Paige & Muir [2025] FedCFamC2F 470 | Case summary

Paige & Muir [2025] FedCFamC2F 470 | Case summary | Zoe

[62]

Before the Court are the parties' competing applications for parenting orders with respect to the child X ('X'), who was born in 2022. X was aged 3 at the time of conclusion of the trial.
The Applicant Father, MR PAIGE ('the Father'), was born in 1982 in Country B and was aged 43 at the conclusion of the trial. The Respondent Mother, MS MUIR ('the Mother') was born in 1982 in Australia and was aged 42 at the conclusion of the trial. Both parties presently reside in Adelaide, South Australia. The Father has two adult daughters, Ms C born in 2002 and Ms D born in 2004, both of whom reside in Country B.
The parties commenced a relationship in or around May 2021. The Mother deposed that they commenced cohabitation in July 2021. The Father gave inconsistent evidence that this had occurred in May 2021 and in July 2021. It is not necessary to determine the precise date of cohabitation in order to determine the parenting arrangements that will promote X's best interests. The parties separated in or around April 2022. They did not marry. X is the only child of the parties' relationship.
X has resided with the Mother since the parties separated when she was an infant. The Mother facilitated and supervised some visits between X and the Father in public venues between July and October 2022. X has spent no time with the Father since October 2022, when she was under a year old.
In late 2022, the Mother moved with X to Sydney. The Mother's evidence, which, for reasons explained later in this judgment, I accept, was that she fled to Sydney in fear of the Father. She subsequently failed to respond to correspondence from the Father's former solicitor with respect to time with X, and again, I accept her evidence that she did so out of fear. The Father commenced the present proceedings on 30 June 2023. The Mother returned to Adelaide with X in or around July 2023.
At the time of the trial, pursuant to interim orders made by consent on 11 December 2023, X lived with the Mother, and the Father was restrained from attending at the Mother's residence, the Mother's place of employment or X's childcare or attempting to remove X from childcare or from the Mother's care. The orders of 11 December 2023 also included injunctions restraining each of the parties from (in summary) denigrating the other or discussing the proceedings in X's presence or hearing, consuming illicit substances or alcohol to excess within 24 hours prior to or during any time X was in their care, and posting any information on any social media platform about the proceedings, allegations made in the proceedings, the other parent, or the other parent's family.
Pursuant to the orders of 11 December 2023, the Mother was required to forward to the Father a photograph taken of X each year on the occasions of Christmas, Easter and X's birthday, and the Father was permitted to send age-appropriate gifts and cards to X for Christmas and her birthday through the Mother's solicitor, with the Mother being at liberty to open and read all gifts and cards and withhold them if they were not appropriate.
The major issue for determination by the Court at the final hearing was whether, as asserted by the Mother, the Father posed an unacceptable risk to X, such that there should be no time or communication between them; or whether, as asserted by the Father, X's best interests would be served by the establishment of an ongoing relationship with him.

[63]

The Father sought, in summary, that X live with the Mother, and that she spend time with him in an increasing regime commencing with professionally supervised time and building up to three nights each alternate weekend and half of all school holidays upon X commencing school. He also sought orders providing for Facetime communication between himself and X, the exchange of information about X between the parties, the involvement of both parents in, and their ability to attend, extra-curricular activities and parent-teacher interviews, and an injunction restraining the Mother from moving X's residence more than 35 kilometres from the Adelaide city centre.
Although at the commencement of the trial, his position was that the parties should have joint responsibility for decision-making with respect to major long-term issues, by its conclusion he had modified this position and conceded that the Mother should have sole responsibility for major long-term decisions, save that he sought that the Mother be enjoined from exercising that decision-making responsibility to change X's surname or having her called or referred to by any other name without his consent.
The Mother sought, in summary, that she have sole parental responsibility, including sole responsibility for decision-making with respect to major long-term issues, and that X live with her. She sought no orders providing for time or communication between X and the Father, and sought injunctions restraining the Father from contacting or communicating with X or attending her residence or any childcare, kindergarten or school that she may attend. The Mother also sought the continuation of the mutual injunctions restraining the parties from denigrating the other or discussing the proceedings in X's presence, allowing her to read documents relating to the proceedings or posting about issues pertaining to the proceedings or the other party or their family on social media.
The Independent Children's Lawyer ('ICL') supported the Mother's position, save that she supported the Father's proposal with respect to changes to X's name.

[67]

The Father was not an impressive witness. Although he gave his evidence in a calm and polite manner, his answers to the questions he was asked were often evasive or non-responsive, were often lacking in credibility and were at times wholly implausible or nonsensical. At times, he changed his evidence to suit his narrative. At other times he gave inconsistent evidence. His evidence overall was not reliable.
Throughout his evidence, the Father consistently sought to minimise highly concerning behaviour in which he had engaged, gave self-focused answers and demonstrated minimal insight or capacity to reflect on the extent to which the behaviour in which he had engaged had caused harm to the Mother and to X. The Father exhibited no emotion during his evidence, even when being cross-examined about subject matters which could be expected to be highly distressing.
The Mother presented as genuine and honest. She gave straightforward answers to the questions asked of her. Although it was repeatedly put to her that she was lying with respect to significant aspects of her evidence, no such allegation was established. She became visibly shaken and teary when giving evidence of traumatic or distressing experiences. She was also frequently teary when speaking of her fears for X's safety. The Mother was described by the Family Report Writer, Ms K, as appearing without malicious intent or self-focus and as appearing authentic in her concerns for X in the Father's care. In the witness box, Ms K confirmed that the Mother had shown no animosity towards the Father other than relaying the violence in which he had engaged. These observations accord with my own observations of the Mother when she gave her evidence.
As a consequence of my impressions of the parties as witnesses, where their evidence conflicts, I accept the evidence of the Mother.
The trial in this matter was adjourned part-heard after the first three days of hearing as a consequence of the initial estimate of its likely duration being significantly shorter than the actual time required for it to be conducted. As a consequence of the need for the adjournment and limited mutual availability of the Court and the members of Counsel and professional witnesses involved, a period of several months passed between the commencement of the trial and its conclusion. Notwithstanding the break in the trial, the passages in this judgment with respect to my observations of the each of the witnesses and their evidence were based on detailed contemporaneous notes and were drafted almost immediately following the giving of the evidence in question. Those observations were therefore unaffected by the passage of time between the commencement of the trial and the delivery of these reasons.
At times, the manner in which the trial was conducted necessitated active judicial control, management and direction of the type envisaged by sections 69ZN and 69ZX of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act').
In accordance with section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), all findings of fact in this judgment are made on the balance of probabilities. This standard, however, is 'not the measure by which an unacceptable risk of harm is to be assessed,'[1] and it has not been applied to my consideration of issues of unacceptable risk. Some of the findings in these reasons relate to conduct of a very serious nature, being findings of conduct constituting family violence. I have had regard to the matters outlined in section 140(2) of the Evidence Act, particularly the gravity of the matters alleged, when making such findings, and am satisfied to the extent of 'actual persuasion'[2] with respect to each of my findings with respect to family violence.
Although Counsel for the Father made an application for the rules of evidence to apply pursuant to section 69ZT(3) of the Act, this application was refused as it was not made until the commencement of the trial, by which time the evidence relied upon by the parties had already been filed.[3] However, in light of the seriousness of the issues in the proceedings, I have adopted a cautious approach with respect to the acceptance of and the weight given to evidence that would not have been admissible but for the operation of section 69ZT.

[73]

In considering this factor, it is necessary for the Court to consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child) and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.[8] 'Family violence' is defined in section 4AB of the Act to mean '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.' It is not necessary that violent or threatening behaviour coerce or control or cause fear in order to be characterised as family violence.[9]
The concept of coercive and controlling violence has been described as 'a course of conduct aimed at dominating and controlling another person,'[10] and as 'the exercise of power, to restrain another or to cause another to act, by force, domination or command.'[11]
It has been held that the concept of coercive control essentially captures one person's domination over another. A person may subject another to coercive control without subjectively intending to do so. Intention is not a necessary element of coercive or controlling behaviour. A person who engages in such behaviour may be completely oblivious to the impact of their behaviour, but the behaviour may nevertheless coerce or control the other family member and fall within the definition of family violence. The focus is on the behaviour and its impact. A finding that there is coercive or controlling behaviour is an evaluative one, having regard to all of the circumstances and all of the evidence before the Court.[12]
The Mother alleged that the Father was volatile and dangerous, had subjected her to physical, emotional and psychological violence during their relationship, had exposed X to his violence once she was born, had subjected her to coercive control and had threatened and intimidated her and members of her family, both prior to and following separation.
Incidents of physical violence and aggression alleged by the Mother included the following:

[77]

The Father denied the Mother's allegations as outlined above. However, those allegations were entirely consistent with and supported by the Father's subsequent behaviour towards the Mother as exhibited in written communications and social media posts, as outlined later in these reasons.
Furthermore, the Father's own evidence revealed that he had engaged in controlling conduct towards the Mother during their relationship, such as by telling her 'you can't be speaking to your ex when we are now together expecting a baby.' This requirement was not only controlling but extremely hypocritical in light of his enduring close friendship with his own former partner Ms F, who was a witness in these proceedings.
In light of his admission in this regard, the Father's repeated denials of controlling conduct towards the Mother are either deliberately untruthful or indicative of a concerning lack of insight into the nature of his conduct. Either way, they cannot be accepted, and ultimately his Counsel conceded that he had controlled the Mother. His denial of having done so casts doubts on his other denials of poor conduct towards the Mother. It also directly contradicts a submission made on his behalf that he has since 'come to an understanding' of the controlling nature of his past conduct.
It was put to the Mother that she had maintained contact with her family during the parties' relationship, and she agreed with examples of times when she had seen and spoken to them. It was then put to her that her evidence that she had been isolated from them had not been truthful. This proposition was an overly simplistic interpretation of a complex issue. The Mother explained that much of her contact with her family had occurred at times when the Father was not present, that she had not seen them often, that the Father had expected her to come home directly after work and that he had not liked her spending time with her friends because he had wanted her to spend time with him instead. The Mother's evidence of having been isolated in the manner she described was compelling.
On 4 April 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message in which he complained that his 'basic requirements for love [were] not fulfilled' and that the Mother was not catering to his 'most basic needs, a cuppa and breakfast ready to go, a Sunday meal without prompt, a deep conversation of what is happening to me and my thoughts in that moment of life.'[13] Ms K agreed that this message demonstrated a concerning attitude towards a partner. In the witness box, the Father tried to justify this message by saying it had been 'taken out of context' and clarifying that he had not expected the Mother to satisfy the specified needs every morning. He claimed that he had meant it in the context of the parties 'mutually helping each other.' This evidence was extremely unpersuasive. The contents of this text message strongly supports the Mother's evidence as to the manner in which she was treated by the Father during their relationship.
Examples of threats alleged by the Mother to have been made by the Father included the following:

[79]

The Mother also alleged that the Father engaged in other threatening and intimidating behaviour towards her, including standing very close to her while yelling at her, making her feel scared and unsafe, and exploding in anger. Her evidence was that during the relationship she was continually in fear and 'walking on eggshells,' desperately trying to keep the Father calm to protect X's safety and her own. She deposed that after she and the Father separated, she never returned to sleep at the home she owned in which they had lived together because of her fear of him.
The Mother deposed to a particularly concerning incident in early 2022, at which time she was pregnant with X, when she was driving herself and the Father to Town M, a rural location in South Australia where the Father owns a property. The Mother's evidence was that during the drive, when they were on an expressway near Suburb N, which is on the outskirts of Adelaide, the Father saw a text message from a former partner of hers on her mobile phone. The Mother alleged that the Father became angry that she had disobeyed him by communicating with her former partner and that he started yelling, demanding information from her, and threatening to throw her phone out the window and to cause the car to swerve into oncoming traffic. The Mother's evidence was that the Father then forced her to drive down a back road and pull over, called her former partner, yelled at him and threatened to kill him. He then smashed the Mother's phone by throwing it to the ground and stomping on it, spat at her multiple times while calling her a 'slut' and a 'whore,' yelled that he was going to smash everything in her house and burn it down, and then drove off at speed leaving her at the side of the road with no phone, wallet, handbag or water.
The Mother's evidence was that she started walking up the driveway of a nearby farmhouse, and a woman she did not know pulled up next to her in a car. The Father sped back, yelled at her to get back into the car, and yelled that she was a slut and spat towards her, while she was crying and pleading with him to stop. The woman in the other car advised her not to get back into the Father's car and the Father sped off again. The woman then drove her to a petrol station and gave her the use of her phone to call her sisters. When she could not reach them, the woman gave her money to buy a face mask and water and to use a pay phone. The Mother was eventually able to reach one of her sisters and her sisters collected her. They spent that night at a motel for fear that the Father would locate them at one of their residences.
The Father's version of the events of the day in question involved him having seen 'naked and semi-naked' photographs of the Mother (which he revised in the witness box to mean photographs in her underwear) in the history of messages with her former partner. He asserted that this discovery was followed by a non-abusive discussion between the parties during which the Mother said that she wished to return to her former partner, who resided in Sydney, and the Father offered to drop her off in Suburb N so that they could 'go [their] separate ways' for the afternoon for some reflection.
In the witness box, the Father said that the Mother had declined the offer to be dropped in Suburb N but that he had dropped her off in an 'urban area with houses' which was 'just outside [Suburb N] town centre.' He also said that it had been 'mutually agreed' that the Mother would catch a taxi to her sister's home, which is in Northern Adelaide, and that he had offered to drive her there but she had declined. The Mother credibly denied this version of events.
When it was put to him that he had left the Mother in a remote area on an extremely hot day when she was heavily pregnant, he unhelpfully responded 'it's not for me to question what she does.' He initially agreed that the parties had been driving on an expressway, but when confronted with a map purportedly demonstrating where he had left the Mother, changed his evidence to say they had been driving on 'back roads.' He denied having smashed the Mother's phone.
During the evening of the day upon which this incident occurred, the Father sent the Mother an email[14] accusing her of 'sleeping around,' saying 'I hope [...] is nowhere near your repugnant womanly values and morals,' expressing a hope that her former partner's 'soul burns in hell' and accusing her of 'ruining [their] family.' This email also confirmed that the Father had expressly refused to permit the Mother to maintain contact with her former partner.
The following day, the Father sent the Mother a further email[15] saying, inter alia, 'your values are fucked,' 'you both will pay for this. I will let life decide how. Mark my words!' and '[f]or as long as baby is alive, you will now suffer.' In neither email was there any enquiry as to the Mother's wellbeing or that of their unborn baby after she had, even on the Father's own version of events, been left alone, heavily pregnant and far from home.
The Father admitted having sent the emails. He unconvincingly denied that the reason he had contacted by the Mother by email rather than by text message or phone call was because he had smashed her phone. He claimed to be unable to recall what he had meant by the emails and implausibly denied that he had been referring to an act of violence. He could not explain what he had meant by the reference to the Mother suffering but dismissively claimed that it was 'not literal.'
Despite the tone and content of the emails, the Father gave evidence in the witness box that he had 'calmed down' and was 'not angry' by the time he sent them. That evidence was lacking in credibility having regard to the contents of the emails and did not sit well with what I observed to be the Father's somewhat obsessive fixation with the Mother's contact with her former partner, being an issue which featured heavily both in post-separation communications from him and in the manner in which he presented his case before the Court. However, if this evidence had been capable of acceptance, the suggestion that such threatening and abusive communications reflected how the Father behaved after having calmed down would have raised serious concerns as to how he behaved prior to calming down.
It is also of significant concern that the Father described himself as having been calm at a time when he behaved in the manner demonstrated by the emails. Claims made by him to have been calm or behaved calmly at other times must be assessed through the lens of the fact that the abusive and aggressive behaviour demonstrated by those emails falls within the Father's interpretation of 'calm.'
The Mother's evidence was that the Father had blamed her for having caused him to lose control and told her that his anger and jealousy had come from 'a place of love.' The Mother said that she had been required to apologise to the Father and promise not to contact her former partner again and the parties had reconciled. The Mother's compelling evidence was that she had reconciled with the Father because she felt powerless and had been afraid of having the baby alone.
On 13 October 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message in which he said 'there was the silent behind my back txts [sic] to your Sydney ex, although I had told you explicitly to stop which you did. But again you lied. That's why your phone was destroyed.'[16] The Father denied that this was a reference to having smashed the Mother's phone during the incident in early 2022, but could not explain what he had been referring to despite being given several opportunities to do so. Instead, he provided rambling non-responsive answers before suggesting that the Mother had destroyed her own phone and claiming that she had two phones, being responses which failed to explain the link drawn in his email between text messages between the Mother and her former partner and her smashed phone. He later asserted that he had observed the Mother's phone to fall from the top of the pram and from her pocket and to have a cracked screen. This evidence was unconvincing.
While the trial was adjourned part-heard, the Father's solicitors requested production of the phone said to have been smashed. It is common ground that what was produced was a smashed screen and a silicone case[17] but not the body of the phone itself. The Mother gave evidence that she could not recall what had become of the remainder of the phone, save that she believed that it had come apart and been in pieces when she picked it up after the Father had smashed it. She gave evidence of the sim card having been removed for use in a phone her sister's boyfriend had arranged for her to use and considered that the body of the phone had possibly been left at the motel where she and her sisters had stayed on the night of the incident but said she was unsure as she had been in shock and the phone had not been her primary concern.
Counsel for the Father submitted that the smashed screen and the case did not go together, in that there was a 'gap' which meant that the screen was too small for the case. I do not accept this submission. Other than the gap where the remainder of the phone would have sat, I have not been persuaded that there is any mismatch between the screen and the case with which it was produced. I also reject the submission that the Mother had engaged in a 'misrepresentation' by describing the smashed screen as a smashed phone. Plainly, the Mother had been referring to the smashed screen as having been part of the phone.
Counsel for the Father made submissions relating to photographs of the smashed screen and associated case which had been produced by the Mother, but those photographs were not tendered. Much was made by the Father's Counsel of the agreed fact that the names of the photograph files contained a date in early 2022 (being the date of the incident) but the associated metadata revealed that they had been created at a later date, being November 2024 (the same month the Mother's trial affidavit was filed). The Mother's evidence was that she had saved the photographs and labelled them using the date of the incident as the file name without intending to suggest that they had been taken on that date. Counsel for the Father submitted that this undermined the Mother's credibility. I do not agree. The Mother's explanation was entirely plausible and I accept it.
It was put to the Mother, and she credibly denied, that the smashing of the phone had not yet occurred by the time she affirmed an affidavit she had relied on earlier in the proceedings in which she had mentioned the smashed phone but to which she had not annexed a photograph. The Father alleged that the Mother or someone associated with her had either smashed the screen of a different phone from the one she had been using in 2022 or produced the smashed screen of a different phone and had used it to attempt to frame him. I reject this allegation, which is highly implausible. The Mother's evidence with respect to this issue was credible. I consider this allegation to be one of many examples of the Father's unwillingness or inability to take responsibility for his own actions.
Counsel for the Father sought that the Court draw an inference, in accordance with the rule in Jones v Dunkel,[18] arising from the Mother's failure to call the woman who had given her a ride, her former partner or her sisters to give evidence. I decline to do so. Such an inference arises where it would reasonably have been expected that the evidence in question would have been called, and where the failure to do so is unexplained. That is not the case here. The woman in the car was, on the Mother's evidence, a stranger whose contact details she did not have. The Mother explained that she had not wanted to involve her former partner in the dispute between the parties, which is reasonable in all the circumstances, and that she had felt very uncomfortable involving her sisters more than they had been involved already. The rule in Jones v Dunkel does not require a party to call each and every person who might give evidence on a particular point,[19] particularly where there is no evidentiary gap to be plugged.[20] In this case, there was no significant evidence identified in relation to which any of the persons not called to give evidence was the only person able to give such evidence, or even the person best able to do so. I am also conscious of the cautions with respect to the use of the rule in parenting cases as highlighted by the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (as that Court was then known) ('the Full Court') in Murdock & Madden.[21]
The Mother was cross-examined about minor differences between what she told the Police about this incident and the version of events she gave to the Court, such as whether or not the argument had begun while the parties were driving on the expressway and then continued on a road off the expressway or had commenced once they had already left the expressway, and whether the Father had circled a 'block' between driving off and leaving the Mother and returning and demanding that she get back into the car. The Mother attributed these minor differences to the stressful circumstance of giving a Police statement, which she contrasted with the preparation of an affidavit for which there is more time. This explanation was entirely plausible. These minor issues did not undermine her credibility.
I accept the Mother's evidence with respect to the events in 2022, which is entirely consistent with the contemporaneous records of communications between the parties, the excessive focus in the Father's affidavit evidence, in his interview with Ms K and in the presentation of his case on the otherwise irrelevant issue of the Mother having exchanged messages with her former partner, and with the Father's behaviour towards the Mother more broadly, as discussed throughout these reasons. The Father's version of events, which is both implausible and entirely inconsistent with the preponderance of evidence before the Court, must be rejected.
The Mother was also challenged with respect to her evidence concerning the incident in late 2021, when she alleged that the Father became angry with her, smashed two glass beer bottles onto the tiles in the kitchen, repeatedly punched the refrigerator, and then grabbed her head and slammed her body against a bench. The Mother made a statement to Police in early 2023 in support of an application for a family violence order,[22] in which she made reference to this incident. Much was made by Counsel for the Father of differences between the version of this event in the Mother's affidavit and that in the Police statement. Those differences included whether it had been one beer bottle or two that he had smashed and whether it had been the kitchen bench or the sink into which she had been slammed. The Mother's evidence was that she was not certain whether it had been one beer or two and that the kitchen bench and sink area were one and the same, the sink being built into the bench.
It was also put to the Mother that she had not mentioned the incident during an earlier report she had made to Police in early 2022.[23] The Mother's evidence was that she had done so but the Police had been more focused on an immediate threat she had reported that day, being the threat made by the Father that if she did not immediately provide X to him, he would bash and kill her and trash and burn down her house. This evidence was not only consistent with the Police records but with common sense. The Mother gave the same entirely plausible response when asked why other incidents referred to in her evidence did not appear in the Police records.
It is important to be mindful of the warning issued by the Full Court in Hendy & Penningh[24] against 'outmoded' views of family violence which have 'no place in modern family law.' The approach urged on behalf the Father to the contents of the reports made to Police by the Mother echoes that criticised by the Full Court in Hendy & Penningh in the following passage:[25]

[81]

I accept the submission made by Counsel for the Mother that to the extent (if any) that specific mention was not made by her of particular incidents when her Police statements were made, she should not be criticised for failing to provide a detailed history of all prior incidents of family violence when she had attended the Police Station to report a threat or imminent danger. Absence of mention of particular incidents to Police does not constitute evidence that those incidents did not occur.
The Mother was also cross-examined about a line contained in the Police records suggesting that she had reported that there had been 'no real physical violence.'[26] She explained that the impression she had gained from the Police was that 'real' physical violence was things such as bashing, strangling or kicking, and that the Father had not behaved in that way towards her.
Counsel for the Father cross-examined the Mother about, but did not tender, a photograph that had been produced by the Mother which she said depicted marks left in the refrigerator when it was punched by the Father during this incident. The Mother was also cross-examined about a later photograph with the same refrigerator in the background.[27] In this photograph, the visible part of the refrigerator is covered with cards or similar items and it is therefore not possible to tell whether it has any indentations. It was put to the Mother that any indentations could have been caused by the refrigerator door banging against the cupboard next to it. The Mother said she did not recall the refrigerator door having been damaged in such a way. If the photograph was intended to demonstrate that this was likely, it did not achieve its purpose.
The Mother's description of this incident in the witness box was credible and compelling. Although I accept the submission made by Counsel for the Father that inconsistencies must be taken into account and the Mother's evidence must be considered carefully, having done so, I accept the Mother's evidence. I do not accept the submission that if an incident was 'so unforgettable,' the story would be told entirely consistently on each retelling. The discrepancies between the versions of events in the retellings of the story given by the Mother over the months and years that have since passed are so minor that they cannot be interpreted as indicating lack of truthfulness, even without allowance being made for the known impact of trauma on a person's ability to recall details of events or provide a cohesive narrative.
The Mother was challenged with respect to her allegation of the Father having threatened to pour baby oil on her and set her on fire on the basis that baby oil is not flammable. This was a proposition in respect of which no expert or other evidence was adduced. The Mother gave credible evidence that she had been terrified by the Father's actions. I accept her evidence and note that the behaviour she described would have been, and would have been intended to be, frightening whether the particular substance in question was flammable or not.
The Mother was asked a series of questions in cross-examination the ultimate import of which was that the Father had indeed been as violent as she claimed, she would have left the relationship earlier than she did. For example, she was asked why she had not changed the locks on the house, why she had not gone to stay with family, why she had not had family members come to stay with her, why she had reconciled with the Father after the incident in Suburb N, why particular incidents had not been reported to Police or to members of her family, why she had not kept the Father's phone number blocked and why she had not had the Father charged by Police.
The Mother's evidence in response to these questions was entirely consistent with contemporary understandings of the dynamics of family violence and coercive control: she was too frightened to leave, he would not have liked it, he insisted on thing being kept quiet, there would have been catastrophic consequences, it would not have been safe, she was too afraid to tell people, she was embarrassed, she felt ashamed. The Mother's evidence in this regard was compelling and was highly credible. So too was the demonstration, through his Counsel, that the Father has no real appreciation of the Mother's experience of his behaviour.
It was put to the Mother that she had made reports to Police as an opportunity to have the Father charged. She credibly denied this allegation and gave compelling evidence that she had simply wanted to keep herself and X safe. This allegation was, in any event, inconsistent with a further allegation put to the Mother to the effect that she had not had the Father charged because she had feared it might 'backfire' and with a submission made by Counsel for the Father to the effect that if the Father had indeed engaged in such heinous behaviour, the Mother would have had him charged in order to secure her safety. I do not accept the proposition that having the Father charged would necessarily have enhanced, rather than diminished, the Mother's safety.
Counsel for the Father also emphasised a line in the Police record for mid-2022, the date upon which the Mother had attended a Police Station to report a threat made by the Father to bash and kill her and trash and burn her house, which read 'victim not fearful of threats' and submitted that this meant that the Mother had not actually been in fear of the Father carrying out his threats. I do not accept this submission. The Mother's evidence made it very clear that she had been extremely fearful. This submission also failed to engage with the fact that threatening behaviour can be extremely frightening even if it is not taken literally.
The Mother gave evidence of the Father having written hundreds of violent, abusive, controlling and threatening social media posts from various accounts and emails and text messages to her following their separation. The Father did not deny having authored the various communications. Examples included the following:

[82]

(a) On 22 April 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email saying '[w]e are at war now. You and I,' referring to the Mother's 'immoral and dishonourable ways' and saying '...we can never return to peace' and 'That hurt [Ms Muir] [sic] is going to return ten fold over the coming years at all your doors.'[28]

(b) The Father sent the Mother an email on 27 April 2022 saying 'I am ready for war at any minute, beyond this life and the next...I've hurt so much gathering power in that process, but I'm ready for you and them Rock after rock has been buried and your names and theirs are on it.'[29]

(c) A further email sent by the Father on 27 April 2022 said, inter alia, 'In my bloodline, culture and tradition, that's a big no no. Never step in between me and my children ... You throwing me to the wolves did not create good energy ... You standing between me and my bloodline is what's caused all this ... Energy can never be destroyed ... there is and will be no peace... Until the day you repent, everything!! Until you give up on your family. Until then you are only delaying the inevitable. The return of all the suffering that you have caused me and my daughter ... Don't use [X] against me. It's a threat that breaks open the gates of hell into you ... War is on your doorstep.'[30]

(d) In a Facebook post made the following day, the Father posted the Mother's mobile phone number, email address and home address and asked for help to 'find' the Mother.[31] On the same day, the Father sent her an email saying, inter alia, 'I will have people knocking on your door soon...' The Mother's evidence was that she was 'terrified' by this post, which was brought to her attention by a stranger. This is unsurprising, as the post put the Mother and X at serious risk from persons other than the Father himself.

(e) In a text message sent on 3 May 2022, the Father referred to the Mother's actions as 'evil and vile' and told her she would 'rot in hell.'[32]

(f) The Father sent the Mother a text message on 4 May 2022 saying 'Your end is now on its way, every minute you raise that child is now a day closer to your Lifetime end with [X]. Mark my words. Your END is coming every day from this moment Burn in hell you swine ... Than [sic] we will pour grog on your picture at every full moon. They're already asked me to do that now in the village, but I said no - hoping that you won't be as evil as you are. ... Die in hell and rot with all your family.'[33]

(g) The Father made a Facebook post on 7 May 2022 saying 'I am Warrior - either I take your family to hell or you you [sic] give me what is mine. Otherwise death.'[34]

(h) He made a Facebook post on 25 May 2022 which stated 'at night when you sleep your father hides in the bushes next to your window in the freezing cold and in the rain sometimes and sings church songs to you. I pray for you, recite a blessing, than [sic] I drive back 2 hours away. I do this every night in the dark. I am always with you my daughter.'[35] The Mother deposed to being terrified at the prospect that the Father was lurking around her house every night. The Father's evidence was that he was 'trying to write a song to [his] daughter' and was 'expressing [his] love.' He denied that he had actually been hiding in bushes at the Mother's home. He showed no understanding of the fear that the mere suggestion that he was doing so would have caused for the Mother.

(i) The Facebook post on 25 May 2022 also contained a reference to the Father as a 'warrior' and expressed the view that 'western women' were 'adulterous, cheating and grounded in hate.' This was one of a number of posts made by the Father disparaging Western women or the Mother specifically for her Western culture, being a culture shared by X.

(j) On 22 June 2022, the Father wrote an email to the Mother which included disparaging remarks, accusing her of 'sleeping with other men' and of 'creating a huge emotional turbulence for [him],' calling her 'very evil' and 'not a great mum' and accusing her of having no 'moral compass.' This email also referred to mediation, which the parties were scheduled to undertake as 'foreign and vile' and 'crap.'[36] Inexplicably and entirely inappropriately, the Father copied one of his adult daughters into this email, together with Ms F.

(k) In an email sent to the Mother on 4 July 2022, the Father referred to 'your next relationship where you will be annihilated by your next partner who will bring gods wrath to show you exactly what domestic violence is ... your karma will be much worse.' In the same, email, he accused the Mother of being 'very rude and so disrespectful to [him],' referred to her 'stupid fucking family of idiots,' said 'You make gods bloood [sic] boil [Ms Muir]. I can't wait for you to meet your maker,' and called the Mother 'stupid,' 'dumb,' a 'slut,' and a 'fucking disgrace.' He also said 'your stench as a whore is a disgrace to [X]' and 'get your stinking ass to church and repent your slutiness [sic].'[37] Counsel for the Mother submitted that this email was obscene. I accept that submission.

(l) On 6 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email in which he referred to her as 'a whore, a lieing [sic] cheat and a very deceptive human' and warned her 'you will become a real victim one day and it's because you manifested those lies.' Referring to her family, he said 'They will all fall in disgrace. Your parents won't be on this earth when [X] reaches her teens.' The email went on to say 'Again you can't walk away from supporting the breaking up of a young family and walk perfect with any moral consequences later in your footsteps. It all comes around.' Further threatening language followed.[38]

(m) On 7 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email telling her, inter alia, that he did not want her to ever see another man until X was 18.[39] The Father did not accept that this was a means of exerting control. His failure to recognise this was concerning.

(n) The Father also admitted to having written to the Mother on 18 July 2022 requiring that 'you are still mine and I run that ship - not you' and referring to having 'control of both of you as a man and father rightfully should.' He sought, unsuccessfully, to explain this overtly controlling conduct as an intention to 'do [his] part in the relationship' and a reference to his 'responsibilities as a father.'

(o) On 18 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message saying 'You will become very very sick shortly within the next 10 years, when the time comes for you to finally realise whose [sic] in control and how ignorant you were to the pain you caused to our entire [Paige] family, Over the next 10 years you will face the most insurmountable challenges unheard of in your entire life. you will beginning feeling what you dished out ... Even on your death bed begging for forgiveness. Remember what happens to those hurt me.'[40] The Mother's evidence was that this message had terrified her.

(p) Also on 18 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email saying, inter alia, 'Because you still don't seek reunification, I will show you how brutal it will be for you when I turn my lights off, to you. You will live in darkness forever. There won't be a mediator or contact Center [sic] when I do that to you.'[41]

(q) On 18 July 2022, the Mother was copied in on an email from the Father to his adult daughter and Ms F in which he said '[Ms Muir] has still not repented for cheating on dad with two other men. I asked her to repent her ways, for sleeping with other men to txting [sic] other men about [X], than [sic] expecting dad to be [X]'s dad than [sic] kicking dad out of [X]'s life, and kicking god out of [X]'s spiritual life. I honestly think [Ms Muir] is sick in the head and only time will tell if she resorts back to smoking marijuana with her father to heal her angst from her immoralities.' This email also referred to the Mother's alleged 'whoring and adulterous behaviour' before going on to say '[Ms Muir] and [X] in particular is [sic] in a very high risk category of immoral danger. [Ms Muir] is not the best teacher for [X] when it will come to education. Especially Christian education and how a young respectable woman should behave. I have no faith in [Ms Muir] and her family being the best to teach [X] how not to be a slut like [Ms Muir] [sic] did to dad when she grows up. I have severed ties with the slutting whore and their corrupt family who have stolen dads daughter, dads mums and nanas name and our now our surname, but I ask that that you continue to pray for [X] and for the destruction of these immoral idols of evil starting with [X]'s mother.'[42]

(r) On 21 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email saying, inter alia, 'everyday I pray to god and I ask him to destroy you. I don't know when that will happen but god will that be a day every one [sic] will celebrate.' The email also referred to the Mother's alleged 'whoring' and 'lieing [sic]' together with other abusive and disparaging language. [43]

(s) On 15 September 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message in which he said, inter alia, 'it's my ownership of you and your body that will release me from this bondage and longing ... I need to sleep with you a few more times [Ms Muir] [sic] to bring closure to my restless heart that just needs peace. It's that sense of ownership that I need for my own psychological safety and trust.' The text message also said that he needed his 'masculinity and honour restored.'[44] Ms K described this message as 'significantly concerning.' I agree. The Father refused to accept the plainly correct proposition that in this message he had been speaking about the Mother as though she was a possession, thereby demonstrating a significant lack of insight.

(t) On 16 September 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message in which he said 'violence is still an option.'[45] In the witness box, he nonsensically asserted that 'the struggle is the violence.'

(u) On 7 November 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email threatening to start 'popping down' to the Mother's home 'intermittently day and night to visit [X]' in 'surprise visits' to which he proposed to bring his adult daughters. He also suggested that his daughters might move to a location close to the Mother. In the witness box, he said, unconvincingly, that his intention was 'to form a bond' between X and his other daughters. He did not accept that the Mother might have found this communication threatening, which suggests a significant lack of insight on his behalf. He suggested that he and the Mother had discussed the idea of the visits and that she was open to it, which suggestion was entirely inconsistent with the message itself and with the pattern of his communications with the Mother.

(v) On 12 January 2023, the Father made a reference in a Facebook post to '[X] coming to rest in her father's house when payback comes to those that have wedged me from her.' The Mother deposed to having been frightened by the reference to X 'coming to rest.'

(w) On 4 April 2023, the Father made a Facebook post expressing a wish that the Mother and her family would 'all die terrible deaths.' The Mother's family is of course also X's family.

(x) On 10 May 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying 'people die when I hate.'

(y) On 27 May 2023, after he had been served with a family violence order obtained by the Mother, the Father made a Facebook post saying '...I am still ... going to do it anyway and save her. Please raise hell on my enemies to that extent ... War is about to begin.'

(z) On 1 September 2023, the day after a court hearing, the Father made a Facebook post saying '...all I need is 1% ... and than [sic] I'll take the entire 100%.'[46] The Mother reasonably interpreted this as a threat that if the Father received any time with X, he would not return her.

[84]

(a) On 15 September 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message claiming to be a 'trained assassin.'[47]

(b) The following day, the Father sent the Mother a message claiming to have been 'trained by an organisation [he] can't even name,' intimating that he had hacking skills and had been tracking the Mother's movements electronically, and said 'It's been so interesting to see your choice of men, we would be putting an iED to kill them now, please be proud you have an alternative.' In the witness box, the Father unconvincingly denied knowing that 'iED' was shorthand for improvised explosive device despite his military background and his own use of the term in the message. He also unconvincingly denied that he had intended to frighten the Mother into thinking she was being tracked or that he had made the reference to the iED to scare her.

(c) On 15 January 2023, the Father made a Facebook post that said '[t]here was a family in Adelaide who attacked me ... i [sic] was alone in Adelaide ... And they thought I would be buried by now, ... I think they knew I was not normal after a while ... when whatever they threw at me failed, they threw the entire system at me ... but I told my team mate - be gentle.. hold your fire and be kind to them, We will attack, but we must surround them first, than [sic] we will squeeze their souls out of their bodies ... than [sic] only than [sic] we may choose to advance.' The post then went on to talk of 'an army of assassins, nuclear weapons experts, snipers, bombs [sic] makers, cyber hackers and highly intelligent [sic] advisers' and said 'you [sic] better hide when I bring the army home to you...'[48] The Father denied that this had been a threat to attack the Mother. This evidence was unconvincing.

(d) On the same day, the Father made a further post saying '[n]ow it's time to build our posts ... we will purchase right at their doorstep ... one foot away ... than [sic] we bring more and more ... we will come down from the north and surround them ... their very strongest bastion, we will surround that ... Because a father protects ... it gives him purpose ... For now, we buy time ... and bring the brigade down south, right to their doorstep ... than [sic] we chase them out and buy their place ... Than [sic] we will take a picture and bust down the gates ... all of the gates ... and we will than [sic] level that property in this very generation ... donating all of its wealth back to god. To win, for my daughter; we must be patient ... For now And surprise them!' The Mother's evidence was that this post had terrified her.

(e) On 20 January 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying he had 'defended myself and my family and I also carried over 500 injured and heavily amputated solders into the hospital and I've seen half of them go as their last breath of hope to continue their fight. Trust me when I say I am a warrior ... it really means what I have been through ... I have slept in jail, the mangroves, in shrubs and in enemy bedrooms.'[49]

(f) On 9 February 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying 'with a gun displaced faster than a speed of light. i [sic] have put 12 Russians [sic] agents into hospital in a street fight abroad alone and I am not proud of my violence under fire ... they had guns ... I had a will to survive ... I am no James Bond because I have to conceal my phenomenal strength ... beware of my ferocity when you have ridiculed my family ... in the back streets if you have tried to fuck me up .... I will arrive and educate you ... I am a professor with a very unique training. Please be careful if you try ... I am odd ... for a reason.'[50]

(g) On 16 March 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying 'It is I ... who is king. I do not know why I was chosen but I was chosen nonetheless. I have given up trying to understand why or how far I will go ... I was going to go back to war reluctantly, ... I knew this in my soul after my huge embarrassment, not to the [armed forces] ... I was going back to war with the woman who stole my child away from me, this time I was ready to fight alone, nor with expectations of those not ready to give everything to win - come hell or high water, gods [sic] wealth was stocked to take on my now nemesis. Wealth from my poor broke nation to my hard work was my test to see if I could take up $680,000 of fees for her and subdue all of her fight into despair, I could create $750,000 in my own account in 1 year through gods [sic] power. I think she didn't realise I was coming at her now, with Armageddon! I wanted her finished and all of them buried. I needed my daughter. I think they didn't realise I was coming with an Army in the Valley. In the sewers, in the most inhospitable. My people were coming to take evidence of her Armageddon. I wasn't ready to attack today - I do not have tanks or missiles or long range snipers at the cliff edge ... I only have my people and gods [sic] word, I need my people to make that decision for me when we can bankrupt them into their longest debt, for it is I ... who is king. The leader of my family. My wealth and will is your insight into my camp. I have what it takes to destroy you as a peasant farm boy. This is what I can create in this impossibility. I want all of you buried - Alive. God have mercy on your souls at night when we arrive. God please save her soul for it is not I - but you who will obliterate it with her families. This is your warning. We - are coming Please give me my family back - for I have shown you granted ascent!!! To my daughter - It is your father who sings in at full moon, it is my chants that you will hear when you look out the window at the moon, it is against your mother, the wickedness of her soul and the destruction I wish on all her sisters hurt at me. For it ... was I who slept in the gutters outside your bedroom when I was kicked out. ... All have driven past your window and the injustice of your evil mothers [sic] soul. I will never hope - that you will ever display the evil of [Ms Muir] and her evil [Muir] family as you rise like an eagle like your father, a king ... when you come to find me, look up at the mountains from the rooftops of your evil mothers [sic] lineage - there my soul rests in comfort of your excellence of my beautiful daughter. I know you will find me. And you will never return.'[51]

(h) On 27 April 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying '[j]ust because I built a nuclear weapons industry doesn't mean I cannot transmit my raw nuclear power into legal matters ... i [sic] am a warrior and a fighter ... it was what I did successfully ... I think your family have made a huge mistake In miscalculating my ferocity and velocity of attack, painfully revealing my global position and motto of choice ... to fly undetected under any global radar ... but I have reluctantly had to surface, albeit I may have come across to your family as a loser, on the contrary ... : I just wanted to save yourself from losing they war that you now have provoked me to fight ... [Mr Paige] surfaces and enters into battle, one way ticket ... hit them hard, hit them relentlessly ... win or nothing! Fight to the death...'[52]

(i) On 1 June 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying 'I have learnt this in my military life ... I am brutal, insanely brutal when someone threatens me or my family and children... I am the definition of protection that I have been hired for ... I do not think people realise that the 6 Russians I fought until the death [...] or the gangland mafia that we shot against [...] [sic] ... I'm just a pretty face sure! I think for your benefit reading this ... I hope you know ... I trained others to kill ... it's so despicable ... but I have lived ... As a Warrior, that's how I came, that's how I go. So please choose wisely ... attack me where I have nothing ... because even I have killed without a weapon ... but my mind ... and if you a [Muir] [sic], go for it anyway ... try bypassing my soul and emotions ... I am the child of war. I am wherever you are. I will also SLAY YOU! Just thought you might want to know... the Russians have died, the ex has died ... The scar on my forehead is a snipers [sic] rifle bullet saved by grace ... I think it's safe to assume I will never ever make peace with you. That death to you is a victory to me. And death to me is a preparation for ravage [sic] you. Either way you nd [sic] them will meet me. My curse is firm ... something tragic will happen to your parents and you ... I think you'll die before shes [sic] 21.'[53]

[86]

(a) On 4 May 2022, the Father sent a text message to the Mother saying '[Ms Muir] Dead - You have a curse placed on you from this day onwards ...You have crossed the Devine [sic] law of nature and separated me from my spirit child. I ask that the spirits of my ancestors haunt you and they [sic] my daughter resents you until the day you die. There is no more peace now. What you have been doing and are doing is so so so CRUEL. So EVIL. You are a very very evil woman. You will lose everything, your home, your sanity, your purpose. Your life. May you decend [sic] into hell. I am no longer going to reach out. I have now lost my daughter and spirit child. My grandma and my mothers [sic] family are going to turn now in their graves for what you have done to me and [X]. They come from a line of [Country B people] who do certain things. For every minute of your life going forward they will haunt you. You will hear it when [X] cries. Then you will go insane. Watch my words. I cast a spell on you and 3 to have an abrupt ending from my spirit child and me. See you in 13 years ...until the day you die, I am not doing any more mediation with you from this day onwards. None. Your daughter is going to have huge repercussions.'[54] The Mother's evidence was that upon receiving this message she felt paralysed by fear.

(b) On 7 May 2022, the Father made a Facebook post referring to 'supernatural faith & instinct' and saying 'I have created war.'[55]

(c) On 8 May 2022, the Father made a Facebook post saying '... 1st your mother will now die in hate ... Than [sic] you will lose your father ... Than [sic] your sisters will divorce and their children will be struck ... Than [sic] you, from every hell you will be burnt for disobeying Than [sic] what you stopped from seeing me will find it's [sic] way in the darkness back to me ... it will find it's [sic] master ... this is now war, for when I asked for death on my enemies ... god delivered.' [56]

(d) In a separate Facebook post made on the same day, the Father said 'Either you apologise or you send your unprepared soul into War - for I am hurting and when my heart is in tears, devil and angel will fight you to show me strength. Therefore you will never sleep and all our curses will multiply with you each night and day... your family is now cursed ... hence all you thieves and refuge will die slowly. You need to apologise immediately!! And release my child ... or you will be cursed for her 7 entire generations. Anyone who mistakenly steps into this war is dead with a closing shadow. Leave now please, my words have never lied.'[57] The Mother's evidence was that these posts caused her significant fear and distress.

(e) The Father made a Facebook post on 25 May 2022 referring to 'supernatural powers.'[58]

(f) On 22 June 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email accusing her of having 'disobeyed so many things, so many laws across Christian, spiritual, relational and divine natural powers.' The email went on to say 'I have placed a curse on all of you in my helpless state in Australia to save my own daughter and myself from your spiritual neglect ... I hope your karma late on in your life finds its way back to all of your hearts and what you all decided to bring down.'[59]

(g) On 18 July 2022, the Mother was copied into an email from the Father to his adult daughter and Ms F in which he said 'There is now a huge curse on [Ms Muir] for all that rage continues to defy in not only our faith but with our family and the whoring dishonour she has brought to our family line. I know that [Ms Muir] and her family will all burn in hell when they get asked about the reconciliation attempts offered by dad, our church, our family etc.'[60]

(h) On 21 July 2022, the Father sent the Mother an email referring to his former wife (who had died), saying '...she did exactly what you are doing now and there is a certain amount of forgiveness that I gave to her until god had to step in and say enough is enough. Justice, heavenly justice had to be served.'[61] The contents of this email did not sit well with the Father's denial that he had told the Mother that he had killed his former wife using a voodoo curse.

(i) On 15 September 2022, the Father sent the Mother a text message saying 'there's a force of energy that I possess, it's fully lethal and good depending on my mood and I have been born with it. It's a superpower I think I inherited.' The email went on to say '[t]he suffering that you came under is because of the mistreatment of that energy ... I was going to burn your home down with that spirit but because of our child I had to refocus that energy away from both of you ... These are huge bursts of energy that are aimed sometimes to those who hurt me. ... So I had to deflect that energy away from you and baba when I gave you my promise not to harm you for what you did. ... Our family home in [Country B] [sic] where our daughters namesakes (nana and my mum) was burnt to the ground last week. ... It's very strong what I say.'[62]

(j) On 6 December 2022, the Father sent an email to the Mother (and copied in his adult daughter and Ms F) in which he said '...now all that will happen is ... supernatural things (be prepared babe).' The email went on to say '[w]hat I saw in hell [Ms Muir] was war ... life for life ... wolf and tiger, violent ... so violent that I had to leave ... retribution supernaturally for the divide you brought upon me and to my child (the most valuable gift I have) as the only head of my family ... that you divided in war of your own choice of infidelities.' Under cross-examination, the Father admitted to having sent this email and provided no satisfactory explanation for its contents.

(k) The Father was cross-examined about a further aspect of the same email dated 6 December 2022, in which he had listed female family members (two of his sisters and his mother) whom he claimed to have cursed for having wronged him, together with the negative consequences they had suffered, which included a relationship breakdown, admission to a 'mental hospital' and death. The email asserted that another of his sisters might still avoid a complete fall if she 'humbles herself.' Despite having expressly claimed in the email to have cursed these women, in the witness box, the Father refused to acknowledge this, saying instead 'I was frustrated' and 'venting frustration is not a curse.'

(l) On 24 December 2022, the Father made a post on YouTube attached to a video of himself attending at the Mother's parents' residence without their consent, in which he said, amongst other things '[n]ow I will speak in the mana [sic] of my fatherly power, and in my soul to the devine [sic]and from the mana [sic] of my ancestors including [X]'s namesake, my nana and from mum, chiefly women of [Country B] [sic] to caste [sic] a spell of repercussions on all 5 adult members of that [Muir] family and whoever lives in that house at adults. I order all the angels of the heavens to descend on all of these evil members of that house and turn to ruin everything they own - all 5 of them including to sell the home within 15 years, funerals in 13, never ending sorrow for all 3 adult sisters. Now and into the future with each moon, and to caste [sic] a darkness of foolishness on all of them for multiple generations; unrecoverable, and to all their offspring [...] [sic] after sparing only three small children that will be protected with [X] in that orb of godly hope. The prayer to seek gods [sic] help and natures supernatural spirit to destroy forever all 5s rewards, given by god in their thieving ways, and to now lose all their real estates [sic], wealth and relationships ... year after year henceforth and to cloak an everlasting darkness on all their loving relationships forever from this point on, until the pain of forced separation is acknowledged with my child's return. Let love shine in gods [sic] love and to those who destroy bonds of my blood, be destroyed in all of theirs. This cannot be taken back now.'[63]

(m) On 26 January 2023, the Father posted on Facebook saying 'obviously they know I'm superhuman now ... I have told them many times, repent all of your sins, give me back what's rightfully mine, and no pain will be brought about on any of you. It is that simple. Ask those whom I have cursed, the power of what injustice brings to my lips sets you down hill ... There is an Army here legioned towards the supernatural ... do not hide ... we are coming closer ... I am going to fight you and curse you and than [sic] I'll feed you to the vultures ... choose peace, give me back what must be given back, although I Believe in what I saw and said ... 13 years until you all face tragedy... your house will be levelled ... and that will be an open beautiful garden for all ... there will never be any further walls.'[64]

(n) On 1 June 2023, the Father made Facebook posts saying 'because you doubt my very existence as her father, I will show you death... I did not survive all natures [sic] years as an ordinary man without magical powers... so if you choose death, your [sic] doing all of this a favour, go. Just because you don't see me doesn't not mean that my sword is down, in fact I can tell who my sword is against and you can tell me if I'm nothing' and 'I knew I had black magic within my soul but I never chose to awaken it, until now.'[65]

(o) The Father admitted to having made a further Facebook post on the same day saying 'I will hunt your spirit down, no law will stop this now! You will never find rest, nor your bloodline, they will eat and feast on fear. I will not be there ... this is my starting curse on you.'

(p) On 8 August 2023, the Father made a Facebook post saying '...please don't underestimate the humungous supernatural power I yield in war. People who pick fights with me die early...'

[89]

The Father's stated intention to expose X to his views about the Mother in future was entirely consistent with his wholly inappropriate conduct in copying his daughter Ms C, who is X's half-sister and who was then aged 20, into abusive and threatening communications directed by him to the Mother, as discussed above. In the witness box, he concerningly described having done this as 'what [he] thought was right.' His threat to provide inappropriate information to X was also consistent with his indication to the Mother that his other daughters 'knew' disparaging things about her. In the witness box, the Father denied having told his daughters that the Mother was a 'slut,' despite having copied one of them in on several abusive emails expressing precisely such a sentiment. This evidence did not assist his credibility.
The Mother expressed a fear to Ms K that the Father would isolate X and use her as a tool to seek revenge against her. This fear was well-founded in light of the Father's threats. Dr L expressed a concern about the Father saying inappropriate things about the Mother within earshot of X. This concern was shared by Ms K. In the witness box, Ms K elaborated on these concerns, indicating that the Father's stated intention to tell X about the Mother's perceived weaknesses and flaws when she was older raised doubts about his understanding of the need to protect her from conflict.
Ms K described the Father's behaviour in authoring the various written communications as 'not just awful but consistent with family violence.' She agreed with the proposition that they were not just highly inappropriate but abusive. I agree with that assessment.
The Father admitted that notwithstanding the contents of the posts, messages and emails as outlined above, he had deposed in an affidavit filed earlier in the proceedings that he had never harassed the Mother or her family in any way, which was plainly untruthful evidence. When confronted with the blatant inconsistency between his posts and other communications and the evidence he had given, he dismissively said 'I wrote some stuff, it was just writing, not actual things.' The Father's denials of having engaged in violent conduct towards the Mother other than by way of the posts, emails and messages must be assessed in light of his flippant attitude towards both the seriousness of his admitted abusive and threatening conduct and the truthfulness of his evidence.
The examples outlined above are not the only examples of violent, threatening, abusive and controlling conduct of which the Mother gave evidence. By way of example, she also alleged that the Father had behaved in an angry, controlling and unsafe manner towards her while holding X during a visit which she supervised on 26 October 2022, causing her to cease facilitating such visits; and that in early 2023 he had attended at her parents' residence and repeatedly beeped the horn until told to leave by Police (being an allegation which was admitted by the Father but in relation to which he demonstrated no insight).
The Mother also alleged that an incident had occurred in around May 2022 at which time she had returned to the residence in which she and the Father had resided and found that a note had been left on her kitchen bench stating 'THIS IS OUR CHILD. STAY AWAY!!!!' The note was surrounded by photographs of X, a crucifix and what appeared to the Mother to be a smudge stick used in traditional spiritual ceremonies. The Mother relied on a photograph of these items.[71] The Mother alleged that the Father had left the items in order to frighten her, which allegation the Father denied. He alleged the that the Mother or someone in her family had staged the items in order to frame him.
The Father claimed to have returned his key to the Mother's property to the Police prior to the alleged incident. This did not, of course, exclude the possibility that he had made and retained another copy of the key. While the trial was adjourned part heard, a request was made between the parties' solicitors for the original version of the photograph relied upon by the Mother. The Court was informed that a pdf version was provided and after a further request, a jpeg file was produced, but that it was provided without the associated metadata, meaning that the date upon which the original photograph was taken could not be ascertained.
Counsel for the Father relied on the absence of the metadata as evidence that the Mother had staged the photograph herself, effectively to frame the Father. I do not accept this allegation. The request for the photograph was made nearly three years after the incident was said to have occurred. The Mother's evidence was that it had been her sister who had taken the photograph. She credibly denied having removed the metadata. The Mother made a contemporaneous Police report in which she described exactly what the photograph in question depicted and provided a photograph to Police.[72] In those circumstances, it is very difficult to imagine the purpose for which she would recreate the scene and make another photograph at a later date. The Father's allegation in this regard was difficult to follow.
The conduct alleged by the Mother was entirely consistent with the Father's other threatening and intimidating behaviour as demonstrated in his various written communications. The Father's allegation that the Mother had staged evidence was inconsistent with what I observed to be her genuineness and reliability as a witness. I find that the items were left by the Father and accept the submission made on behalf of the Mother that the Father left these items in the Mother's home in order to terrify her by showing her that he had been in her home in her absence.
The Father admitted having authored the messages, emails and posts relied upon by the Mother. He insisted, however, that although he had behaved as demonstrated in the available documentary records, he had not otherwise engaged in family violence towards the Mother, and her allegations were otherwise entirely false. This was a blanket denial of all other violent conduct of all kinds and not simply a denial of some of the particular events or actions asserted by the Mother or a denial of particular types of violence such as physical violence. The Father's evidence that his poor conduct had been strictly limited to the communications which were in writing and were therefore able to be definitively proven was implausible in the extreme and it served only to undermine the Father's credibility as a witness. Similarly, the proposition put to the Mother that she had invented her evidence of threats, violence and aggression for the purposes of the proceedings is simply unable to be reconciled with the extensive conduct of precisely that nature to which the Father has admitted. It is inherently unlikely that a person would behave in the extremely abusive and threatening manner in which the Father has behaved in writing on so many occasions but not otherwise engage in any conduct constituting family violence whatsoever. The Mother's allegations with respect to other incidents of family violence are entirely consistent with and supported by the conduct to which the Father admitted.
The Mother's presentation was observed by Ms K to be consistent with that of a survivor of family violence. This is unsurprising, noting that although the Father demonstrated limited insight into this fact, even on the basis of the conduct admitted by the Father, the Mother has been subjected to extensive family violence by him.
The Father relied on a series of photographs and videos depicting himself and X, some of which also depicted the Mother, in apparently happy poses and interactions, from both prior to separation and during the post-separation visits supervised by the Mother.[73] Photographs depicting seemingly happy moments in no way constitute evidence of the absence of violence, abuse or fear. This is particularly so in the present case in light of the Mother's evidence of having consistently acted in a manner designed to appease the Father in order to keep the peace.
The Mother's evidence of her experience of having been subjected to family violence by the Father was credible and compelling and was not successfully undermined in cross-examination, notwithstanding the minor discrepancies already discussed. I accept the Mother's evidence of her experience of family violence in its entirety. I reject the Father's allegations that the Mother had 'manufactured' and 'fabricated' allegations against him for the purpose of the litigation, and that the Mother's narrative consisted of 'hyperbole,' 'exaggeration' or 'falsehoods.' These allegations reflect extremely poorly on the Father, his levels of insight, his willingness and ability to take responsibility for his own behaviour, and the prospects of avoidance of such conduct in future.
I emphasise, however, that even if my finding as to family violence had been limited to the conduct to which the Father has admitted, this would have been more than sufficient to support a finding that he had engaged in extremely serious conduct constituting family violence and that he constitutes a risk to both the Mother and X. In this regard, Ms K was asked whether, if the Mother's allegations of physical violence were not accepted, this would change her concerns, and she said 'not at all,' explaining that the language in the written communications alone left her with significant concerns for X's wellbeing.
I also accept the Mother's evidence of the terror she experienced and continues to experience, for own safety and for X's, arising from the Father's conduct. While the Mother is not required to demonstrate that her experience of fear was reasonable,[74] I accept that it was not only reasonable but an entirely natural and foreseeable reaction to the Father's behaviour, to the extent that it is inconceivable that it was not the outcome intended by the Father.
The Mother was cross-examined about how she had come across the Father's Facebook posts. She acknowledged that she was not 'friends' with any of the Father's Facebook profiles, that she had not been 'tagged' in his posts and that his posts did not appear in her feed. She said that concerned friends and family members had sent her screenshots or called to warn her after seeing the posts and that once she had become aware of his posting activity, she and her concerned friends and family members had checked his profiles for concerning content.
It was put to the Mother that she and her family members and friends had been 'actively seeking' the content by 'trawling' and that it was illogical to suggest that she would have continually terrified herself by looking at things that had caused her to feel frightened. The Mother did not agree with this proposition and said that she had needed to be aware of the threats in order to protect X. Such an approach was entirely reasonable, appropriate and protective. It was also consistent with hypervigilance, being an impact of trauma as described by the Mother's psychologist, which is discussed later in these reasons. The Mother credibly denied that she had sought out the posts in order to gather evidence. This line of questioning was consistent with the manner in which the Father presented his case generally, which involved deflecting responsibility for the serious harm caused by his actions and blaming the Mother for many of the consequences of his behaviour.
The Mother was also questioned about her interpretation of the posts and other communications and actions undertaken by the Father. She was asked, in a somewhat derisive manner, whether she had taken the posts literally. She responded, entirely reasonably, that it had depended on the post and that she had not known what was real and what was not. Plainly, some of the Father's communications are more amenable to literal interpretation than others. When it was suggested to her that she would have thought, upon reading the Father's posts about killing Russians, that he was 'off in la la land,' she gave credible evidence that she had considered that the Father might have been psychotic and had been frightened. It is certainly the case that a communication can be no less frightening, and indeed can be more frightening, as a consequence of its author appearing to be delusional or psychotic. This is a consideration of which the Father demonstrated no recognition.
Counsel for the Father put to the Mother in a somewhat mocking tone that she could not possibly have believed that the Father had supernatural powers or the ability to curse her. The Mother answered tearfully and clearly genuinely that she did believe it and referred to stories the Father had told her about his ancestral lands and ancient Country B traditions. Ms K was asked whether the Mother's evidence in this regard caused her any concern about her sense of reality. Ms K was firm in her response that it did not. She emphasised that people from many cultures hold various beliefs about such powers. I similarly hold no such concerns about the Mother's connection to reality.
These were not the only example of communications from the Father in relation to which it was suggested that the Mother could not genuinely have adopted a literal interpretation. What the Father appears to fail to appreciate is that whether his communications were to be interpreted literally was not to the point. As the Mother's compelling and genuine evidence as to her fear demonstrated, communications, particularly threatening communications, can be terrifying whether they are interpreted literally or not and without their precise meaning being understood at all. Communications which are not, and are not intended to be, taken literally may nonetheless be indicative of serious risk.
It was put to the Mother that her interpretation of the Father's communications may not have been 'correct.' There are at least two significant difficulties with this proposition. Firstly, many of the posts and other communications may not have had a single 'correct' interpretation, but it is beyond doubt that they were abusive, harassing and threatening in nature. Secondly, it must be recognised the Mother's reaction to the Father's communications will have been affected by the broader context, which includes that threatening and abusive conduct, such that individual communications which may appear benign in isolation and even those without any malevolent intent may nonetheless have had a significant negative impact on the Mother in the manner in which she described. This is a direct consequence of the Father's behaviour in relation to which he demonstrated no insight.
I have regard to the fact that there is a family violence order in force against the Father for the protection of the Mother and X. The order was made by consent on a without admissions basis early 2024.[75] In summary, the order prohibits the Father from, inter alia, assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing, intimidating the Mother or X, or approaching or contacting them, other than through a lawyer, to attend counselling, mediation or conciliation, or as ordered by a court. The Mother credibly denied the allegation that she had applied for the order to stop the Father obtaining time with X rather than out of genuine concern for their safety.

[90]

The Father's conduct, including but not limited to the extreme anger demonstrated by him, and the somewhat fantastical and potentially delusional contents of some of his emails, messages and posts, give rise to questions about the state of his mental health. Indeed, his own Counsel described some of his communications as giving rise to the impression that he was 'off in la la land.'
The single expert psychiatrist, Dr L, observed no psychotic symptoms in the Father, such as delusions or perceptual abnormalities, and expressed the opinion that the Father was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder. He opined that based on the Father's history and presentation, he had some mild personality problems, and Dr L noted the level of anger in the Father's social media posts.
Dr L noted that if a number of the assertions made by the Mother about the Father were accepted (which they have been), then he would see him as having significant personality problems, also described by Dr L as 'dysfunctional personality traits.' Dr L opined that in such a case, the Father would require probably 20 sessions with a psychologist to address his personality problems, his dysfunctional personality traits would affect his parenting, and any time he spent with X would require supervision while he had therapy.
The Father consulted with a clinical psychologist, Mr O, for five sessions, and following that psychologist becoming unavailable, with Dr Jack White, also a clinical psychologist, for a further three sessions. However, Dr White gave evidence that his sessions with the Father had been for the purpose of undertaking an assessment, and the Father adduced no evidence as to whether any of the sessions he attended with Mr O were therapeutic in nature. The extent of the Father's compliance with the recommendation for therapy (if any) is therefore unclear. Ms K gave evidence that this was of concern.
The Father relied on two reports of Dr White, upon whom he attended in November 2023 for the purposes of a Mental Health Assessment and a Domestic Violence Assessment and in December 2024 for a follow-up assessment, in addition to having attended the three sessions referred to above. In his first report, Dr White opined that there was little evidence to indicate any likelihood of the Father harming X and that he had the capacity to care for her without supervision, including overnight. Dr White also opined that there was no evidence on the basis of the assessment that the Father was likely to commit domestic violence towards either the Mother or X. Dr White reported little change in this regard in his addendum report. He further reported in the addendum report that the Father's scores on the Anger Expression Index indicated that his level of anger expression was below average. Dr White reported that the Father was unlikely to express his anger generally, and if he did experience anger, he had good control over it, both internally and externally.
It is noted, however, that in his original report, Dr White reported that the Father had told him that he did not have problems with anger or aggression and had denied any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. When assessed for the addendum report, the Father continued to deny to Dr White that he had engaged in aggressive behaviour or inappropriate conduct in relation to the Mother and denied having engaged in physical or emotional abuse as alleged by the Mother. The history given by the Father to Dr White was plainly untruthful, even having regard the agreed factual history alone, and all the more so in light of the findings contained in this judgment. Dr White was also advised by the Father of a number of other matters which have not been borne out by the evidence, such as that the Mother was 'engaging in antagonistic behaviour' regarding X. As such, Dr White's opinion was based on entirely false premises, which undermines its reliability and limits the weight that can be attributed to it.[76]
Ms K expressed concern about the premise, provided by the Father, upon which his engagement with Dr White had proceeded. She explained that the purpose of the therapy would have been to challenge the Father's thinking and to try and assist him to gain insight and accountability into the concerns raised by the Mother and the impact his behaviour had had on her. She emphasised that it would have been necessary for the Father to engage in a therapeutic process that was specific and challenging for it to be purposeful. It is apparent that this is not what occurred during the process with Dr White. Ms K was particularly concerned by the Father's position, as stated to Dr White, that he had not perpetrated emotional abuse. I share this concern. It not only undermines Dr White's opinion but suggests a significant lack of insight by the Father into the nature of his behaviour towards the Mother.
Personality Assessment Inventory testing undertaken by Dr White on both occasions upon which he assessed the Father recorded him as elevated on the measure of (inter alia) grandiosity. The Father's tendency towards grandiosity was reflected in many of his communications with the Mother and his Facebook posts, such as his claims to have superpowers, his claimed military prowess, and his claim to be a king. It was also reflected in some of the evidence he gave in the witness box, which included a reluctance to admit that he was lacking in superpowers. Dr White described some of the Father's posts as indicative of 'a manic phase of grandiosity.' Although he did not consider the risk to be high, he was not able to say with certainty that such a phase would not recur in future and in particular that it would not recur in the event of re-engagement with the Mother. This was described by Ms K as concerning. I agree. Personality Profile and Personality Assessment Inventory testing undertaken by Dr White otherwise indicated unconcerning results across both reports. Violence Potential Index testing suggested that he was low-moderate risk when compared with the 'community' sample and low risk when compared with the 'clinical' sample.
Dr White gave evidence and was cross-examined by Counsel for the Mother and Counsel for the ICL. His evidence confirmed that in making his assessments of the Father, he had been unaware of significant aspects of the Father's concerning behaviour. For example:

[91]

(a) He confirmed that he had been unaware of the nature of the allegations of physical and emotional abuse which had been made by the Mother and denied by the Father, and said that he had proceeded on the basis of the Father's assertion that the allegations were false.

(b) His view that the Father had demonstrated good insight was based on discussions with the Father about the teachings of a Men's Behaviour Change Course that had been undertaken by the Father, and not discussions about the Father's own individual behaviour.

(c) His view that the Father had shown insight into 'relationship dynamics' was based on the Father having realised that if he was wanting to achieve a goal, the right way to resolve this was through the legal process and a 'common sense approach.' He also said that the Father accepting 'not having a relationship with the Mother' constituted showing insight. Ms K expressly disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the concern about the Father's attitude towards the Mother had been about control and entitlement, not simply wanting a relationship.

(d) He confirmed that the Father had not told him that there were many pages of emails, posts and other communications written by him that were highly critical of the Mother. To the extent that the Father had spoken with him of the posts, it had been to claim that they were not directed to the Mother and were rather his reflections about his situation.

(e) Although he gave evidence that he had 'received that information in subsequent correspondence,' he acknowledged that he had not had the extensive Facebook posts, emails and other communications directed by the Father to the Mother at the time of his report. He was plainly not familiar with the contents of many of the Father's disturbing communications (some of which he described in the witness box as sounding 'weird') prior to giving his evidence.

(f) He admitted that he had not discussed the contents of the Father's posts and messages with him despite having been specifically asked to do so.

(g) He accepted that what he had been told about the nature of the Father's posts and messages had been 'very benign in nature.'

[93]

(a) He described the email in which the Father had referred to the Mother's 'stench as a whore' and told her to 'get [her] stinking ass to church and repent [her] sluttiness'[77] as 'fairly direct' (a significant understatement) and 'reacting in an emotional state' (a justification) before remarking that he recalled that there had been evidence that the Mother had told the Father that she was sleeping with other men. When asked whether he considered that that excused calling her such names, Dr White responded that he supposed it was 'probably technically accurate.' He also questioned whether there had been 'something that had preceded that to provoke that response.' The suggestions that such an offensive and abusive communication could be described as 'accurate' or could be justified on the basis of provocation by the victim were deeply troubling.

(b) He was at pains to emphasise that certain concerning conduct on the part of the Father had occurred prior to the Father's completion of a Men's Behaviour Change Program, despite the fact that Dr White's first report, which contained a favourable assessment of the Father, predated the Father's participation in that course, meaning that the stark contrast between Dr White's assessment of the Father and the Father's behaviour cannot be explained by him having undertaken that course.

(c) He opined more than once that the Father would understand, following having undertaken the Men's Behaviour Change Program, that his past behaviour was inappropriate. That was not only mere conjecture, but was wholly at odds with the Father's failure to be forthcoming with him about his undisputed history of emotionally abusive behaviour at the time of his second assessment, which was undertaken after completion of the program. The only conclusion that can safely be drawn from Dr White's convictions in this regard is that the Father should have been aware after completion of the Men's Behaviour Change Program that his behaviour had been inappropriate.

(d) He repeatedly questioned what had preceded the Father's inappropriate conduct, speculating as to whether there had been equally inappropriate communications going both ways and questioning what had been 'provoking' the Father's conduct.

(e) He asserted (without being asked) that emotional violence does not necessarily translate to physical violence.

[95]

The Mother deposed to holding a fear that any time between the Father and X, whether supervised or otherwise, would damage her mental health and impact on her parenting capacity. It is well established that such impacts on the primary caregiver of a child can be a relevant consideration.[78] It was apparent from the manner in which the Father presented his case that he had given scant consideration to the likely impact on the Mother of his proposal to spend time with X or the potential consequences of this impact for X.
The Mother's evidence was that she lived and continued to live in terror of the Father and felt that she was constantly looking over her shoulder. In particular, she deposed to being terrified that the Father would take revenge on her as he has threatened on numerous occasions to do, such as by using the skills he acquired in the military to harm her or X, by killing her or X, or by permanently removing X from her care if given the chance. She also deposed to a fear that the Father would harm X in future if she was unable to meet his unrealistic demands. Her evidence was that she lived in a home with extensive security measures and did not feel safe engaging in employment outside the home for fear that if she placed X in childcare, the Father would locate and take her. To Ms K, she described herself as 'a shell of herself.'
The Mother was cross-examined about her decision to supervise time between X and the Father between July and October 2022 notwithstanding that the Father continued to abuse her via written communications during that period. The line of questioning suggested that this decision demonstrated that the Mother had not been impacted by the Father's conduct to the extent she claimed.
The Mother tearfully gave evidence that she had done so because she had felt under pressure, had felt that she had not had a choice, and that she 'didn't want war, didn't want [her] family to be attacked, didn't want [X] to be in danger.' She also said that she was frightened that the Father would hurt her further if she imposed a boundary and that she was 'a mess' and was making decisions out of fear. Her evidence was that she had attended herself rather than having a family member do it in part because her family had been through enough and she felt that it was her responsibility. This evidence was highly compelling. The Mother presented as having been desperate to keep X safe and having been unsure of whether facilitating time or refusing to do so was the less dangerous course.
This impression was supported by Ms K's professional opinion, which was that while the Father was continuing to engage in his controlling and coercive conduct towards the Mother during that period, it would have been terrifying for her to have been anywhere near him and to have allowed X to be anywhere near him, and that she was most likely coerced into doing so given the threats of death and harm to her family and the language of ownership contained within the Father's communications.
The Mother relied on a report of her psychologist, Ms J, with whom she has had regular consultations since October 2023. Ms J reported that the Mother met all of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD'), and that she was in the moderate symptom range for depression and anxiety and the severe symptom range for stress. Ms J opined that the significant contributing cause of the Mother's psychological presentation arose from domestic violence experienced during her relationship with the Father, noting that her symptoms had an identifiable onset and a direct temporal link to that relationship.
Ms J opined that there was an unacceptable risk to the Mother's mental health should supervised or unsupervised time between X and the Father be ordered, and that such a course would encompass cognitive and behavioural mental health risks to the Mother by triggering trauma such that the Mother would experience highly distressing emotional and debilitating physical reactions related to the domestic violence events she experienced with the Father. She predicted that the Mother would also experience intense anxiety, re-experiencing the previous traumatic events through flashbacks and vivid images, and become extremely fearful and hypervigilant.
Ms J further opined that the Mother had at times in the past met the diagnostic criteria for Major Depression, and that it was likely that, in the event of the predicted heightened PTSD response arising if time or communication were ordered, the depressive features of her profile would be reactivated such that she would become progressively more depressed and down, lose motivation and enthusiasm, suffer poor concentration, become withdrawn and isolated, and struggle with daily activities. Thus, Ms J opined, the Mother's parenting capacity would be markedly depleted.
Ms J gave evidence and was cross-examined by Counsel for both the Father and the ICL. She impressed as knowledgeable and insightful. She gave her evidence in a forthright and steadfast manner. Her expertise, opinions and the contents of her report were not successfully challenged. I accept her evidence and, as I was urged by Counsel for the ICL to do, I give it significant weight.
In the witness box, Ms J opined that it was likely that the Mother's PTSD would remain for the duration of her lifespan. She agreed with the proposition that the Mother and her parenting capacity would be compromised by engagement with the Father on any level. She opined that engagement with the Father would likely cause the Mother symptoms such as increased levels of stress, anxiety and depression, becoming withdrawn, experiencing hypervigilance, and that these impacts would flow on to her ability to parent, including her ability to engage in basic day-to-day parenting tasks.
Ms K similarly opined that the Father's conduct as demonstrated in the posts, messages and emails directed to and about the Mother would have been severely emotionally distressing for the Mother and would have had long lasting effects on her, and on her family members, who are her supports. She gave evidence of a concern that the Father's conduct would have a significant and longstanding detrimental impact on the Mother that would last for the majority of, if not all of her life. She opined that the Mother's need to focus her attention on her survival and X's had likely preoccupied her mind and affected her ability to focus on X's needs and her own, had likely left her feeling guilt and shame for the impact it had had on her family, and had likely prevented her from having the emotional space she would have needed to repair from the trauma she had experienced.
Ms K further opined that in the absence of any clear indication from the Father of the development of insight and change, it would be very difficult for the Mother to have a sense of safety for herself or for her to trust the Father to keep X safe, not to undermine her parenting, not to denigrate her and not to attempt to alienate X from her wider community if time were to be ordered. Further, when asked about the likely impact on a child of having a primary carer who was emotionally and psychologically compromised to the extent described in Ms J's report, Ms K gave evidence that if the Mother was preoccupied with managing her own triggered mental health, she would likely be less emotionally available to meet the needs of the child, the child might interpret her as anxious or avoidant, and the child might prioritise the Mother's needs over her own and might become withdrawn in order to avoid causing the Mother stress.
As the child got older, Ms K opined that she might attribute the Mother's poor mental health to her own existence and it might affect her own self-worth or cause her to feel guilt. Ms K opined that the Mother's compromised state would be placing pressure on the security of X's primary care and ability to have a secure relationship with the Mother.
Counsel for the Father submitted that there was no evidence that the Father's conduct had diminished the Mother's parenting capacity and emphasised that the Family Report suggested that X was progressing well. It was submitted that if there had been any impact on the Mother's parenting capacity, it was not likely that X would be the happy, well-adjusted child that she had been observed to be. This proposition was not put to Ms K and is no more than speculation. It also undermined a submission that the Father had developed insight into the fact that if a parent is anxious and nervous, this will have an adverse impact on the child's development.
In any event, I do not accept the proposition that X having been observed to be progressing well at a time when she and the Mother had had no engagement with the Father outside the court process for approximately 18 months is a reliable indicator of a lack of risk to the Mother's parenting capacity if time and communication between the Father and X were to be restored.
Plainly, if his involvement in X's life caused the Mother such distress that her parenting was impaired, this would not be in X's best interests. I am satisfied by the evidence of both Ms J and Ms K that it is likely that if orders were made which provided for time or communication between the Father and X, the Mother's psychological and emotional wellbeing would be compromised, and this would impact on her parenting.
X needs her mother, on whom she is wholly reliant for all of her needs, to be the best parent she can be. There is a significant risk that an order for time or ongoing communication between X and the Father would compromise the Mother's emotional wellbeing and mental health to the extent that it would impact her parenting and thereby have a deleterious impact on X's interests. I find that any benefit to X of having time or communication with the Father would be outweighed by the significant risk of a detrimental impact on X's primary carer and, as a consequence, on X herself.

[100]

The extent of the Father's insight into the seriousness of and the extent of the harm caused by his past behaviour is an important aspect of the prospective exercise[84] of assessment of future risk. Significant portions of the evidence before the Court, including the Father's own evidence, supported the conclusion that his insight into the seriousness and impact of his behaviour was extremely limited. This, in turn, leaves little room for any reasonable expectation that if he were to have ongoing contact with the Mother and X, he would not again engage in behaviour that would put them at risk.
The Mother's evidence was that the Father often blamed her for his poor behaviour towards her. By way of example, after the incident of physical violence in late 2021, he told her that he was regretful for his behaviour but that she had been to blame, because she had used the word 'dark' to describe his behaviour and that had 'inflicted hurt upon his soul.' I accept the Mother's evidence in this regard for the reasons already given and because it is supported by the manner in which the Father presented his case.
In his affidavit, the Father sought to attribute his conduct to the fact that the Mother had 'taken' X and an assertion that he had been worried about her. Although he did not explicitly blame the Mother while giving his oral evidence, the Father exhibited a tendency to blame the 'situation' in which he found himself (being that the Mother was not permitting him to spend time with X) rather than taking responsibility for his own poor choices and concerning behaviour, including his own role in creating the 'situation' of which he complained. This is indicative of very poor insight.
Despite the evidence before the Court, which included evidence of highly abusive communications from the Father to the Mother prior to their separation, including during the Mother's pregnancy, the Father described the parties' relationship as 'amicable and bright.' He also deposed that he 'provided all the support [he] could both emotionally and physically to [the Mother] throughout the pregnancy.' This, too, is indicative of poor insight.
The Father's evidence with respect to his conduct as demonstrated in the various text messages, posts and emails directed to the Mother was flippant and dismissive and demonstrated a significant lack of insight into the threatening and abusive nature of his conduct and its consequences for the Mother and for X. He repeatedly sought to justify his abusive conduct with self-focused statements, saying that he had been under 'emotional stress,' had been 'frustrated' and had been 'going through a lot' and had been 'expressing [his] hurt' and had not been 'thinking clearly.' He showed no appreciation for the fact that this did not in any way excuse or mitigate his appalling behaviour. The Father appeared wholly unable to understand that it was his abusive and threatening behaviour that had led to him not seeing or spending time with X and not the other way round.
Of particular concern was that although the Father sought to attribute his appalling conduct to his distress at not seeing X and being 'blocked out' by the Mother and her family, describing this to Ms K as the most challenging thing he had ever experienced and presenting his associated distress as having been the context for his abusive behaviour towards the Mother, that behaviour continued throughout the period between July and October 2022 when the Mother was not only actively facilitating time between him and X but was doing so in her own presence notwithstanding her safety concerns. In the witness box, Ms K described it as 'of most concern' that while the Mother was supporting a relationship with X, the Father was engaging in conduct demonstrating control and coercion, as demonstrated in his communications with her.
Far from taking responsibility for his threatening, abusive and controlling conduct, the Father persistently minimised it and sought to justify it by reframing it in more palatable language. This occurred both in his trial affidavit and in the witness box. Under cross-examination, he dismissed the more bizarre and threatening of his communications as 'metaphorical,' 'rhetorical' and 'fictitious' and showed no appreciation for the fact that this did not diminish the extent to which they were abusive and threatening. This tendency was also reflected in Dr White's evidence of the Father's discussions with him. Ms K gave evidence that even if it had been 'metaphorical,' it would have been distressing and it would be important for the Father to recognise this. He showed no such recognition.
The Father attempted at times to reframe his abusive communications in benign ways, such as by claiming that threatening language about the end of the Mother's life was designed to convey the message that 'life is precious;' that his abusive language was used for 'healing' or 'coping;' and that threatening references to family members were not references to the Mother's family but to 'fictitious' or 'general' family. He also claimed that some of his insulting language had been designed to emphasise that he should be in X's life as a 'father figure' to provide her with 'support.'
The Father was evasive when asked to explain various aspects of his communications, saying, for example, that matters he referred to were simply 'general' references. Despite his claims that he took responsibility for his actions, when given numerous opportunities to do precisely that, he either would not or could not. The Father's presentation in the witness box was consistent with evidence given by Ms K that when interviewed by her, he had diminished and attempted to excuse his behaviour.
The Father denied that his purportedly 'metaphorical' writings had been designed to cause fear. This evidence was unconvincing. Equally unconvincing was the Father's evidence that he believed he had written the Facebook posts in 'private mode,' had not intended for them to be published and had believed that no-one would be able to read them. These assertions did not sit well with his statement to Ms K that 'in hindsight it was wrong to make those posts public' which in turn fell short of recognition that it had been wrong to make those posts at all.
The Father provided no adequate explanation for why, if he had intended the writings to be private, he had not used a private format such as a personal journal rather than a social media site, the very purpose of which is to share content with others. In any event, this explanation failed to engage with the many abusive and threatening emails and messages he had sent directly to the Mother which he plainly intended her to see. I do not accept that the Father did not intend the Mother to see or become aware of the contents of his posts.
When interviewed by Dr L, just as he did in the witness box, rather than taking responsibility for his actions, the Father attempted to explain away threatening language he had used in his social media posts. For example, he claimed that a reference to slaughtering people had actually been a reference to slaughtering his 'inner demons,' and that an expressed hope that 'they all die' had been a reference to his own weaknesses. He said it was 'just the catharsis [he] used.' The notion that the Father finds menacing and threatening language to be cathartic is a matter of considerable concern, as is his persistent inability to take responsibility for his actions without attempting to minimise or justify them.
The Father's lack of insight into the disturbing nature of his treatment of the Mother was demonstrated by his reference, in an email dated 22 June 2022[85] (by which time he had sent a significant number of the abusive and threatening communications outlined above), to having extended 'olive branches' 'out of pure hope and love,' the purported lack of acceptance of which led him to criticise the Mother, whom he accused of having chosen 'a path of hate and destruction' and having employed 'rude and provocative radio silence.' This is also a further demonstration of his tendency to blame the Mother for the consequences of his own behaviour.
The Father's lack of insight was further demonstrated by his invasive and intrusive actions in repeatedly attending at the Mother's parents' home, where he understood the Mother and X to be residing, without the consent of any of the residents of that home. He attended with Ms F on Christmas Eve in 2022 and again on X's birthday in 2023. The Father asserted that on Christmas Eve, he had attended with cash (being the sum of $10,000 which he acknowledged he owes to the Mother yet still has not repaid to her) in a Santa bag and gifts for X.
Upon being turned away, instead of respecting the wishes of the residents of the property he had attended or reflecting on the many aspects of his own conduct which had ensured that he would not welcomed by them and indeed would be feared by them, he posted an abusive and threatening diatribe about the Mother and her family on YouTube.[86] Despite clearly being aware that his attendance had been unwelcome, according to the evidence of his witness Ms F, he repeated his completely insightless behaviour by returning to the residence of the maternal family the following day and again the following month.
In the witness box, even with the benefit of having had almost two years to reflect on his behaviour and having read the material filed by and on behalf of the Mother, he showed no recognition or understanding whatsoever of the fear that his uninvited attendance at the Mother's family's home would inevitably have caused after the abusive, threatening and intimidating conduct he had directed towards the Mother and her family over the preceding months. To the contrary, he appeared to be under the very mistaken impression that his actions reflected favourably upon him and that it was the maternal family who should be criticised.
The Father complained in his affidavit that following October 2022, the Mother had not facilitated time between him and X and had not responded to his attempts to contact her. To Ms K, he alleged that the Mother had held no intention of supporting his role in X's life from her birth. He betrayed not even the slightest glimmer of recognition of the clear link between his own abusive and threatening behaviour towards the Mother and the circumstances in which he found himself, and no recognition of the significant extent to which the Mother's unwillingness to make X available to him might be seen as acting protectively rather than maliciously. He also explicitly attributed the Mother's application for a family violence order to a letter he had caused his solicitors to send to her, and to the realisation by the Mother that court proceedings were likely, rather than to his own violent, threatening and abusive behaviour.
The Father's evidence was that he had not even considered the impact on the Mother at the time of his abusive and threatening communications and that he simply 'wasn't thinking.' I reject this evidence and find that the Father fully intended the communications to cause the Mother fear and distress. I note, however, that had that evidence been true, it would have been indicative of a callous disregard on the part of the Father to the impact of his actions.
Although the Father claimed to have 'reflected on all the things [he] did,' he exhibited no sign of having actually engaged in any meaningful reflection at all. He repeatedly used the word 'regretfully' but exhibited no genuine regret other than for the consequences his actions had had for himself. His presentation was consistent with Ms K's observation that the remorse felt by the Father was for the impact his conduct had had on him and on his ability to fulfill his desire of seeing X.
The Father spoke without emotion in a seemingly rehearsed manner, giving the distinct impression that he was expressing remorse merely because he considered that so doing would assist his goal of securing time with X. While he told Dr L that he was 'very remorseful and apologetic,' he did not present as either of those things when giving his evidence. I do not share Ms K's view that he exhibited 'seemingly genuine remorse,' save to the extent that he was sorry for the consequences his behaviour had brought on himself. He claimed that he was 'no longer in that state of mind' and appeared to be under the impression that this should be sufficient to overcome the harm caused by his conduct such that the Mother and the Court should simply move on from it.
The Father relied on a letter of apology written by him and sent to the Mother via the parties' solicitors on 5 December 2023.[87] Although the letter did include apologies, it also included minimisations of his conduct and language indicative of a belief that the parties were mutually responsible for what had transpired, including references to the Mother 'misunderstanding' him, 'misaligned values' and his 'mistake.' Taken as a whole, the letter does not provide reassurance that the Father genuinely understands and is remorseful for the consequences of this actions.
The Mother gave evidence that from her perspective, the letter contained subtle aspects of control. It was submitted on behalf of the Father that whatever he did would be considered by the Mother to be coercive control. I do not share that view. Although certain conduct on behalf of the Father, including the apology letter, may be perceived by a third party as benign, it must be recalled that the definition of family violence in section 4AB of the Act does not include a requirement of objective reasonableness, and the Mother's approach to communications and other conduct by the Father is informed by her lived experience of being subjected to coercive and controlling violence by him. Ms K confirmed that it was quite possible that it was the case both that the Father had intended the letter as a genuine apology and the Mother had genuinely interpreted it as controlling.
Some of the Father's communications as outlined earlier in these reasons were blatantly sexist and misogynistic. Examples include but are not limited to his references to 'ownership' of the Mother and her body, his reference to having control of the Mother and X 'as a man and father rightfully should,' his complaint about the Mother failing to meet his 'most basic needs' and his references to the Mother as a 'slut' and a 'whore.' He also demonstrated such attitudes in other communications, including Facebook posts on 25 May 2022 in which he said 'I am flying to India or some third world country to choose my next wife. These white secular women scare me, and I think the systems are rort against men' and 'it's illegal to get a divorce in the Philippines, how amazing ... Sri Lanka has the lowest [divorce rate] in the world, there we go chaps ... time to go look for great wives!' Despite this, he expressed a view in his affidavit that he does not hold patriarchal views. The fact that the Father fails to realise the highly concerning nature of the manner in which he communicates to and about women does not bode well for any future interactions he may have with X and his capacity to act as a suitable role model for her.[88] Ms K confirmed that she held concerns about X being exposed to such a value system by her father.
To Ms K, the Father denied that there was any reason for the Mother to refuse to communicate with him in future. This was an astonishing viewpoint in light of his past conduct towards her. When asked by Ms K whether the Mother had reason to feel unsafe, the Father replied 'one hundred percent not.' He also referred to himself as a 'good guy' to Ms K and as a 'great parent' in the witness box. This suggests that the Father's understanding of the nature of his own conduct and its consequences is very limited.
When interviewed by Dr L, the Father said that he has never said or done anything that has resulted in harm to X. This statement demonstrated that the Father either does not recognise or is not honest about the harm he has caused to the Mother and its impact on her parenting of X. The law has long recognised the harm that family violence causes to children even where they are not the direct targets of that violence.[89]
On 8 December 2023, a case outline document was filed on behalf of the Father, which purported to demonstrate insight into X's needs and his behaviour.[90] The case outline asserted, amongst other things: '[t]he father acknowledges the family violence by him towards the mother and her family post-separation;' '[t]he father acknowledges that the social media posts reflected his views and that they were threatening, wrong and disrespectful of the mother and her family;' and '[t]he father is sorry and remorseful for the threats and views he conveyed in those social media posts and the harm that they caused and the impact that they had on the mother, her family and [X].' The contents of this document appeared promising on their face. However, in the witness box, the Father made it clear that his admissions of family violence were strictly limited to the social media posts he had made, repeatedly refused to acknowledge that those social media posts had reflected his views, and failed to demonstrate sorrow or remorse for, or even a genuine understanding of, the harm he had caused. By this evidence, the Father made it abundantly clear that the acknowledgments, expressions of remorse and suggestions of insight contained in the case outline did not reflect his true sentiments.
When interviewed by Dr L, the Father denied having experienced unpredictable anger. This denial was remarkable in light of the extremely volatile and angry contents of his many social media posts, emails and messages. It was also contradicted by aspects of his own evidence, such as his admission to having 'lost his temper' and shouted at the Mother when she had done something as benign as declining his request to deliver then-infant X to him for the purpose of Easter Mass.
Similarly, the Father was reported to have told Dr White that he had no history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse and no problems with anger or aggression. The Father was either being untruthful with Dr White or has no real understanding of the nature of his own behaviour.
The Father's denials in his affidavit, in the witness box, and to the various experts with whom he engaged, some of which were unconvincing and implausible (such as his denial of knowledge of what an iED was despite having used the term himself), and some of which were completely contradicted by other evidence (such as his denial of having threatened the Mother with curses) also demonstrate that he is lacking in insight and in any meaningful understanding of the consequences of his behaviour. Untruthful evidence given to avoid taking responsibility for his own behaviour is irreconcilable with the concepts of genuine understanding, remorse and commitment to change.
The Father told Ms K that he was willing to work towards being a better person but that he needed the Mother's support to allow for this change to be seen. In the witness box, he said that the support he needed from the Mother was 'coparenting.' This suggestion that it was the Mother's responsibility to assist him to address the consequences of his poor behaviour by providing him with time and involvement with X was troubling. This attitude demonstrated by the Father supported the Mother's evidence of his tendency to attribute responsibility for his conduct to her and suggested an attitude that it was X's role to meet his needs and not the other way around. He expressed a view that 'establishing a level of trust could help with that process' without demonstrating any genuine understanding of the reasons for the Mother's lack of trust in him.
The Father undertook a Men's Behaviour Change Program pursuant to the orders made on 11 December 2023 and the Circle of Security Parenting Program pursuant to orders made on 12 June 2024. He gave evidence that these programs had helped him 'strengthen [his] understanding and face challenges in the future.' In particular, he deposed that the Men's Behaviour Change Program had been instructive and had helped him to understand family violence and the harm it can cause. To Ms K, he indicated that it had had a 'profound impact' on him and had been a 'very powerful conduit for change.' In the witness box, he listed 'introspection' and 'looking at self' as things that had been covered in the course.
Dr White's addendum report discussed the Father's claim to have learned significantly from the Men's Behaviour Change Program and to have made behavioural changes including enhanced self-reflection skills, improved conflict management, moving away from reactive responses, and focus on maintaining civil, professional communication. Dr White opined, inter alia, that the Father showed good insight into past behaviour patterns. In the witness box, he gave evidence that 'a person can be rehabilitated' through a 20 week Men's Behaviour Change process.
As already outlined, the reliability of Dr White's report was compromised by a number of factors including but not limited to the provision to him by the Father of inaccurate information about his own behaviour and that of the Mother. In particular, the Father's denial to Dr White, as recorded in Dr White's addendum report, that he had engaged in emotional violence, which denial persisted after the completion of the Men's Behaviour Change Program, undermines any suggestion that he had gained any genuine insight from having undertaken that program. Adding to the concerns about the Father's denial to Dr White was Dr White's evidence that he had been led to believe that a lot of the material was not necessarily directed towards the Mother.
The Father's evidence about what he had learned from and taken from the course was in general terms and not in terms of any meaningful realisation he had come to about his own violent and abusive conduct, save for the entirely inadequate understatements that reading his messages would have made the Mother feel 'anxious and nervous' which may have impacted her parenting capacity and that he 'should not have acted in this way.' Counsel for the Father submitted that he had not been challenged in cross-examination with respect to what he had learned, including his evidence that he had learned 'ways to self-regulate' and 'about self-control,' but this does not detract from the fact that his evidence as to what he had learned was general and not directed to his own problematic behaviour.
The generalised nature of the Father's purported learnings arising from the Men's Behaviour Change Program was also reflected in the evidence of Dr White, which was to the effect that the Father had been able to articulate that the course had made him more aware of the inappropriateness of aggressive and violent behaviour, but that the Father had not shared with him details of his own history of aggressive and violent behaviour.
The Father relied on an affidavit of Mr H, the facilitator of the Men's Behaviour Change Program. Mr H reported that the Father 'willingly identified specific behaviours that needed to be worked on, aligning himself with the core objectives of the program' and 'expressed regret and remorse in relation to his behaviour and accepted full responsibility for those behaviours.' In the witness box, Mr H gave evidence that as part of his intake, the Father had been required to nominate behaviours in which he had engaged from a pre-set list, and that he had selected 'threatening to do something to hurt a person,' 'put downs, name calling and criticism' and 'tried to make the person feel bad about themselves.'
Mr H acknowledged that he was not aware of the details of the Father's behaviour beyond the generalised descriptions outlined above. He said that the course was unable to address individual behaviours but was rather based on a fixed curriculum, and that it was an educational, rather than therapeutic, service. He could not recall whether the Father had divulged any specific details about his past behaviour in group sessions. It was submitted on behalf of the Mother that Mr H could not have had any real knowledge of whether the Father had taken responsibility for his own behaviours or not in circumstances in which he did not know what those behaviours had been. I accept that submission.
Ms K expressed a concern that a group education program alone would not be adequate to assist the Father to actually create sustained change. She considered that it might educate him about the 'rights and wrongs' of interacting with others with family violence, but that it would be inadequate for challenging his own views about how he fits in with respect to family violence, what role he has had in perpetrating violence, demonstrating empathy for others and managing his behaviour in future, particularly when he is triggered, not in control or feeling angry. She reflected that on an intelligence level, the Father was likely quite aware of the implications in general but she questioned how he saw himself fitting into the label of perpetrator of family violence and how he saw the impact on people around him resulting from his behaviours. Ms K gave evidence that if the Court accepted Dr White's evidence that the Father had been rehabilitated, that would give her less cause for concern, but she emphasised that she was unsure if she had confidence that that could be the case. Ms K's concerns in this regard were borne out by the Father's presentation in the witness box.
When specifically invited in the witness box to articulate the impact his posts and messages would have had on the Mother, the Father responded 'stress' and 'a lot of pain, perhaps' before he ultimately conceded that she would have been 'scared.' This was despite having had both the Mother's affidavit and Ms J's report available to him. When asked the same question by Ms K, he responded that 'it would have raised some concerns' for the Mother, but then went on to talk about his own perspective and attempt to justify his unjustifiable behaviour.
Ms K opined that the Father's reference to stress was 'minimising' language. She explained that most people can manage stress, but the Mother would have been terrified for her own safety and X's safety, noting in particular that the Father's communications were relentless, ongoing and building, and not just over a short period. Ms K confirmed that the Father having given this response even after completion of the Men's Behaviour Change Program was a concern with respect to his ability to actually understand the concerns that had been raised by his conduct.
The Father gave Ms K the flippant explanation that the social media posts had been 'a mistake' and said that he was willing to say sorry for his actions but did not want to be stuck in the past. He criticised the Mother for her 'inability to forgive, move forward' and for 'living in the past.' In the witness box, far from being apologetic, he refused to admit that his behaviour had been threatening to the Mother and focused instead on his own perspective, being that it was '[his] way of dealing with the situation [he] was in.' Ms K opined that using the word 'mistake' was minimising the terror he had caused. I agree.
Similar minimising and justifying language was used in the Father's affidavit. He sought to explain his conduct by saying that he did had not known where X was and was worried about her, without addressing the fact that he had also been engaging in abusive communications towards the Mother during a time when he had been seeing X, and without addressing the complete lack of proportionality between his experience and his behaviour.
In his affidavit, the Father claimed that he had opened multiple 'pages' on Facebook searching for any reference to X. How it could be said that creating multiple Facebook accounts could be expected to enhance his ability conduct searches was not explained. Most concerningly, despite his own appalling behaviour, the Father took the opportunity to allege that the Mother and her sister had 'manipulated' him and to criticise the Mother's sister for sending message he described as 'inflammatory and replete with negative comments about me.' The only example given in support of this allegation was the entirely accurate sentiment that the Father should not use X for his own comfort, being a matter about which the Father gave no indication of having reflected. Although the Father purported to express regret in his affidavit, it was a flippant expression of regret for 'any pain' he had caused, with no indication that he had any real understanding of the impact of his behaviour. He also expressed an acceptance that his conduct 'may have' impacted the Mother's parenting capacity and apology that he had 'allowed that to happen.' This passive and equivocal language does not provide a basis for any confidence in the Father's insight.
At times, the Father professed a lack of understanding of what more he could be expected to do in order to achieve his goal of spending time with X. For example, he told Ms K 'I've learnt my mistake and how many more times can I learn at the cost of not seeing my daughter?' Similarly, in closing submissions, his Counsel submitted that he was asking rhetorically 'what more can I do?' This approach was focused on the Father's perspective and desires and did not reflect any understanding of X's needs or the consequences of his behaviour. The question for the Court is not what the Father must do to get what he wants but how X's best interests, including her safety, can be protected.
When invited by Ms K to reflect on the impact his actions may have had on the Mother's parenting capacity, the Father said 'I understand there has been a lot of negativity I have said about [Ms Muir], but there has also been a lot of support that has been missed. I've given [Ms Muir] hope, and asked her to study and self-improve; and I've always advocated for her personal growth, it's never all been bad. I've contributed to her mind, body and soul and it should be noted, I take responsibility for feelings she probably got when I put those posts up; but my position is I've learnt my mistake and how many more times can I learn at the cost of not seeing my daughter? All I want to do is... one mistake should not hinder my relationship with [X]. I am human. I made a mistake.' This statement is significant in that it demonstrates the Father's inability to focus on the impact of his conduct on the Mother's parenting capacity rather than his own experience and even his own perceived meritorious conduct; severely minimises his numerous and persistent abusive actions as 'one mistake;' and reveals the patronising and controlling manner in which the Father continues to speak of the Mother.
Ms K confirmed in the witness box that the Father had conveyed an attitude that the Mother had provoked him, and that because he had been hurting, he had been entitled to use violence. She confirmed that he had been focused on his own views without showing concern for the impact on others. That description accords with the Father's presentation in the witness box.
The Father told Dr L that he had 'learned from [his] appalling mistakes.' I was left with the distinct impression that he had learned that his appalling behaviour had brought serious consequences for him but he had no meaningful insight into the ramifications of his behaviour for the Mother or for X.
The Father's wholesale denial, even throughout the trial, of the violent and abusive conduct in which I have found he engaged (save for that which was recorded in writing and could not be denied), together with his allegation that the Mother had 'manufactured' and 'fabricated' her evidence in that regard, weighs against any reasonable probability of any meaningful change to his behaviour and attitude. In this regard, Ms K confirmed that if such conduct was found to have occurred (which is the case), the Father's lack of accountability led to concern about his propensity to repeat the patten of physical violence.
Ms K opined that the Father appeared to lack a deep understanding of the impact his actions had on the Mother's wellbeing and her diminished parenting capacity. In the witness box, she confirmed that his understanding appeared to be superficial and explained that even when he acknowledged his behaviours as being inappropriate, he was unable to articulate or show empathy or insight into how those behaviours had impacted the Mother, such as by causing her to suffer PTSD, and how they continued to affect her. Ms K agreed with the proposition that the Father had expressed 'token concern' in recognising that he should not have engaged in the behaviour but no genuine understanding of the horror of his conduct.
By the time of his interview with Ms K, the Father had completed 14 out of the 20 sessions of the Men's Behaviour Change Program. She gave evidence that she had not been shown any sign that he was learning anything.
Ms K opined that if the Father had engaged with programs and professionals to assist him to gain insight and make change but was unable, despite being, in her assessment, intelligent, to articulate the impact of his behaviour on others, this demonstrated lack of empathy, lack of understanding of family violence, a lack of ability to be safe for X and a risk that his behaviour would be repeated in future, particularly once the court proceedings had concluded.
It was put to Ms K, and submitted on behalf of the Father, that the fact that the Father's communications with and posts about the Mother had ceased by the end of 2023 demonstrated insight and self-reflection. Ms K acknowledged that it was of some reassurance that he had stopped, but indicated that she was unable to comment on the Father's motivation for stopping. Similarly, the Court is unable to make a finding as to the Father's motivation for stopping or the extent to which the cessation was motivated by insight rather than self-interest, noting that it did not occur in a vacuum but in the context of a factual matrix that included the Father's engagement with lawyers, injunctions being made by this Court on 11 December 2023 and a final family violence order being made against the Father on 19 February 2024. The Father gave no evidence that would assist with a finding in this regard.
Ms K expressly disagreed with the proposition that there was no evidence to suggest any degree of likelihood that the type of conduct in which the Father had engaged in the past would reassert itself. Her evidence, which I accept, was that the Father's conduct, particularly in engaging in abusive behaviours at a time when the Mother was facilitating him spending time with X, may be predictive of his future conduct if he was unhappy with the Mother or with X.
Counsel for the Father submitted that the prospect of the Father's poor conduct occurring again in future was 'at the extreme end of the spectrum,' being only 'remotely possible.' I reject that submission, which was contrary to the weight of the evidence, particularly the expert evidence given by Ms K.
The Father's ongoing lack of insight was reinforced by his conduct in audibly chortling together with Ms F at the back of the courtroom as submissions were being made about the serious issue of his level of insight.
Counsel for the Mother submitted that the trial had really been about the Father's ongoing need to control and terrorise the Mother and make her suffer, rather than being about X. Counsel for the Father submitted, and I accept, that the Father had been entitled to pursue his application. As Austin and Williams JJ held in Pickford & Pickford:[91]

[106]

Ms F proffered an opinion that the Father had 'embraced all court requirements' including mediation. At the time she deposed to holding that opinion, the Father was not only failing to 'embrace' but was actively in default of orders with respect to the preparation of the matter for trial, including the filing of that very affidavit. It was, in any event, a very strange view for Ms F to have formed in circumstances in which she had been copied into email correspondence in which the Father had dismissed mediation as 'vile' and 'crap.'
Ms F produced a copy of a message sent to her by the Mother which included a screenshot of a message from the Mother to the Father on 6 November 2022[94] and emphasised a line in which the Mother referred to a desire to formalise a parenting plan through mediation. Not only did this aspect of Ms F's evidence actively undermine the Father's claim that the Mother had never intended to support his relationship with X, but Ms F's affidavit entirely ignored the fact that the Mother's message had also referred to the Father's 'unrealistic demands, bombardments and threats' and his 'cycle of abusive and coercive behaviour.' This message supported the Mother's evidence, as did Ms F's confirmation that the Mother had told her that she had been scared and frightened by the Father's conduct and had found it threatening.
Ms F was cross-examined by Counsel for the Mother. She was not an impressive witness. She was entirely partisan, refused to make even the most basic and obvious of concessions and impressed as intent on avoiding criticism of the Father rather than giving truthful evidence. Like the Father, Ms F minimised and justified his alarming conduct. She insisted that the Father had not had ill intentions towards the Mother or her family at any time, despite the extensive clear and undisputed evidence of the Father himself having expressed such intentions.
Ms F implausibly claimed not to remember having been copied into some of the Father's concerning communications to the Mother. She persistently minimised terribly abusive communications from the Father as 'frustration' and was evasive when confronted with the clear contradiction between the reality of the Father's behaviour and her characterisation of it. She denied knowledge of the Father's threats regarding curses despite having been copied in on communications in which he made such threats. She refused to accept that the Father's social media posts had been 'vile and offensive,' instead allowing only the significant understatement that they 'could be seen as offensive' (though not by her, despite her assessment of herself as 'an empathetic person') and expressing a view that they were 'heart wrenching' and represented the Father 'pouring his heart out.'
The Mother relied on a text message sent by Ms F to the Mother's sister on 9 December 2022, in which she said that she was 'trying to manage [the Father] as best I can' but was 'out of [her] depth.' She said that things had 'reached a point where these long periods of time where he doesn't see [X] is triggering, and it does become dangerous for all involved, including [Ms F].'[95] In this message, Ms F asked for the Mother's sister's assistance with facilitating the Father seeing X, thereby clearly suggesting that a vulnerable child should be offered up to appease a dangerous adult. This was one of a number of occasions upon which the evidence revealed that Ms F had attempted to arrange for X to be provided to the Father despite being aware of his threatening and abusive conduct.
In her affidavit, Ms F made no mention at all of having sent this message or of her views as expressed therein. The Father gave irreconcilable evidence both that he had and had not discussed this message with Ms F. In the witness box, Ms F made the concerning claim that in the circumstances referred to in this message, the Father had been 'coming out of a place of love.' She sought to characterise her reference to having to 'manage' the Father as 'being a supportive friend.' She implausibly suggested that by 'it does become dangerous' she had been referring to the social media posts being 'put out into the public realm,' which evidence did not sit at all well with the Father's insistence that he had believed that the posts were not publicly accessible. She later said that the danger to her to which she had referred had been from rushing and potentially not focusing while driving to be with the Father. This evidence was simply nonsensical. I accept the submission of Counsel for the Mother that the message sent by Ms F was not explained in any meaningful way.
The incompatibility between Ms F's evidence and the facts that were known to her may be explained by fear of the Father and the consequences that may follow if he perceives that she has not been loyal to him, or by a loyalty to him of a such a strength that it has clouded her judgment and caused her to overlook matters that are of serious concern in her quest to assist him. In either case, the evidence of Ms F was not reliable and as such was of no assistance to the Court. I have given it no weight.

[111]

I have carefully turned my mind to the existence of the possible risks of harm to X and also to the magnitude of the possible harm. As a minimum starting point, the Father's case cannot succeed unless the Court accepts that he was not being genuine when he repeatedly expressed malevolent, violent and lethal intentions towards the Mother and her family, which of course includes X. Such acceptance would require a significant leap of faith on the part of the Court, and the consequences for X of wrongly assessing the Father not to pose a danger to her or to the Mother would be extremely dire. The Father's evidence and demonstrated attitude towards his conduct have not provided sufficient foundation for such a leap of faith.
As a result of the Father's extensive violent, threatening and abusive conduct, its significant impact on the Mother and her parenting, and the Father's demonstrated lack of insight into these matters, I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that X will suffer harm if orders are made which provide for her to spend time or communicate with the Father. The harm to which X is at risk of being subjected if she is to spend time or communicate with the Father includes (but is not limited to) the risk of serious physical and emotional harm from being subjected to the Father's violent, intimidating, abusive and threatening conduct, particularly if he becomes angry or acts on one of the many threats he has made; the risk of being exposed to the Father's unremittingly negative, disrespectful and disparaging views of the Mother (as the Father has expressly threatened), which would in turn risk undermining her experience of a safe and secure relationship with her primary carer; and the risk of the parenting she receives from the Mother and is wholly reliant on being undermined by the impact on the Mother of the Father's ongoing involvement in their lives.
Any arrangements put in place by the Court must prioritise the safety of both X and the Mother, including their safety from being subjected to, or in X's case, exposed to, family violence at the hands of the Father. Such is the seriousness of the violent conduct in which I have found that the Father has engaged, and so remote is the prospect of meaningful change, that this factor must be given overwhelming weight in the consideration of X's best interests.

[112]

I have considered whether the risk I have found to exist might be ameliorated by protective measures such as supervision. The reality in the circumstances of this case is that any order for supervised time would need to endure for an indefinite period as there is no basis for any determination that X's safety would be sufficiently protected in an unsupervised setting at any future time. Whilst it remains a matter of discretion, many authorities have expressed caution in relation to the desirability of orders providing for indefinite supervision.[106]
I accept, as did the Mother, that in the setting of professional supervision at a contact centre, X would be physically safe. The Mother expressed concern about the extent to which the staff of such a centre would be trained in identifying patterns associated with coercive control. Ms K supported this concern, giving evidence that although they were excellent at providing a physically safe environment it was 'more questionable' whether a contact centre could provide emotional and psychological safety, noting that it is not their role to provide therapeutic support and intervention.
I have regard to the fact that X presently has no relationship with the Father and that a relationship would need to be created afresh in a supervised setting were supervised time to be ordered. I have particular regard to the risks to the Mother's mental health and parenting capacity if any time (even supervised time) were to be ordered, as discussed above. I also have regard to the Father's demonstrated poor attitude towards not only the Mother but also X herself. In all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the considerable risks posed by the Father's abusive and threatening conduct can be ameliorated by supervision in a manner consistent with X's best interests.
I have also considered whether other protective measures, such as injunctions, may serve to ameliorate the risks posed by the Father. I note that it would appear that the Father's overtly threatening behaviour towards the Mother ceased (or at least ceased to occur in a manner in which it came to the Mother's attention) upon the making of interim orders (which included injunctions regulating the Father's conduct towards the Mother and X) on 11 December 2023 and that he has not been charged with any breaches of the family violence order.
However, it is of considerable concern that the Father was not immediately deterred by the existence of the family violence order (the provisional version of which was served on him on 14 May 2023) from continuing to make threatening and intimidating social media posts directed towards the Mother. The Father also blatantly disregarded binding orders of this Court with respect to the preparation of the matter for trial. As a consequence, I am unable to accept his evidence that he takes court orders seriously, and unable to have any confidence that he would comply with any protective measures that may be ordered by the Court once he is no longer under the metaphorical microscope of the pending court proceedings. I reject the submission that 'ample safeguards' can be put in place to protect X's safety, including her emotional safety, if she spends time with the Father.

[114]

A significant issue in this case relates to X's sense of identity and self-image if she grows up not knowing her father. Although the Father himself was largely focused on the impact on him of being deprived on time with X rather than the consequences for her, implicit in his case was that it was important for X to spend time with him because she has a right to grow up knowing her father, and submissions to this effect were made on his behalf.
It was put to the Mother that she wanted to 'eradicate' the Father from X's life. It is not a matter of dispute that the Mother's position is that the Father should have no involvement in X's life. The implications suggested by the manner in which the Father presented his case were that this was an unreasonable position or that the Mother was motivated by self-focus rather than by X's needs. The Mother gave credible evidence that she was motivated by a desire to protect X and keep her safe from the Father, who she considered to be unsafe, dangerous and violent.
I recognise the importance of X knowing her family of origin and maintaining a sense of identity through connection with her father. I have not overlooked the potential loss she may suffer in this regard. I take into account and give weight to the evidence given by Ms K growing up not knowing their father can have significant short and long term emotional, psychological and social effects for a child including potentially longing for a sense of connection and belonging with the absent parent, questioning whether there was something wrong with them that had caused the parent's absence, and experiencing a reduced sense of self-worth.
The Mother was cross-examined about her intentions with respect to informing X about her father and paternal family. She said that she had not yet formed an intention in that regard. She presented not as uncaring in relation to the issue but as overwhelmed by the more immediate issue of ensuring X's safety.
The Mother reported to Ms K that she intended to seek advice from a family therapist with whom she had had engagement through the Circle of Security parenting program to seek advice as to how to support X's sense of identity and connection to her father in the absence of time with him. She gave evidence to similar effect. Ms K was confident that in the absence of time between the Father and X, the Mother would effectively manage X's need for an understanding of her biology and her connection to the Father. I share that confidence. I reject the submission made on behalf of the Father that it is unlikely and improbable that the Mother would ever do anything to make sure X knew who her father was or anything about him. That submission was not supported by the evidence.
The Father was born and raised in Country B and has extended family there, including his two adult daughters. The Father is strongly connected to his Country B culture. He relied on an affidavit of Mr G, who is a friend of the Father with extensive knowledge of Country B culture, in this regard. Mr G's evidence was considerably more focused on X's perspective and experience than was the Father's. He emphasised the importance of family in Country B culture and of X's understanding and exposure to her Country B heritage for the development of her identity.
Mr G was cross-examined by Counsel for the Mother. He gave his evidence in a calm manner and impressed as honest and truthful. It was plain that he had no real understanding of the Father's abusive and threatening conduct, and he appeared shocked when confronted by aspects of it in the witness box. As a consequence, his evidence of his assessment of the Father as a caring and respectful individual cannot be given any weight despite its clearly genuine nature. However, I accept and give considerable weight to his evidence with respect to cultural issues.
It cannot be doubted that X's connection to her Country B cultural heritage and the development of her identity as a Country B child is a very important factor to be considered. The Mother indicated to Ms K that she wanted X to grow and flourish a strong sense of identity which included her Country B heritage. Ms K expressed confidence that the Mother would encourage, educate and promote X's cultural identity as a child of Country B heritage and opined that the Mother could support X's cultural needs without doing so through the Father or his family. Again, I share that confidence, in light of my observations of the Mother, from which I gained the impression that she is an attuned, dedicated and child-focused parent.
In any event, these considerations, whilst unquestionably important, must yield to X's need for physical, emotional and psychological safety. X is a very young child, and as a consequence is vulnerable and entirely dependent on her caregivers to meet her needs. Her need for safety and protection from harm is of paramount importance to the determination of her best interests.

[119]

X plainly has a close and loving relationship with her mother. It is indisputably to her benefit that that relationship continue and that it is not undermined.
X presently has no relationship with the Father, as she has not seen or communicated with him since she was approximately nine months old. The relevant question is therefore not whether an existing relationship should be preserved or maintained, but whether orders should be made which facilitate the creation and development of a relationship that does not presently exist.
Although the Father's focus was predominantly on his own desire to establish a relationship with X and he gave limited indication of having considered this issue from X's perspective, it is clear that there would be potential benefits to X of growing up knowing her father, including ensuring that she knows that he loves her and wants to be part of her life, enhancing her sense of identity and self-image, nurturing her sense of connectedness and belonging, and allowing her to know her family of origin and be immersed in her Country B culture alongside the Country B members of her family. However, as is expressly articulated as part of this factor, this must not occur at the expense of X's safety.
The ICL submitted that the X would not gain any benefit from a relationship with the Father given his exposure of the Mother and X to sustained family violence, his lack of insight into his behaviour and its consequences, his negative attitude towards the Mother and her family, and his attitude towards X which suggested that he considered her a possession rather than a person. Although I do not agree that there would be no benefit at all to X, I consider that any potential benefits would be significantly outweighed by the associated risks.
Ideally, X would have the benefit of knowing, spending time with, and sharing a relationship with the Father's adult daughters, who are her half-sisters. Again, however, any benefit that may be derived from such relationships cannot override the need to ensure that X is safe. In any event, X's half-sisters do not reside in Australia and there was no evidence before the Court as to the extent of their likely involvement with X even if she were to spend time with the Father.

[122]

It has long been recognised that there is no presumption that contact with a parent is in a child's best interests. 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 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.[107] In McCall & Clark,[108] the Full Court recognised that 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.
In my view, the serious risks posed by the Father render the present case one of the identified category of cases where time with a parent, in this case the Father, is, on balance, more likely to do harm than good. Counsel for the Father submitted that an order for no time is for 'extreme cases.' I do not accept that this is an accurate statement of the law. The Court's task is to impose the outcome which will best serve X's best interests, including by protecting her safety. There is no separate requirement to assess whether a case is 'extreme' before imposing the outcome that will best meet that requirement.
As outlined above, I am satisfied that there would be an unacceptable risk to the physical and emotional safety of both X and the Mother if there were orders made providing for the Father to spend time with X. Even if X's physical safety were able to be assured, such as by use of a professional supervisor, significant risk would arise with respect to the Mother's emotional wellbeing and the resulting impact on her parenting. As Ms K indicated, the Father having a relationship with a child of X's age, particularly where none currently exists, would require a relationship of sorts between the parents. Ms K opined that the combined effect of the Mother's PTSD and the Father's history of coercive controlling behaviour would make that very difficult for X. I am not satisfied that it could be done safely.
Counsel for the Mother and the ICL submitted that the evidence leads to a conclusion that X's emotional and psychological wellbeing and her safety will best be promoted by orders providing that she spend no time and have no communication with the Father. Counsel for the ICL also submitted that regrettably for X, the risk of time and communication with the Father substantially outweighed the likely benefit. For all of the reasons outlined above, I agree with these submissions. For the sake of ensuring clarity for the parties and any future reader of the orders, the orders will expressly provide that X will spend no time and have no communication with the Father.
Section 60CG of the Act provides that in considering what order to make, the Court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. In the present case, there is a family violence order in force against the Father for the protection of the Mother and X, the terms of which are summarised above. An order for no time and no communication would be entirely consistent with the terms of the family violence order and avoid exposing any person to an unacceptable risk of family violence. The same cannot be said of the orders sought by the Father.
Although it was not specifically sought by either party or the ICL, I have turned my mind to the question of whether there should be a continuation of the present interim order pursuant to which the Father is permitted to provide X with letters, gifts and cards, under certain conditions. There could be a benefit to X in such an order, in that it would enable her to feel that her father loves her and know that he is thinking about her and has not abandoned her. As Ms K explained, it would also assist with maintaining her sense of identity and knowledge of her paternal connections and with developing a narrative about where she has come from. It would also avoid her forming a belief that her mother was keeping her father from her. The provision of letters, cards and gifts could occur via a post office box, which would protect the physical safety of X and the Mother. I acknowledge and accept the submission of Counsel for the ICL that if X cannot so much as receive cards from her father, there is a risk that she will be left 'at sea' with respect to a future understanding of her father and her place within his family.
The Mother's evidence, which I accept, was that when she had received gifts for X from the Father during the period of the interim orders, she experienced heightened anxiety including symptoms such as heart palpitations, sweaty palms and shaking hands. She deposed that one gift included photographs of the Father which caused the Mother to experience fear and flashbacks. This evidence aligned with a concern raised by Ms K that the need for the Mother to assess the appropriateness of materials provided to X could be triggering for her. Ms J similarly gave evidence that receipt of any communications from the Father, including gifts and cards, would likely trigger PTSD reactions in the Mother.
Under cross-examination by Counsel for the ICL, the Mother explained her resistance to the ongoing provision of cards as being related to the manner in which the Father communicates and a fear that he would use that method of communication to exert coercive control over X or cause her emotional harm. She acknowledged that this had not occurred to date.
My findings with respect to the Father's lack of insight into the damaging nature of his past conduct and the risk that he will inappropriately expose X to his derogatory views about the Mother as he has expressly threatened to do lead me to conclude that there is a significant risk that the Father would use the process of gifts and cards as a conduit for inappropriate communications, which would be a situation that would cause potential harm both to the Mother and to X.
On balance, I consider the risks of permitting the ongoing provision of letters, gifts and cards to X by the Father outweigh the benefits she may derive.

[124]

The Mother and the ICL submitted that it was in X's best interests for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility and sole responsibility for decision-making in relation to major long-term issues with respect to X. The Father ultimately conceded that such an order should be made, but sought to restrain the Mother from exercising that decision-making responsibility to change X's surname or having her called or referred to by any other name without his consent.
Irrespective of whether time between X and the Father were ordered, Ms K recommended that the Mother have sole parental responsibility as a result of the parties' long-term inability to communicate effectively and negotiate with respect to parenting matters.
The Mother considers herself unable to communicate with the Father in any capacity as a result of what I have found to be well-founded safety concerns. The ICL submitted, and I accept, that the evidence before the Court demonstrated that the Father lacks the ability to communicate appropriately with the Mother. In light of the Father's abusive, harassing, threatening, intimidating and controlling conduct towards the Mother, joint decision-making would not only be unworkable and contrary to X's best interests, but it would risk exposing both the Mother and X to harm.
I accept the submission of the ICL that the Mother has demonstrated a capacity to make appropriate and responsible decisions for X's care. I am satisfied that it is in X's best interests for the Mother to have sole parental responsibility and decision-making with respect to major long-term issues.
The ICL supported the position of the Father with respect to X's name, primarily on the basis of the evidence given by Ms K of the importance to X of her cultural identity and her understanding of her place in the world, including with respect to her family of origin. Counsel for the ICL submitted that it would be of benefit to X to know that she had a father who continued to be interested in her wellbeing and not to be 'at sea' with respect to her biological identity as she grows and develops. She emphasised that X's name is part of her identity.
An order made by this Court with respect to parental responsibility and major long-term decision making is not one of the circumstances listed in section 25(2) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (SA) in which an application for registration of a change of a child's name may be made by one parent. As a consequence, it would not appear to be necessary to exclude such a decision from the responsibility with respect to major long-term decisions which will otherwise be bestowed upon the Mother.
In any event, I hold significant reservations about whether such a restriction would be in X's best interests, for the following reasons:

[125]

(a) There were aspects of the Father's evidence and his conduct more generally which sat very uneasily with any suggestion that his desire to ensure that X's name remained unchanged was child-focused, rather than a further means of exerting control over the Mother and her parenting and ownership over X. These included:

(i) The Father gave evidence to the effect that the Mother had told him she had been sexually active with other men around the time of X's conception and she did not know who X's father was. The Mother was also cross-examined about the possibility that another man could be X's father. Aside from its implicit denigration of the Mother, this aspect of the Father's case appeared directed to a claim that he had acted honourably in taking on the role of X's father despite uncertainty as to whether this was indeed the case. This interpretation was supported by an email he sent to the Mother on 16 January 2022 praising himself for 'stepping in to volunteer to be the dad, caused by [the Mother's] confusion of sleeping around ...'[109]

(ii) Amongst the many abusive communications sent by the Father to the Mother were sentiments including:

(A) 'I take back, my surname, all my families [sic] names, all the effort of naming a child. I revert all.'[110]

(B) 'If you and your family choose to remove me from your lives than [sic] I request that you remove my [family names], and my surname from my daughter.'[111]

(C) 'Change her name now before it's too late' ... 'can you please move towards removing our daughters name' ... I've sort [sic] council [sic] from my mother's side in the highlands of [Country B]. They want both [her first name] and [her middle name] removed as it's a very significant and sacred chiefly name in our lineage. Also remove my surname, [Paige]. I am being serious. Please remove our names from the child you stole from us, that we will never see in [Country B]...'[112]

(b) The Father's attitude towards issues pertaining to X has, to date, been self-focused and devoid of any meaningful consideration of X's perspective or experience. There is no basis on the evidence for an expectation that his approach with respect to this issue, were he ever approached by the Mother in future, would be any different.

(c) Irrespective of the Father's intention in this particular instance, his past conduct and attitude towards the Mother has been extremely controlling, and this has had a deleterious impact on the Mother, her mental health and her parenting capacity. As such, there is potential benefit to X in ensuring that the Mother's parental autonomy is not further impeded at the behest of the Father and that she is not beholden to him with respect to any aspect of parenting X or required to obtain his consent for any reason. Notably, the Mother did not seek any orders with respect to X's name. She simply sought to be free of conditions imposed by the Father.

(d) I have found, based on the evidence before the Court, that the Mother is an emotionally attuned, child-focused and competent parent who can be relied upon to provide appropriate support for and to foster X's sense of identity and belonging, both with respect to her cultural heritage and with respect to her paternal family.

(e) I do not consider that there to be a clear nexus between question of whether X continues to use her father's name and whether she is made aware that her father continues to be interested in her wellbeing.

(f) Because the issue of X's name was not raised by the Father until after the close of evidence, there is no expert or other evidence before the Court as to the likely impact on X (if any) of continuing to bear the name of a person who has caused enduring harm to her mother and primary carer.

[127]

The Mother sought that injunctions be made reflecting the existing interim injunctions restraining the Father from communicating with, contacting or approaching X, or attending at her residence or any childcare centre or school she may attend. She also sought mutual injunctions with respect to denigration, discussion of the proceedings with X and posting information on social media with respect to the other party or the issues in dispute in the proceedings. The Father likewise sought a non-denigration order.
The power to grant such injunctions is found in subsection 68B(2) of the Act, which provides, in summary, that the Court may grant an injunction in relation to a child in any case in which it appears to the Court to be just or convenient to do so. Although the paramountcy principle in section 60CA does not apply to the granting of an injunction, X's best interests are a relevant consideration in the determination of whether such an injunction should be granted.[113]
I have turned my mind to whether, to the extent that they relate to the same matters to which the family violence order relates, section 114AB(2) provides a barrier to the making of the injunctions sought by the Mother. However, in light of the fact that the family violence order was brought on the application of the Police, and not the Mother herself, I am satisfied that this Court retains jurisdiction to make the injunctions.[114]
By the injunctions, the Mother seeks, in part, to restrain the Father from engaging in conduct in which he has threatened, directly and indirectly to engage, or in which he has in fact previously engaged, as outlined earlier in these reasons. In light of this, combined with my findings as to the risk posed by the Father to X and to the Mother, I am satisfied that the injunctions as sought by the Mother should be made. This view is strengthened by the fact that the family violence order presently in place will expire in early 2026, at which point, if it is not extended, the Mother and X will be wholly dependent on the terms of the orders of this Court for their protection from the risks I have identified.
The need for the injunction restraining denigration and like conduct is less clear in circumstances in which the orders of the Court will not provide for X to spend time or communicate with the Father and there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that X is at risk of any such conduct from the Mother. Nonetheless, the parties both sought such an order and if it is needed, it will operate to X's benefit, and as a consequence, the injunction will be made.

[129]

Although it was not expressly sought by either party, I have considered whether, in the absence of orders for time and communication between X and the Father, there should be a continuation of the order for the Mother to provide the Father with photographs of X, noting that this was recommended in the Family Report and was supported by the ICL. The Mother opposed the making of such an order. She deposed that she could not afford to continue to engage her solicitor for this purpose, and that the thought of communicating with the Father directly would cause her extreme distress. To Ms K, she expressed discomfort about sending photographs of X to a 'violent, unsafe person.'
Under cross-examination by Counsel for the ICL, the Mother expressed a fear that sending a photo could operate as a trigger for the Father, putting a metaphorical target on the Mother and her family and reigniting the intentions he had expressed towards them. The Mother also expressed a fear that receiving photographs of X on an ongoing basis would incite the Father in his stated mission to reclaim X, whom he considers rightfully his. Ms K opined that this concern seemed valid. I accept that assessment.
The Mother also said that she did not feel that it would be emotionally safe for her to send photographs. This concern is entirely consistent with the preponderance of the evidence with respect to the Father's past treatment of the Mother and the impact of his behaviour on her.
Although Ms K described a benefit for X in the Father receiving photographs if she was also receiving communications from him, as it would give him something in relation to which he could engage in discussion with her, she saw no benefit to X of the Father receiving photographs if he was not also sending gifts and cards, which the orders will not provide for.
I note that the provision of photographs could occur via a third party other than a solicitor and could be done via a post office box. However, in light of my findings as to the Father's treatment of the Mother and its impact on her and her parenting, I can have no confidence that this would provide adequate protection from the identified risk of emotional harm to the Mother and indirectly to X from being required to have ongoing contact of any kind with a person who has persistently subjected her to violence, abuse, threats and intimidation and a person of whom she remains afraid. This is particularly so given her specific fear that doing so may serve as a trigger with respect to the Father's behaviour and compromise her safety and X's.
An order requiring the ongoing provision of photographs to the Father would appear to be of benefit to the Father rather than X, and it is difficult to identify the benefit she would derive from it. An order for the provision of photographs to the Father will not be made.

Paige & Muir [2025] FedCFamC2F 470 (10 April 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (174 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)