour that might constitute economic or financial abuse of a family member include (but are not limited to) the following:

(a) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that the family member would otherwise have had, such as by:

(i) forcibly controlling the family member's money or assets, including superannuation; or

(ii) sabotaging the family member's employment or income or potential employment or income; or

(iii) forcing the family member to take on a financial or legal liability, or status; or

(iv) forcibly or without the family member's knowledge, accumulating debt in the family member's name;

(b) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or the family member's child (including at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support);

(c) coercing a family member (including by use of threats, physical abuse or emotional or psychological abuse):

(i) to give or seek money, assets or other items as dowry; or

(ii) to do or agree to things in connection with a practice of dowry;

(d) hiding or falsely denying things done or agreed to by the family member, including hiding or falsely denying the receipt of money, assets or other items, in connection with a practice of dowry.

(3) For the purposes of this Act, a child is exposed to family violence if the child sees or hears family violence or otherwise experiences the effects of family violence.

(4) Examples of situations that may constitute a child being exposed to family violence include (but are not limited to) the child:

(a) overhearing threats of death or personal injury by a member of the child's family towards another member of the child's family; or

(b) seeing or hearing an assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family; or

(c) comforting or providing assistance to a member of the child's family who has been assaulted by another member of the child's family; or

(d) cleaning up a site after a member of the child's family has intentionally damaged property of another member of the child's family; or

(e) being present when police or ambulance officers attend an incident involving the assault of a member of the child's family by another member of the child's family.

4 Interpretation

...

abuse, in relation to a child, means:

(a) an assault, including a sexual assault, of the child; or

(b) a person (the first person) involving the child in a sexual activity with the first person or another person in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object by the first person or the other person, and where there is unequal power in the relationship between the child and the first person; or

(c) causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including (but not limited to) when that harm is caused by the child being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence; or

(d) serious neglect of the child.

1. The conduct deposed to by the mother plainly meets both of these definitions.
2. This factor is of great significance in the context of the present proceedings. As I have outlined, both the mother's evidence and the independent evidence before the Court suggest very serious risks to the child's safety and to the safety of the mother, were the child to spend time with the father.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that the father has taken any steps whatsoever to address the significant concerns raised in the child impact report. Indeed, he has not only failed, but actively refused to take the steps required of him by the Court to obtain evidence as to the child's safety.
4. The father submitted that a distinction could be drawn between the "issues" as between the parties and his role as a parent. I do not accept that submission. The father's concerning conduct towards the mother, and generally, is highly relevant to and is intertwined with the question of the child's safety in his care.
5. There is no basis on which the Court could conclude that any arrangement other than that sought by the mother would promote the child's safety or the safety of the mother.

1. The Court was informed by counsel for the ICL that the child had expressed to the ICL that he does "miss having a dad." The contact service reports also contain expressions of happiness on his part in the context of time with his father. The child is, however, very young and is unlikely to be aware of sufficient information about the relevant risk issues to express an informed view. His expressed wishes are not determinative and can be given limited weight.

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child

1. The child is vulnerable, because of his young age, and because of his reported exposure to traumatic incidents in the form of violence perpetrated by the father towards the mother.
2. There is no evidence of a formal diagnosis, but the mother also reported to the Court Child Expert an intention to have the child assessed with respect to autism, and it may be that he has special needs.
3. The child requires safe, reliable and supportive care. I have regard to paragraph 39 of the child impact report which provides as follows:
   1. [X] is a four-year-old child, at this age children are reliant on their caregivers to meet their physical and emotional needs, they are commencing to understand relationships, feelings and language. At this stage children can be at risk of regressions (toileting, language, emotional understanding) and developmental delays when exposed to stress, unpredictable arrangements and inconsistent caregiving. There is multiple risk matters identified in this report, family violence, mental health, substance use and poor parenting practices, and these can all undermine a child's ability to believe a parent can provide them with safety, security, predictability, and an environment that will protect them from harm. When children experience events in life which are confusing and frightening, they require a caregiver who is emotionally attuned to scaffold their emotions and allow them to recover and develop functional coping mechanisms and emotional regulation. Sometimes, these experiences of violence and unpredictability can impact a parent so dramatically that their capacity to respond in this manner is also impeded. It would be important for [X] that his safety and security are prioritised and that his caregiving arrangement provides him with stability and security from which he can manage his developmental progress and transition to school in the future.

(d) the capacity of each person who has, or is proposed to have, parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. In this regard, the evidence before the Court suggests that the mother has the capacity to, and has been, providing the child with a stable, safe and loving home, with the assistance of the maternal grandparents, with whom she lives. The relationship between the mother and the child was observed by the Court Child Expert to be close and warm, and she presented as child focused.
2. I have already referred to the significant concerns about the father's capacity to provide for the child's needs.

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child where it is safe to do so

1. There is evidence before the Court that suggests that there may be some benefit to the child in having a relationship with his father. In particular, the father took the Court to, and I have regard to, the contents of the two contact service reports, which record positive interactions between them and expressions of happiness on the child's part. I have regard to those of observations subject to some limitations as to the weight I can give them, in circumstances where the reports were tendered this day without notice and the mother's counsel was unable to cross-examine their author.
2. It is evident from the submissions made by the father that he has a genuine wish to be involved in the child's life.
3. There is also undoubtedly a benefit to any child in knowing their parents, from the perspective of their understanding of their identity, formation of their sense of self and to avoid feelings of loss and abandonment.
4. However, it is important to note the rider in this subsection, being that it must be safe to do so. The very significant evidence of risk represented by the father, together with the complete lack of action taken by him either to address the identified risk issues, or to put relevant evidence before the Court, such as by way of the psychological assessment and hair follicle test he was ordered to undertake, means that the emphasis in consideration of this factor must be on the question of whether it is safe for the child to have a relationship with him. The evidence before the Court overwhelmingly suggests that it would not.

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child

1. Counsel for the ICL raised the issue of risk to the mother's parenting capacity and the child's experience of care from her were there to be time between the father and the child . It is well-established that such impacts on the primary caregiver of a child can be a relevant consideration.[4] There is no expert evidence before the Court, such as from a treating mental health professional as to the likely impact on the mother's functioning, but I accept that the evidence as a whole suggests that this is a risk and that that risk cannot be ignored.

UNACCEPTABLE RISK AND TERMINATION OF RELATIONSHIP

1. Although the Court will generally attempt to preserve a relationship between a parent and a child where protective measures can be put in place to manage any risks, there is no presumption that time between a parent and a child is in the child's best interests.[5] Time may be refused where it would be destructive for the child concerned.[6]
2. It is not a question of contact for contact's sake, and if there is a situation where contact with a parent is on balance likely to cause more harm to the child than good, or even is not likely to confer any benefit, then little purpose is served by the Court making orders for such contact.[7] In McCall & Clark,[8] the Full Court recognised that there will be some cases where there will be no positive benefit to be derived by a child by a court attempting to craft orders to foster a relationship with one parent if this would not be in the child's best interests.
3. In each case, the Court must make an independent assessment of what the welfare of the child requires, and contact will only be ordered where there is a prospect of development of a relationship which will be beneficial to the child. It is necessary for the Court to give consideration to the positive as well as negative aspects of the relevant relationship, and balance the risks associated with facilitating the relationship against any benefits that may be derived from doing so.[9] Severance of a relationship between a parent and a child must be proportionate to the risk.[10]
4. As Tree J held in Theophane & Hunt (Final Parenting Orders):[11]

Plainly it is a serious matter to order that a child neither spend time with nor communicate with a parent. Such orders properly ought be restricted to cases where that outcome is plainly mandated in the best interests of the child, and no other regime of orders is appropriate or workable. Such orders are commonly employed where the Court is satisfied that a parent poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, which cannot be ameliorated by supervision of time and communication between that parent and the child. ...

1. It is well established that a court will not make an order for a child to live with, or spend time with, a parent if it would expose the child to an unacceptable risk.[12] Although the test initially related to allegations of risk of harm from sexual abuse, it has subsequently been extended to cases involving allegations of children being at risk of physical or emotional harm for other reasons.[13] In Vasser & Taylor-Black,[14] the Full Court referred to the High Court's decision in M & M,[15] in which the test was laid out, as "having become the 'touchstone' setting out the relevant principles to be applied in cases of asserted unacceptable risk of any kind." In addition to assessing past events, the Court must separately assess future risk. This is a predictive or prospective exercise.[16]
2. In N & S & The Separate Representative,[17] Fogarty J said:

Thus, the essential importance of the unacceptable risk question as I see it is in its direction to judges to give real and substantial consideration to the facts of the case, and to decide whether or not, and why or why not, those facts could be said to raise an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. Thus, the value of the expression is not in a magical provision of an appropriate standard, but in its direction to Judges to consider deeply where the facts of a particular case fall, and explain adequately their findings in this regard.

1. The assessment of whether there is an unacceptable risk requires determination on the evidence whether there is a risk, the magnitude of that risk and the potential consequences of the harm that might befall the child or children concerned.[18] This involves giving consideration to the extent to which any risk found to exist may be ameliorated by protective measures such as supervision.[19] If an unacceptable risk is found, the Court must take steps which are proportionate to the degree of the risk.[20]
2. I have already identified the risks in this matter and the limited evidence as to any prospects of change in the future. I have carefully turned my mind to the existence of possible risk of harm and to the magnitude of that possible harm. I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the child will suffer physical and/or emotional harm and that his experience of safe and consistent parenting will be undermined if orders are made which provide for him to spend time with the father.
3. I have considered whether the risk might be ameliorated by protective measures such as supervision. In this case, supervised time has been attempted and has been terminated as a result of refusal on the part of the child . The evidence does not support the conclusion that this is a viable option for the future. Furthermore, many authorities have expressed caution in relation to the desirability of orders providing for supervision for indefinite periods.
4. I have regard to the father's refusal to take any meaningful steps towards addressing the identified risks, even when specifically ordered to do so. I also have regard to the contents of paragraph 47 of the child impact report, which I have already outlined.
5. Furthermore, the father's conduct in blatantly refusing to comply with binding court orders when they are not to his liking has resulted in the Court being unable to have any confidence whatsoever that he would comply with any protective mechanisms that may otherwise have been able to be built into orders for time between he and the child, such as conditions or injunctions. Indeed, the only inference available from the father's past behaviour is that he would not.
6. In all of the circumstances, I do not consider that the identified unacceptable risk can be ameliorated in a manner that would enable the child to spend time with the father safely.

1. Having regard to all of these considerations, I am satisfied that the orders proposed by the mother and supported by the ICL are in the child's best interests.

I certify that the preceding ninety-five (95) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Parker.

[1] [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172.

[2] As that phrase is defined in section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); as discussed by the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230.

[3] Pursuant to section 67ZBH of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[4] Re Andrew [1996] FamCA 43; (1996) FLC 92-692; A & A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800; Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1.

[5] Cotton & Cotton [1983] FamCA 18; (1983) FLC 91-330; N & S & The Separate Representative [1995] FamCA 139; (1996) FLC 92-655.

[6] B & B (Access) [1986] FamCA 52; (1986) FLC 91-758.

[7] Cotton & Cotton [1983] FamCA 18; (1983) FLC 91-330; Brown & Pederson [1989] FamCA 8.

[8] [2009] FamCAFC 92; (2009) FLC 93-405.

[9] Maluka & Maluka [2011] FamCAFC 72; (2011) FLC 93-464.

[10] Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221.

[11] [2014] FamCA 1038 at [55].

[12] M & M [1988] HCA 68; (1988) 166 CLR 69.

[13] A & A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800; B & B [1993] FamCA 143; (1993) FLC 92-357.

[14] [2007] FamCA 547; (2007) FLC 93-329 at [51].

[15] [1988] HCA 68; (1988) 166 CLR 69.

[16] Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092.

[17] [1995] FamCA 139; (1996) FLC 92-655 at [138].

[18] Napier & Hepburn [2006] FamCA 1316; (2006) FLC 93-303. See also Harridge & Harridge [2010] FamCA 445.

[19] Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146.

[20] A & A [1998] FamCA 25; (1998) FLC 92-800.