Peusen & Belo (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 728 (16 October 2025)

ALLEGATION THE MOTHER POSES AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO X

1. The father's contention that the mother poses a risk of X's safety arises from the mother's conduct and belief system about the father being a risk; the psychological impact on X of being exposed to the mother's belief system, including her ongoing reports to authorities of risk to X; her historical refusal to comply with orders for time; her mental health and the risk of exposure to the mother's outbursts and anger.
2. For the reasons that follow, the evidence supports the finding that the mother presents an unacceptable risk of harm to X.

1. In June 2020, the mother's psychologist, Dr FF identified that the mother was experiencing COVID-19 anxiety when she had become hyper-focused on the effects of COVID-19 on herself and X. The father said that the mother's anxieties increased and her behaviours became increasingly more erratic.
2. The mother said that from the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 to March 2022, the father was behaving in a way that was fuelling her anxiety, such as not social distancing and exposing her and X to situations where they could be exposed to COVID-19. The mother is an asthmatic and as such was in a high-risk category for the virus. The mother was highly anxious about exposure to the virus for herself and X who was still a young baby at the time. She said her family members who were medical specialists had advised her as to appropriate measures. At this time there was no vaccine, she had a very young child, and the impact of the virus was relatively unknown.
3. Significantly, given the various interim findings in this case, where the mother's time with X was reduced and has been supervised, the mother knew several important things: her psychological stability was a critical contested issue; her belief system that the father posed a risk of sexual harm to X with an absence of evidence to support her belief, and the impact on X of exposure to that belief was a critical contested issue; the father was contending that X's interaction with her should be substantially curtailed such that her time should only be supervised and that this position was supported by the ICL.
4. The mother therefore knew the case she had to meet and knew the issues of risk arising from her mental health that had been contended that supported an order for supervision or no time.
5. The mother could have been in no doubt that evidence in respect of her psychological stability was critical to the outcome at least from the perspectives of the father and the ICL.
6. Nonetheless, she failed to call evidence that she had engaged with any psychological supports to assist her with her belief as to the risk the father posed or insight about the impact on X spending time with her, absent psychological supports. She did not address this issue in her final submissions notwithstanding her knowledge of the case being advanced by both the father and the ICL. Instead, she focussed entirely upon asserting the father posed a risk to X, that her parenting credentials were superior and ignored any alleged psychological impairment.
7. Each of the experts opined independently of the necessity for the mother to be psychologically supported given her diagnosis of anxiety. Mr N raised directly in his reports the mental health of the mother as a risk factor necessitating supervision.

1. Notes from the mother's attendances with Ms S were received into evidence and provided some information as to the issues that had been discussed in her counselling session from October 2021 until September 2023 which support a finding that the mother has engaged with psychological supports in the past. However, the absence of evidence from her current or previous treatment providers in respect of her current functioning is a significant lacuna in the mother's case.
2. An order was made by Senior Judicial Registrar Best on 20 June 2023 for the mother to comply with the direction of the Department of Child Safety in relation to engagement with ongoing Intensive Family Support. A notation was made that the mother "indicated her intention to continue engaging with [Ms S]." An order was made that by not later than 4.00 pm AEST on 28 June 2023, the mother will provide the report of Dr T to her GP and treating psychologist, Ms S at GG Psychology.
3. The mother gave no evidence about any engagement with or the outcome of any Intensive Family Support, nor did she call any evidence from Ms S or other treatment providers.
4. When the trial was adjourned in April 2025, it was observed that there was no evidence from Ms S as to the mother's current functioning. Despite providing updating evidence in an Affidavit filed on 1 September 2025, the mother did not call evidence as to any current psychological supports, diagnosis or current functioning.
5. The extent of the evidence as to the mother's psychological health was that she had received psychological support from Ms S since 2021 and from Ms W for several sessions while Ms S was on maternity leave. The mother said she was first referred to Ms S due to concerns that she could be obsessive-compulsive, although there was no diagnosis. The mother continued to see Ms S to assist in the treatment of her anxiety in the context of the domestic violence that the mother said she has experienced. The mother saw Ms S again in December 2024 and on one occasion in February 2025.
6. The mother also gave evidence that she has been referred to a psychiatrist who has undertaken half of her assessment, but it was not complete. No evidence of the referral, its basis, or future anticipated support was given in respect of the referral.
7. It is astonishing that in this case where multiple experts over the years identified the mother's mental health as a potential risk to X's safety, that no evidence was called from Ms S. There was no explanation as to why no evidence was called.
8. The absence of corroborative evidence from the mother's treating psychologist on such a key issue of the mother's current functioning and mental health, is significant.
9. The failure to call evidence from Ms S is a significant deficit in the mother's evidence. I draw the Jones v Dunkel inference that her evidence would not have assisted the mother's case.

1. In the first Family Report prepared by Mr N dated 31 July 2023, several risk factors were identified including the mother's parenting style with few boundaries or discipline, her inability to support X's relationship with the father, her mental health and the impact on her steadfast view that X had been sexually abused by the father. He recommended X should live primarily with the father, spending nine nights in the father's care and then five nights in the care of the mother.
2. In the second Family Report dated 10 July 2024, the identified combined risks were the mother's parenting and mental health and its impact upon X, X's enmeshment with the mother's sense of reality, the impact on his bond with his father and X's presentation and development.
3. Mr N recommended that X should be placed in the full-time care of the father, and that the mother's time with X should occur only on a supervised basis.
4. The mother takes issue with Mr N's assessment but did not call any evidence to challenge his concerns or call any evidence to establish that she had addressed the identified risks.
5. The mother described to Mr N examples of X's behaviour when he was in her care that were concerning. Her examples included that X refused to go to school by not getting out of her car, had been hitting his head against a closet door, was not sleeping often until very late, was throwing food around the house and that he was "peeing and pooing over the house." Her reports were of long-standing issue with X's behaviours.
6. The significant issues continued to be the mother's conduct, her mental health and her parental capacity, X's deteriorating school attendance and the related impact on time spent with his father, and the medicalisation of the mother's perception of X's issues.
7. Mr N concluded that X has a strong bond with his father and benefits from a normal home life and routine with him. He further concluded that the mother's parenting and mental health are combined risks to X, as well as the risk from the lack of boundaries in her parenting, the lack of contact with the father and the impact of the withdrawal of social contact through school have a negative impact on X's development.
8. Importantly, Mr N recommended that the mother should access suitable support to stabilise future arrangements. Despite orders for supervision, the evidence supports a finding that the mother's conduct, beliefs and behaviour as observed by Mr N have continued and there is no evidence that any of the issues of risk have been addressed. I put weight on the opinion of Mr N given his comprehensive assessment, reports and his oral evidence.

1. An assessment undertaken by single expert psychiatrist Dr O identified that the mother meets the criteria for Generalised Anxiety Disorder. The mother accepted that she has this diagnosis. Dr O opined that this condition first manifested following the COVID-19 pandemic where she became focussed on the potential risk of the virus to her and her family.
2. In his report, he opined that "based on her current presentation she is likely to meet her child's needs but may require assistance at times of increased stress and anxiety" and said the mother was "not impaired to a degree that is incompatible with parenting effectively in general."
3. Dr O opined that the mother's anxiety symptoms that "likely had greatly escalated during the COVID pandemic" had improved significantly in response to counselling and psychotherapy.
4. In oral evidence, however, Dr O accepted that his assessment of the mother's improved anxiety was based solely on her presentation, the interview and her self-report at the time. Dr O did not have any reports, notes or diagnoses in relation to the mother's attendance upon counselling and he only had Dr T's previous psychiatric report and a copy of her presentation to AC Hospital. Dr O agreed that the information about the mother's attendance on psychotherapy was based on the mother's sister informing him of such.
5. Dr O further opined that the mother's "ability to adequately provide guidance to her child, set clear rules, expectations, and boundaries and to discipline appropriately, has not been formally assessed, but on balance of probabilities she likely does this effectively, when not overwhelmed by anxiety."
6. In oral evidence, Dr O said the mother came across as a bright, capable individual who had a period of impairment during the time she was acutely unwell, and that when she returned to baseline or improved, he was not able to detect at interview any reason why the mother should be unable to parent effectively based on her psychiatric evaluation.
7. It is important to note that Dr O did not have the opportunity as part of the interviews with the mother (with the support of her sister) to observe the mother with X.
8. Dr O accepted the proposition that Mr N's views about the mother's ability to set clear rules, expectations, boundaries and to discipline appropriately were in complete contrast to his. He accepted that Mr N assessed the mother and observed X with the mother and said he would defer to Mr N's opinion in this regard.
9. In relation to X's school attendance, Dr O states that the mother explained to him that she was taking X for several medical consultations, but he observed that the number of consultations appeared to be substantial and may be evidence of anxiety or over-anxiety at that time.
10. Dr O opined that it appeared the mother's fears that she should not be releasing X into a situation of risk or threat made her very anxious.
11. Dr O had limited information about the support the mother had engaged with and her current supports. I put limited weight on his opinion that her symptoms had improved significantly in response to counselling and psychotherapy. There is no evidence that this self-report is accurate.

1. Dr T prepared a Psychiatric Report dated 19 June 2023 in relation to both parents.
2. The issues raised by Dr T as factors which could increase the risk of dysfunction for parenting tasks in relation to the mother included: the potential for her to experience a recurrence of panic attacks (assessed as moderate given her counselling and issues triggering panic attacks had ameliorated), the experience of anxiety and that should these symptoms persist, a risk that she could develop a more severe depressive syndrome. Dr T reported that the mother presented with a basic nature marked by obsessionality, for example in relation to her behaviour around COVID-19 infection prevention behaviour.
3. Dr T opined that "the risk of physical or emotional harm to [X] in spending unsupervised time in the mother's care concerns the risk of her experiencing Panic Attacks and/or severe anxiety again." Dr T further opined that "the mother presents with mental health issues which are in partial remission and are not likely now to impact on her parenting capacity."
4. Dr T recommended ongoing specific psychological counselling for the mother and for her to have a biopsychosocial management plan for panic disorder given her vulnerability to experience significant anxiety.
5. Dr T's evidence was unable to be tested in cross examination due to his retirement, and no submissions were made in relation to his report.
6. Accordingly, I place limited weight on his evidence, other than the recommendation in 2023 that the mother would benefit from specific psychological counselling to manage the mental health issues she presented with at that time.

1. Each of the experts opined that the mother had suffered from significant anxiety symptoms and would benefit from ongoing psychological supports. The mother called no evidence as to her current functioning or her psychological or psychiatric supports despite being aware it is a central concern in relation to potential risk to X.

1. The father contended that the mother's conduct was harmful to X. That behaviour included:

(a) Her failure to comply with orders of the Court;

(b) Her failure to return X to the father's care to reduce time spent with the father;

(c) Her steadfast belief that X had been sexually abused by the father as reported by her to the Police, the Department and medical professionals;

(d) Her recording of all communication with X both during telephone contact and in the supervised sessions; and

(e) Her communication with X where she accepts as truthful, even highly implausible statements made by X.

1. The father's evidence was replete with examples of the mother's conduct which he contends is harmful to X. Several examples of the mother's behaviour identified by the father as harmful to X are set out below.

Incident in February 2022 where the mother was waiting for the child all day outside of the HH Childcare Centre

1. X began to attend the HH Childcare Centre childcare centre in early 2022 and attended the centre on four occasions.
2. In February 2022, the parties received an email from the childcare centre raising a concern the centre had that the mother was sitting on the footpath outside the centre from 7.30 am to 4.30 pm each day. The father was told the mother made X wear a facemask and would attend the centre to use the bathroom, drink water and charge her phone and laptop.
3. The father said that the mother informed the centre that she was worried the father would attend to collect X.

Incidents where Queensland Police attended changeover at the mother's request

1. After separation between July 2022 and December 2022, the father would spend time with X in accordance with a parenting plan between the parties. The father said that the changeovers had become longer and more difficult as the mother would not facilitate X coming into his care at changeovers.
2. In July 2022, the mother called the police to attend the Suburb D property to assist with handover taking place at 8.00 am that morning. Subsequently, the mother attended the police station with X. In cross examination, the mother stated she had concerns and had been advised by lawyers not to facilitate changeover. This was in the context of allegations the mother made two days earlier in July 2022, in relation to concerns she had that X was exposed to sexual abuse in the care of his father. The mother had received information from the police and X's GP that there were no signs of any sexual abuse that same day.
3. The mother insisted on having the father attend the police station that day to conduct handover however, when the father arrived, the mother refused to hand X over. When suggested the situation might have created some distress for X, the mother stated that she was not sure if that created any stress for X or made him upset.
4. The mother is extremely resistant to X spending time with the father. She had no insight that regular exposure of X to police assistance due to her unwillingness to facilitate changeover may be a cause of stress and confusion for X. Whether her behaviour is due to her beliefs, her anxiety and mental health or simply her unwillingness to facilitate and support the relationship is unclear. It may be a combination of all these matters.

Allegations of the mother seeking unnecessary medical attention for the child at the GP and emergency attendances

1. The father stated that from April 2022, the mother raised health concerns in relation to X with the father on almost a weekly basis, including concerns that X was affected by constipation, respiratory distress and nappy rash.
2. In cross examination, the father accepted that in around July 2022, he and the mother attended upon the respiratory specialist, Dr JJ. The mother stated that she had engaged a respiratory specialist given the significant amounts of Ventolin she was having to administer to X due to the recurrent episodes she asserted he was having.
3. The father deposed that between 7 September 2023 and 28 June 2024, the mother took X to a medical practitioner on 67 occasions and had 28 telephone consultations with a GP. He said that during this period, the mother also took X to the Emergency Department on 12 occasions. The father particularised the many occasions where the mother took X to the doctors during the period from late 2023 to mid-2024. The father asserted that X missed 31 days of EE Childcare when in the mother's care.
4. The mother denied any suggestion that she had taken X to the doctor or hospital unnecessarily, although agreed that in the first six months of 2024, she had taken X to the Emergency Department at LL Hospital on 10 different occasions. Dr Y noted in his report his concern about this behaviour of the mother noting none of the emergency attendances warranted hospital admission and many of the reports describe him as playful, happy and not distressed when assessed. Dr Y also opined that it is important for X's future development and emotional wellbeing to minimise medical interventions unless essential. I put weight on that opinion.
5. In early 2024, the mother attended the emergency department with X due to "respiratory system symptoms/signs." The emergency department recorded that X was "very well" on presentation and that his vitals were normal, his chest was clear with "nil wheeze" and that the "exam was otherwise unremarkable."
6. In mid-2024, the mother attended the Emergency Department with X due to his "wheezing." The hospital recorded that on arrival X had "normal breathing with no wheeze and had no wheeze or work of breathing at 3 hours post salbutamol." The ambulance report form from this occasion recorded that X has a "normal respiratory status."
7. Approximately a month later, X again attended the Emergency Department. The mother had said that he was having difficulty with his asthma medication. The hospital record stated that "He arrived in the department looking well with no WOB/wheeze. His chest remained clear...and he was subsequently discharged home." The ambulance report form from this occasion stated that there were "Nil obvious sing of resp distress." This record noted as the primary diagnosis that no problem was identified.
8. The mother did not accept the proposition that her hospital attendances were "an overreaction." The father contends there is no evidence to support a finding that X had symptoms that required hospitalisation at these times.
9. On 6 June 2024, X's GP, Dr Y, prepared a report relevant to his attendances upon X. He reported:

[X] has also had multiple consultations regarding his lungs and has needed to attend ED on numerous occasions since last September for this issue. He is prone to viral induced wheeze and also has an allergy to dust mites which has been confirmed by his respiratory specialist [Dr JJ]. I have witnessed [X] with allergies on at least two occasions, in February and May 2024. On both occasions he presented with puffy eyes and nasal congestion consistent with allergy and he was prescribed oral and nasal antihistamines. The allergies have both occurred when he was in his mother's care.

He has had multiple attendances to EDs with episodes of difficulty in breathing when in his mother's care. This suggests that there may be triggers at her residence that are provoking the attacks, as opposed to a viral cause. I referred him back to his respiratory specialist, [Dr JJ], in February 2024 due to his frequent episodes and to reassess his wheeze plan. I was concerned about the large amounts of Ventolin [X] was being given (apparently up to 30 puffs overnight on 10/04/2024). He was seen by [Dr JJ] on [...]/4/23 for an updated management plan and a preventer inhaler was prescribed....

In my opinion, [X] is a young child who undoubtably has medical issues (mainly reactive airways disease, allergies and recurrent viral infection) but I believe his main issues are behavioural due to conflicting parental styes. [The mother] is keen to seek counselling for these issues for [X]. [The father] has no objections to counselling but would like to see a rationale for the advised interventions and what benefit it would provide for [X]. I have noted the findings of forensic paediatrician [Dr AD] and the Court Order including the opinions of [Dr T]. Over the course of my dealings with the family in the last few months, I concur with the conclusions of both those documents and in my opinion that it is not in [X's] best interests to remain in the current dysfunctional situation. In my professional opinion, I believe it would be safe for [X] to return to school and his father's care despite the misgivings of his mother. I have subsequently received information from the Queensland Ambulance Service showing 10 calls outs so far to him this year (2024). None of them have warranted hospital admission and many of the reports describe him as playful, happy and not distressed when assessed.

1. Mr N reported in the second Family Report at [97] that the mother "uses the medical system [to] impede his access to school and to his father, given that her inability to take him to school changes how handover can occur." That opinion is supported on the evidence.
2. In the second Family Report at [92], Mr N opines:

[the mother] has a preoccupation with medicalising her perception of [X's] problems. What now occurs is an almost daily attendance at either a local doctor, ambulance, or hospital attendance in person to an inordinate degree.

1. Dr O observed that the number of medical appointments appeared to be substantial and may have reflected the mother's anxiety.
2. In the report from X's GP, Dr Y dated 6 June 2024, he also recorded:

Over the past three months, I have been called frequently by [the mother] to provide medical certificates to exempt [X] from childcare. She states that he refuses to leave the car, will not go into school and does not want to be with his father. This appears to be a behavioural rather than a medical issue. As such, I did not always provide the certificates as requested. [The father] has not reported any school refusal and [X] always appears happy and cooperative in his father's company when he has attended the practice. I have told [the mother] that it is my strong opinion that he should be attending school for his social and emotional development.

1. I give weight to the opinion of Dr Y and note that X did have a need for respiratory treatment on a few occasions, but on a number of other occasions, he did not require medical attention that was sought by the mother. This is evidenced by Dr Y refusing to provide a medical certificate on several occasions, noting that a concern he expressed about the mother's conduct was the negative social and emotional impact of X missing school.
2. I am satisfied on the evidence that on several occasions, the mother took X to the doctor, rather than school. Her behaviour lacked any insight into the negative social and emotional impact on X and his development and illustrated the lengths the mother was prepared to go to in order to avoid him spending time with his father.

The mother recording X during supervised visits and all telephone calls

1. The mother agreed that she had recorded all interactions and communications between her and X including all telephone calls, the supervised visits at B Family Services and the interview with Mr N. The mother said that she believed if B Family Services knew she was recording the visits that they would cancel their service. The mother transcribed the recordings she had made and referred on several occasions to X's reports being "credible" and that she believed what he told her. It was contended that her conduct was evidence gathering. I accept that submission.
2. The mother failed to appreciate her conduct in completely accepting of X's exaggerated and at times fanciful stories may pose a risk to X's psychological wellbeing.
3. This is illustrated by the mother's evidence of the report by X of being locked out of the apartment all night by the father. She could not accept that the report by X of being locked out all night was untrue. She was fixated in her evidence that he had been "locked out" and maintained that what he reported was therefore true. She had no capacity to accept that X exaggerated, embellished or lied to her.
4. The mother's distrust of the father is so extreme that she cannot accept an innocent explanation as to the event, despite her being aware (and providing detailed sworn evidence in her 1 September 2025 Affidavit) of the need to manage X's difficult behavioural issues. This is despite the mother herself reporting that X has exhibited dysregulated behaviours from when he was a young child, as also observed by his schools and the supervision agencies.
5. In my view, the mother's preoccupation with evidence gathering and recording her visits must impact her parenting capacity. She had more than 300 recordings, including of her time with X, interactions with the father, and she also recorded the first interview with Mr N. The fact that the mother has recorded every interaction with X, despite accepting it could jeopardise her ongoing time, illustrates the mother's lack of insight as to the impact of her own conduct. The mother's behaviour in evidence gathering supports an order for ongoing supervision of her time. Telephone communication cannot practically be supervised and accordingly that communication will not continue.

1. The mother has an unwavering a belief system which she has continued to maintain that the father poses an unacceptable risk to X. The father contended that X must be at increasing risk of being exposed to the mother's view despite it not being supported by any evidence, given that she maintains these positions and will believe anything that X tells her, including that abuse has occurred.
2. The mother believes X had been a victim of physical, sexual and psychological abuse perpetrated by the father. The mother expressed her belief that the father has or may have exposed X to sexual abuse. The mother maintained her concerns despite multiple reports to the Department and none being substantiated, multiple reports being made to the police with no action taken, no independent evidence of the abuse and an absence of any medical evidence which may support her claims.
3. The father's concern is supported by the opinion of Mr N who in his oral evidence observed that X is now getting to an age where he is likely to be becoming aware of his mother's belief system. He accepted the proposition that the risk to X arises because there does not appear to be any sense or insight from the mother that she needs to change that position.
4. There is no evidence of her current treatment nor whether she has received any psychological or psychiatric assistance to address her anxiety and her steadfast belief of risk, which is not supported on the evidence. The mother requested in July 2025 that B Family Services make a report after allegedly hearing X making sexual noises (which was not heard by the supervisor). She also made a report to the Department and the Police at this time. This conduct supports the finding that her view is that the risk she believes the father presents has not altered. The risk of continuing to make reports is that X will continue to be interviewed and will be aware of the mother's beliefs, especially as he gets older.
5. I accept the opinion of Mr N that exposure to such a belief system, which is likely to happen in the absence of supervision, is a risk to X's psychological safety. This supports the need for ongoing supervision to protect X's safety.

Allegations the mother perpetrated family violence against the father and X

1. The mother has perpetrated family violence against the father and X, particularly in the lead up to the parties' separation in November 2021. The father particularised the alleged instances of family violence leading up to and shortly after separation.
2. The father denied that he has ever hit, been aggressive to or harmed the mother or X. He contended that he has tried to his best to de-escalate situations between the parties that would often occur in front of X. The father told Mr N he called the mother crazy once, although the mother contended his behaviour towards her caused her to react. The mother agreed that she had engaged in physical abuse towards the father.
3. The mother consented to an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) without admissions protecting the father from the mother. That ADVO expires in early 2027.

1. On 11 July 2020, the parties got into a disagreement, which the father asserted escalated into the mother hitting him, and that when he tried to move away, she pulled his hair and screamed at him "son of a bitch!". The mother conceded to hitting the father multiple times and calling him names but denied that she pulled his hair. It was also conceded by the mother that she recorded this event. The mother's conduct is family violence.

1. On 28 November 2020, the father said the mother tried to kick him in the groin, which he prevented by holding his hands out in front of him. The mother agreed that she did this. Her conduct is family violence.

1. On 7 February 2021, the father asserted the mother screamed at and kicked the father in front of X when putting him to bed. The mother denied this but conceded that on occasion, she has kicked the father in front of X towards the end of the relationship.
2. On 24 February 2021, the father said that the parties were having a conversation which escalated into the mother screaming offensive words at the father, asking him to leave the apartment, and hitting him. The father stated that the mother hit him several times on the back and head which resulted in the father's glasses being bent from the force of her hand. The father called the police who attended the parties' home on this occasion.
3. The mother agreed she hit the father on this occasion but said she hit him because she was looking after X alone whilst she was sick with influenza, and the father went to an event for his professional development. She agreed that on this occasion she asked the father to leave and that she hit him. To de-escalate the situation the father went into another room at the end of the apartment. The mother followed him and hit him on the back of the head. She said she hit him "just once". The mother accepted that it could have been her hitting the father that caused his glasses to bend but could not recall.
4. This is a further example of family violence.

1. On 17 October 2021, the father asserted that the mother hit him with her hands and pinched his arms whilst he was driving. He stated that she became so aggressive that he had to stop the car for safety reasons.
2. The mother attended upon her psychologist, Ms S, in October 2021 and the psychologist noted that the mother reported that:

...They got in an argument and [the father] was telling her that she is crazy in front of [X]. [The mother] asked him to stop and he didn't listen so she pinched him and he stopped. The following day they had an argument in the car about [the mother] not tidying up after [X]. Again [the father] told her that she was crazy and she hit him.

1. The mother accepted that she pinched the father whilst he was driving with X in the car, and that she was yelling at the father in front of X. The exposure of X to the conflict between the parties is a further example of family violence to which X has been exposed.

1. On 10 December 2021, the father asserted that the mother refused to let him leave the apartment and pushed his arms and chest to stop him from doing so and that she hit him with the front door on the shoulders whilst trying to stop him from leaving. The mother agreed that this occurred, and that it occurred in front of X. The father sustained an injured shoulder from this incident.

1. The mother accepted that she may have said and done certain things to the father including telling him to "shut up", calling him names such as "jerk" and "son of a bitch", kicking the father, pulling the father's hair, pinching and hitting the father and gesturing her middle figure towards the father. She accepted these things may have occurred in front of X. The mother agreed that X's reality, in terms of observing physical violence, was from her towards the father. She contended that X also witnessed emotional abuse from the father toward her.
2. In September 2023, the mother reported to her psychologist, Ms S, that when she told her mother about X hitting a baby, her mother said that X had "witnessed her [the mother] being aggressive towards [the father] and that she should look inside herself and see that his violence is coming from her."
3. The mother accepted that some of X's behaviour could be explained from the violence he had been exposed to. She agreed that she has hit her own father on at least one occasion, when she was upset and agitated about X. The mother agreed that she has a propensity to lash out with aggression when she is upset or anxious but stated this occurs "only when people abuse [her]."
4. Despite her own evidence of her physical outbursts, the mother called no evidence that she has addressed her reactive and aggressive behaviour with her psychologist. When asked about undertaking behavioural change courses or other means of addressing her outbursts, she said it had never been recommended to her.
5. The mother showed no real insight as to the impact on X being exposed to such conduct and minimised her responsibility, often suggesting her violence was in response to the father's behaviour.
6. I find that the mother has perpetrated family violence as alleged by the father and that X was often exposed to such conduct. X was also exposed to conflict between the parties.

1. The father submitted that the Court would have no doubt that, should X have any time or communication with his mother, be it supervised or otherwise, he will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of psychological harm.
2. As identified above, the evidence supports the finding that the mother poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of X arising from her steadfast and unwavering belief that X is at risk with the father of sexual harm, the possible exposure to physical harm and violence outbursts as well as from the psychological harm identified by Mr N of being exposed to the mother's belief system and potentially her untreated mental health issues.
3. Supervision provides an environment where X can be protected from exposure to the risks of harm identified. Having carefully considered the evidence, the conduct, the context in which it occurred and the lack of evidence as to insight or supports accessed by the mother, I am satisfied that the time X spends with his mother cannot safely occur unless it is in a supervised setting.

OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING ORDERS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF X

1. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that X has behavioural and developmental issues. He is a child who is at times difficult to manage, and both parents, the school and the supervision agency have experienced him as challenging at times.
2. A summary of evidence was prepared by the current supervision service, B Family Services, recording details of the supervision. B Family Services recorded concerns about X's neurological needs, stating that: "[X] has some impactful neuroprocessing differences that require investigation and support." Positively, B Family Services observed that "the mother has gained significant insight into helping [X] in dysregulation."
3. The mother said that X has been demonstrating concerning developmental and behavioural regressions and changes since around November 2022 and that X was demonstrating a reluctance to go with his father where he would become distressed when the father came to collect him. She said from December 2022, X was experiencing regression in his eating and toileting behaviours, and she observed instances where X will urinate on himself when he does not want to go to school or meet with people.
4. The mother said since the end of 2022, X displayed challenging behaviours at his school, including instances where he had thrown materials, been rough with other students and on an occasion bit another student. She said these concerning and aggressive behaviours continued into the home environment, where X has pulled people's hair, hit his family and thrown objects at different people. She observed that X has tried to harm himself, by banging his head on glass or on doors.
5. The father also gave evidence of X's behavioural challenges and the supports he has engaged to help him manage the behaviours.
6. X's current school, MM School, had discussed X's behavioural concerns with the father. In 2025, X was having behavioural issues within school, including instances of X biting other students, pulling the metal grate of the drain, squirting water on other students, slamming doors, pinching the teacher, yelling at other people, putting objects in his mouth, and throwing objects.
7. The father had been in communication with the school about recommended therapy and assistance. In early 2025, the father attended a meeting at MM School with Ms NN ("Ms NN"), the guidance counsellor. The father has sought assistance from parenting consultant, Ms M ("Ms M") since 2022 to assist with the counselling for X. Ms M gave uncontested evidence of her involvement and observations of X at a handover with the mother, at school and with the father detailing the assistance she has provided to the father. The father had initially been told by X's medical professionals that he is too little for interventions. A letter from Dr OO in General Paediatrics at PP Hospital recorded that the parties and X attended upon the doctors with X in respect of his observed challenging behaviours and emotional dysregulation from June 2023, irregular bowel movements and wheezing.
8. The father contacted a psychologist (recommended by a worker at one of the supervision centres), Dr QQ, in around March 2025. The father has engaged a psychologist for X, whom X has seen for three sessions. X will continue engaging with his psychologist.
9. The father is engaging with recommended psychologists and the school to manage X's behaviour. His evidence is he is developing strategies that are working. For example, his recent evidence of using the time-out strategy to manage X's behaviour.
10. The mother gave updating evidence of her recent interactions with X at the contact centre when he presented as dysregulated and heightened. She identified the strategies she is using to manage his behaviours in the supervised setting. The mother is supported in managing his challenging behaviour and reported that she does so effectively. B Family Services reported that the mother has gained significant insight into helping X in dysregulation.
11. In both Family Reports, Mr N observed and reported X's behavioural issues and that there are problems relating to setting boundaries with X.
12. Each parent has sought supports for management of X's emotional dysregulation in the past and I accept that they are both committed to X engaging with necessary supports to address his identified issues.

1. Both the mother and the father were born in Country RR and have family who reside there. X's primary language is Language TT and both parents speak Language TT with him. Both parents expressed the importance of his culture and language.
2. The father is seeking orders to enable him to travel overseas, to allow X to connect with his Country RR family heritage. Many members of the father's and mother's family and extended family live in Country RR. This is an appropriate order to ensure X maintains connection with his culture.

Each parent's capacity to meet X's health needs

1. The mother expressed her strong concerns about the father's capacity to appropriately meet the medical needs of X, particularly her assertions of the father's poor management of X's asthma.
2. The mother said that in early 2021, she was the one to recognise the severity of X's condition when he was experiencing gastroenteritis and took him to hospital. Similarly in mid-2023, the mother stated that she took X to the hospital after he sustained a fracture in the father's care.
3. The mother believes that the father is dismissive about the psychological health and wellbeing of X. For example, in February 2024 she stated that the father failed to provide the necessary approval for X to receive assistance from the zero to four program as recommended.
4. As above, the parties took X to Dr JJ, a respiratory physician in around mid-2022. The mother contended that the father could not manage and properly meet X's needs as illustrated by his refusal to provide and sign the asthma plan. The father explained that he did not agree to a generic asthma plan but said he sought and provided to the school the asthma wheeze plan that had been prepared by Dr JJ.
5. The asthma plan was provided to MM School's school in January 2025, where X currently attends prep five days a week.
6. At the beginning of 2024, X had several trips to the hospital due to his wheezing episodes. The father stated that he has not observed any signs of wheezing since X entered his primary care from 11 July 2024 and has not had to administer Ventolin (asthma medication) since this time.
7. Dr Y had expressed concerns about the level of Ventolin the mother had previously given to X. Although the mother agreed Dr Y had raised this, she did not accept that she was providing too much medication to X. The mother maintained that her administering of the asthma medication was consistent with the asthma plan.
8. The mother made several references to the submission made by counsel for the ICL that past behaviour is indicative of future behaviour. The mother submitted her concern that since the father has refused to allow X to receive psychological assistance four times in the past, that it is quite likely that he could continue to do so in the future. The mother contended that the father attending two appointments with Dr SS (X's psychologist) without X supported her contention.
9. The mother further contended that X could be at risk of not being provided the medication he requires, not only for his asthma but also ADHD (should he be diagnosed with it) and that the father could try to influence the doctors for the medication not to be provided. The mother submitted that these concerns are a risk factor for X.
10. I do not accept the mother's contention as it is not supported on the evidence.
11. In Dr O's psychiatric assessment of the father, he opined that the father has full parenting capacity, and he can provide a "safe, stable, environment and protect his son from harm. He does not have a mental disorder impacting his ability to regulate his emotions, be nurturing or to support age-appropriate stimulation and socialisation." Dr Y also opined that the father is well able to manage X's health issues. I put weight on both opinions.
12. There is no evidence that the father has not appropriately managed X's health issues. No doubt the parents have different parenting styles with the mother being very proactive in seeking medical attention for X, however, the evidence supports the finding that the father seeks appropriate and necessary medical and behavioural supports for X. The mother's contention that the father cannot manage and properly meet X's needs is not supported on the evidence.
13. The lack of trust, together with the parties' absolute inability to communicate supports an order that the father continue to hold sole decision-making responsibility, particularly given X's identified behavioural issues.

The mother's alleged non-compliance with orders

1. The father said the mother withheld X in non-compliance with an agreed parenting plan between the parties between April 2022 and June 2023 and, after orders were made, that she failed to comply with them. The mother maintained that she has consistently complied with all aspects of the orders. It is clear on the evidence that she has not.
2. On 20 June 2023, interim orders were made for X to spend time with the father from 9.00 am on Thursday until 5.00 pm each Saturday. As referred to above on several occasions, the mother did not send X to the EE preschool; the consequence being that X did not return to the father's care as ordered. Although the father did spend time with X between 20 June 2023 and 18 August 2023, it was not consistent time, nor was it in accordance with the orders made. The mother on numerous occasions withheld X from returning to the father's care as ordered.
3. The mother stated that between May and December 2023, X would often refuse to see the father and there were occasions where X refused to go to school.
4. On 18 August 2023, interim orders were made for X to spend time with the father from 5.00 pm Thursday to 5.00 pm Tuesday each week, until the matter was before the Court again on 1 September 2023. X did spend time with the father in this period in accordance with the orders.
5. On 1 September 2023, interim orders were made for X to live with the father and to spend time with the mother five nights a fortnight with changeover to occur at school. These orders also required the parties to obtain a medical certificate if X was absent from school and to provide the same to the other party.
6. The records from police and the school both corroborate that the mother was at times either unwilling or unable to ensure X's attendance at school. This resulted in further periods of time where X was not in the care of his father as ordered.
7. The mother said that between August 2023 until April 2024, X was exhibiting extreme reluctance to enter the school premises, and that he would spend extended periods of time in the car. However, she stated that she consistently encouraged him to attend class and that on each of those dates he did ultimately enter the classroom.
8. The mother contended that for 15 of the 17 absences from school, X had a medical certificate, contending that this demonstrated the absences from school were due to genuine illnesses, and that the mother acted responsibly in seeking medical attention for X. That conclusion is not open on the evidence.
9. In September 2023, X saw Dr Y, in relation to constipation, who stated that X was well enough to attend school. X did not attend school that day or the following day.
10. By May 2024, the mother was withholding X from school and not enabling him to come into the care of the father. From this time, X was primarily in the mother's care and was not attending school as required.
11. In May 2024, X refused to get out of the car at school for two and a half hours, and the school principal approached the car. The mother said ten days later in May 2024, she was required to take X home because he was attempting to climb a fence and was banging on a glass door.
12. On 23 May 2024, the mother withheld X at handover. The father said he waited at McDonalds for three hours whilst the mother was in the car with X, after which she left with X, not facilitating the handover. The mother said that she was not sure if the situation would have been a painful incident for X.
13. The mother rejected the contention that she was unable to manage X's behaviours at changeovers.
14. An illustration of the mother's inability to support X spending time with the father was the occasion where, at the request of the ICL, Mr N was to assist in the parent's handover of X into the father's care at his office. The mother and X had been at Mr N's office several days prior for the report preparation. At the end of the assessment, Mr N reported that the mother refused to allow X to return to father and said X did not want to. In the days that followed, Mr N arranged a changeover at his office. The mother did not attend but called from outside saying X would not get out of his car. The mother then called to inform Mr N that X had urinated in the car and had taken his pants off and would not put them back on, and accordingly, she could not make X available to the father.
15. In stark contrast to the mother's claims of X's refusal to see his father, the observation of third parties was that X was very happy and content with his father. He was observed by Mr N on 14 June 2023 and 2 July 2024 to happily engage with his father. Queensland Police notes on several occasions record X was content and happy with the father. The EE school records note in May 2024 the father and X walked happily into school. Ms M's assisted with changeover and the mother said "my son does not wish to go with you" but after negotiating with the mother, X happily attended a park visit in June 2023. The mother's narrative of X's reluctance is not supported by the independent evidence.
16. Between 1 September 2023 and 11 July 2024, although X was living with the father pursuant to orders, the mother would not return X to the father's care.
17. On 11 July 2024, interim orders were made for X to live with the father and to spend supervised time with the mother as well as by telephone communication.
18. Since orders were made for supervision, the time as ordered has occurred. The evidence of the mother which is not in dispute is that X enjoys his time with his mother. The father also acknowledged in his oral evidence, despite his expressed concerns as to the mother's belief about the risk he poses, that the mother has qualities and attributes which benefit X.
19. These orders for supervision have ensured that X has the benefit of spending regular time and developing his relationship with both parents, such that he spends regular time with his mother whilst living with his father. Absent orders for supervision, it is unlikely the mother would comply with obligations to return X to the father. The history of non-compliance is another significant factor favouring the order for supervision to continue to ensure X is not exposed to the same conduct as has occurred in the past.

1. The mother has been unsupervised in her telephone communication with X since July 2024.
2. The mother's claim that the father held X above the toilet, held him upside down by the leg and locked him out of the apartment all night, arise from the discussion between the mother and X that she recorded. In these telephone communications, there has been no supervision.
3. The recording of the unsupervised communication shows the mother accepts X's narrative even when it is inherently improbable. The mother has a belief that X is credible, and she blindly accepts any narrative of X. The recordings show she is unable to challenge X, giving him positive feedback and thanking him for sharing his narrative when it is negative about the father. This behaviour supports that unsupervised time exposes X to unacceptable risk of psychological harm by the exposure to the mother accepting his fanciful negative stories about the father. As referred to elsewhere in these reasons, the mother called no evidence of her current engagement with her treating psychologist. It may be that with the assistance of her psychologists, the mother would develop strategies to manage X's behaviours, including his fanciful and exaggerated narratives. That fact that she has not sought any supports to address these issues also supports an order for supervised time.
4. The mother recording the telephone communications and accepting the behaviours alleged through her conversations with X exposes X to risk of psychological harm such that all communication should be supervised.

1. Section 60CC(2)(e) of the Act sets out another factor for consideration in determining X's best interests, being the benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with his parents, and other people who are significant to X, where it is safe to do so.
2. The father and ICL both contended that supervision will not ameliorate the identified risk of X being exposed to the mother's behaviours.
3. Mr N initially recommended supervision to address the risks he identified. In oral evidence, he expressed the view that an order for no time was a means of protecting X from the harm of being exposed to the mother's conduct but that the loss of a relationship with his mother would have a negative impact on X that would require him to be supported.
4. The possible harm to children having no future relationship with a parent is a matter to be balanced with the potential harm to the children of continuing to be exposed to the risks identified. Thus, it is necessary to consider whether orders could be made that would ameliorate the identified risks.

1. Caution must be applied in making long term supervision orders for the reasons set out in Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123 and as observed in Norton & Landell [2015] FamCA 125, each case must be decided on its own facts. Considerations including the cost, the artificiality of the arrangement and the impact on the meaningful relationship between the child and the parent subject to supervision are relevant considerations.
2. The Full Court in Blinko affirmed this position and the imperative for adequate reasoning when an order for no time is made:
   1. Accordingly, where the Court makes no orders for time or communication because it is not persuaded that safeguarding conditions would sufficiently ameliorate the risk, again it should clearly explain the reasons for that conclusion. Looming large amongst the reasons for doing so, is because such orders will necessarily wholly prohibit the child, during their childhood and adolescence, from ever having any form of relationship with the non-resident parent, again, a potentially grave consequence. Such an outcome needs to be arrived at only after a careful evaluation of all of the other options which might work to enable the child to have the benefit of some kind of relationship with the non-resident parent, as indicated by the Objects and Principles of Part VII of the Act.

1. Counsel for the father acknowledged that the submission of a no-time case is always a last resort.
2. It was contended that because the mother does not see anything wrong with any of her behaviour and will continue to report baseless allegations, X will continue to be exposed to the mother's belief system that the father is a risk of sexual harm. Therefore, he contended any communication or time between X and his mother, given her belief system, must expose him to that risk.
3. It was submitted that on balance, the risks associated with X spending time with the mother (even in a supervised setting), outweigh the positive benefits to X of seeing and spending time with his mother.

No "plan B if B Family Services terminate time"

1. Counsel for the father raised a practical issue that B Family Services "can no longer be a long-term option because they are probably going to have to disengage having regard to the recordings." It was contended that an order injuncting recordings would not be sufficient protection from that conduct.
2. The father's contention that B Family Services will "probably... have to disengage" is not supported by any evidence. If the recordings the mother made are in breach of the B Family Services policies, an order prohibiting her from recording any meeting with X will prevent a continuation of the conduct. I will order that a copy of these orders be provided to the supervision service. These orders will ameliorate the risk of the mother recording the sessions and engaging in evidence gathering as she has in the past.
3. Counsel for the ICL submitted that if the contact centre withdraws its services, there is no "plan B" by the mother which will create difficulties.
4. The mother currently has a cooperative relationship with B Family Services. There is no basis to find B Family Services supervision will not continue, but if for any reason they do not offer their service in the future, there is no reason articulated as to why the mother should not be able to engage with an alternate supervision agency or arrangement, provided X is able to be supervised and therefore protected.

1. Counsel for the ICL submitted that should an order restraining the mother from recording be made, that it "would not impact on the mother's base behaviour in her belief system" in the way she deals with X.
2. The role of the supervision service is an active and protective one to ensure X has the benefits from engaging with his mother whilst also ensuring protection from negative behaviours that impact his safety. X enjoys spending time with his mother whom he loves, receives love and affection, enjoys activities such as reading and learns about his maternal family and culture. It is important that the mother has access to X's school reports so she can continue to engage with him about his learning during time they spend together. Accordingly, if the mother requests copies of reports the father should authorise the school to provide such reports to the mother.
3. Should the mother engage with X in a way that is negative or makes comments aligning with a belief that the father is a risk, the supervisor's role is to redirect and protect X from exposure to such conduct. Other than the report made on 25 July 2025, I was not taken to evidence of the mother exposing X to a negative belief system about the father in the last 15 months of supervision. I infer the supervision has been protecting X from such behaviours. I am satisfied that supervision will continue to protect X.

Supervision will not address deficits in mother's parenting capacity

1. The ICL raised that the mother "will still be unable to facilitate a proper relationship between [X] and his father." X by these orders will be living with the father. The mother's role will no longer be to facilitate the relationship between X and the father. I will make non denigration orders to further protect X from exposure to inappropriate comments or negative behaviours.

1. It was submitted by counsel for the ICL that long term supervision can also work to the detriment of a relationship between the parent and the child because X would be "used to that contact centre but not to anything else beyond the contact centre in relation to other day to day activities that may occur outside the contact centre." It was submitted that should the professional supervision not be limited to a contact centre, that this would still not "address the difficulties" that are apparent in the relationship between the mother and X, as X requires stability without interruption, being a benefit of a no time order.
2. The difficulty with such a submission is that while there are obvious limitations to the benefits of long-term supervision such as the artificiality of such an environment, those limitations must be weighed against the benefit to X of maintaining a relationship with his mother. It is a matter I have regard to in the consideration of the orders that will be in the best interests of X.

The factors that support an order for supervised time

The maintenance of the relationship with his mother

1. There is no doubt X knows who his mother is and loves her. X would deeply feel the loss of the relationship if no time were ordered. The father acknowledged that the mother is a good communicator, that she encourages reading and literacy and that the sensitivity of his mother are positive attributes that are beneficial to X. There are a number of important positive benefits to X in spending time with his mother. There are risk factors for a child who loses a relationship entirely with a parent which can be avoided by the relationship being maintained.
2. In both Family Reports, Mr N identified and observed positive benefits that X derives from relationship with his mother. I give weight to these matters.

Supervision has been providing an opportunity for an ongoing relationship for X

1. Since supervision was ordered in July 2024, supervision with appropriate safeguards has enabled X to maintain a relationship with his mother in a safe environment. The environment has also provided supervisors to navigate X's dysregulation and the mother's responses to him.
2. The mother's recent evidence as to X's behavioural challenges and her management of those behaviours in the supervised setting, provides evidence the mother is developing strategies to assist X with the assistance of the B Family Services staff. B Family Services reported that the mother is developing "significant insight" in managing X's behaviour through the support she has received. This is another positive for X.
3. The mother's behaviour in her inappropriate dialogue with X, such as the escalation following X's report of being locked out all night, occurred in the context of unsupervised calls where both she and X do not have independent supports. This behaviour of negative discussion and reports about the father have not been occurring in a supervised setting.
4. The mother has been recording her supervised visits as a means of evidence gathering to accurately record what has been occurring. I agree that risks can flow from such conduct in terms of fuelling the mother's anxiety and her focus being on evidence gathering and highlighting negative comments about the father. As above, to mitigate this risk, I will order that the mother is restrained from recording the sessions. A copy of these orders are to be provided to the relevant supervising agency such that they are aware of the injunction.
5. Aside from the mother's conduct in recording the supervised visits, there is no evidence to suggest that X's time with the mother at the contact centre has not been positive.
6. X has not been exposed to the mother's view about X being sexually abused since supervision commenced, nor is there any evidence that he has been exposed to any further assessments, interviews or investigations. I accept that the risk remains if the mother makes further allegations that X could be exposed to investigations or interviews in the future. This will nevertheless be always mitigated by the presence of a supervisor.

1. I must decide the case on its merits by reference to the evidence which the parties elected to adduce. It is not possible to formulate orders to remedy the deficiencies in the evidence about the mother's psychological care and her insights into the risk to X arising from her beliefs which are unsupported on any evidence. The mother was on notice from the various interim determinations, of the increasing concerns of X's exposure to her belief systems.
2. The order that I make that the mother must provide her psychologist a copy of these reasons is designed to assist the mother in ensuring that X is prospectively protected from the risk of harm. It ensures the mother continues to work on her insights into the impact on X if she were to continue to express what appear to be firmly held beliefs as to the father being a risk, when there is no evidence of such risk.
3. The mother claimed to have ongoing support from her psychologist, Ms S. The absence of evidence of the nature of the treatment and support leaves a lacuna in understanding the mother's progress, but the records from Ms S provide evidence that the mother has engaged in professional supports over a period including in late 2024 and early 2025. The mother gave evidence she was currently being assessed by a psychiatrist who has completed the first of two parts of an assessment. This engagement gives some hope that the mother will reach out to available supports to assist her to positively manage her ongoing relationship with X. It is hoped her treatment providers will provide her with strategies to ensure the time she spends with X pursuant to these orders creates an opportunity for positive input into X's life.
4. I will order that the mother is to provide a copy of these reasons to her mental health professionals to assist the mother in addressing the identified issues of risk, especially the mother's belief that X may be at risk of harm of sexual abuse in the care of his father.

1. The Full Court in Bant & Clayton [2019] FamCAFC 198; (2019) FLC 93-924 considered the notion of long-term professional supervision and stated as follows:
   1. It is well accepted that an order requiring a child's time to be subject to indefinite supervision is undesirable even though it might be warranted, and courts are encouraged to consider crafting orders which might avoid permanent supervision (see Slater v Light [2013] FamCAFC 4; (2013) 48 Fam LR 573 at 583-584; Champness & Hanson [2009] FamCAFC 96; (2009) FLC 93-407 at [209], [215]; Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 at [119]; H & K [2001] FamCA 687 at [40]- [41]; B and B [1993] FamCA 143; (1993) FLC 92-357 at 79,780).
   2. Circumstances may however arise in which the only appropriate response to the identified risk is to make an order, in effect, for indefinite supervision of a child's time, if it is in the best interests of the child.
2. The risks to X of spending unsupervised time with the mother as set out in these reasons are too great, such that it would be in X's best interests for an order for indefinite supervision to be made.
3. The mother has been spending supervised time with X since the orders of July 2024. Until the complaint of July 2025 that she heard X making "sexual noises", supervision was positive for X with no evidence that X had been directly exposed to the mother's belief of risk or other identified risk factors.
4. There was no evidence that time when supervised has been problematic for X since it has commenced. X enjoys and derives benefit from the time he spends with his mother.
5. Time spent, albeit supervised, has the benefit of X maintaining his relationship with his mother thus having the benefit of knowing each of his parents. He is protected from the risk arising from the mother, because if she behaved in a way or said something that exposed X to her belief system that the father is a risk to X, the conversation would be redirected or the supervision terminated. That protection to the safety of X is the essence of the reason for supervision.
6. I infer that the presence of the supervisors, who also report that the mother has developed some insights is a protection from X being exposed to the mother's belief system about the father being a risk. That presence preserves X's relationship with his mother while protecting him from the harm of being exposed to her belief system.
7. In his oral evidence, Mr N opined that supervised contact is not working the way it is supposed to because the mother is attempting to diffuse the boundaries around the contact centre and uses communication with X to advance her narrative. This supports that unsupervised telephone communication should cease to prevent the mother from using that communication to advance her narrative. The restraint on the mother recording her supervised time will provide the protections that are necessary, ensuring that time is fruitful, and that the mother does not cross boundaries that may expose X to risk.
8. Further, in his oral evidence, when asked about the father's altered position seeking no time, Mr N was reluctant to say there should be no time. He opined that the risks to X in the mother's care may be greater than the loss of his practical relationship with the mother. He also opined that there would be risks to X if he had no relationship with his mother and that X would need considerable support if no time were to occur. He believed that the father would be able to manage this impact on X.
9. Mr N's evidence highlights that this is a finely balanced situation where there is risk to X in continuing to spend time with the mother and being exposed to the identified psychological risks but also risks to X from spending no time with his mother and dealing with the loss of his relationship with his mother.

1. This matter is finely balanced. It is a very significant matter for a child to lose a relationship with a parent. On balance, the benefit to X of maintaining his connection with his mother outweighs the risk of the exposure to the mother's belief system and her poor mental health.
2. The potential exposure to X of the mother's belief that the father is a risk to X given his age and his increasing maturity is a risk that I have carefully considered. However, on balance, the benefit to X in maintaining his relationship with his mother, in a safe, regulated and supervised environment, outweighs the risk to X from the complete loss of one of his parents.
3. The positive reports from B Family Services and the mother's evidence of her improvement in navigating X's behavioural issues provide a good foundation for confidence that the mother will use the supports available for X's benefit.
4. The fact that the mother is currently being assessed by a psychiatrist (who had undertaken one of two parts of a current assessment at the date of final trial) and has previously engaged regularly with her psychologist Ms S, gives some comfort that the mother will use the psychological supports to engage with the orders for time that have been ordered in a way that continues to keep X safe and protects him from the identified risks.
5. If the mother's behaviour in a supervised setting escalates and exposes X to any further risk, such that his safety is not ameliorated by supervision, this would be a basis to seek a change to the orders under s 65DAAA of the Act.

1. X will live with his father and will spend time with his mother professionally supervised in accordance with the current orders for time which have been in place over the past 15 months.
2. The time is to be supervised as it is necessary to ensure X's safety from the risks identified in these reasons.
3. The current supervised face-to-face time with his mother will continue as it is in X's best interest to maintain his relationship with his mother, but in an environment where he is protected from exposure to the mother's belief system that X is at risk in his father's care.
4. No one addressed me in relation to how frequently the mother should continue with supervised time.
5. X has been spending time with the mother once a week pursuant to orders that were made in July 2024.
6. There is no evidence upon which that should change. The evidence is that X appears to be reaping some benefit from the time spent with the mother and is already in a routine where he sees his mother in this way each week.
7. X is now at school and will have a typical busy life of a young child. The evidence is that he attends sports lessons and other extra-curricular activities. He will have the usual social engagements such as birthday parties and sporting commitments. It is important for X to continue to see his mother regularly, but it is also important that his other activities are balanced with the time that he will spend with his mother. The ICL raised in submission a concern about X possibly becoming bored with the same routine in the supervised setting.
8. X benefits from a stable routine particularly given his deregulation at times. The mother engages each week with X in activities where X benefits; as observed by his father, the mother is good at reading and helping X with his academics. They play games together. There was no evidence that the weekly time over the last year has not been of benefit to X. There is no basis reduce it.
9. In those circumstances and doing the best that I can on the evidence before the Court, I will order that X spends time with his mother once a week supervised and that the mother shall meet the costs of the supervision. It is appropriate that the mother meet these costs because the father will continue to meet the lion's share of all other expenses for X.
10. Further, the communication orders previously made will cease as the telephone communication cannot be supervised.
11. The father proposes orders that the mother be permitted to send cards and gifts. Such an order is in X's best interests as he has a warm relationship with his mother, and I accept he will benefit from the connection that gift-giving and cards can provide. It is appropriate that the father can monitor the communication and if any letter could expose X to the mother's view about the father being a risk, or is otherwise inappropriate, the father can elect not to pass the communication to X.

1. Both parties sought an order to hold sole decision-making responsibility. This is a case where there will be an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the parent with whom X lives, being his father for the reasons that follow.
2. The parties are unable to communicate, and the mother has no trust in the father. X has special needs and effective medical and psychological supports being provided in a timely way are essential for X. This can only occur by the father making the decisions. I accept the opinion of X's GP, Mr N, and Dr O that the father is well suited to make necessary decisions for X. Accordingly, I decline to make the orders sought by the mother about administration of medication and engagement with NDIS.
3. The father has held sole decision-making responsibility for the last year and has complied with that order in terms of keeping the mother informed of decisions. The orders he seeks in respect of decision making are in X's best interests.
4. I make orders in the terms sought by the father such that he will keep the mother informed of the decisions he makes.

1. I order that the mother is restrained from recording her supervised visits with X.
2. The ICL sought restraints on the mother's attendance at school and the father's home. There is no evidence that the mother has breached the terms of the ADVO or has contacted X outside of the ordered time since supervision has commenced. Accordingly, I decline to make those orders sought by the ICL.

1. The mother is permitted to provide the orders and these reasons to her treating medical and mental health professionals.
2. These orders shall also be provided to B Family Services and any other supervising agency prior to the first period of supervision occurring with that agency.

1. The father is permitted to travel with X. He should give the mother notice of his intention to travel interstate and overseas. X's supervised time with his mother will be suspended during such periods. This will ensure that X experiences all the benefits of travelling to new and different locations, particularly during school holidays, including to overseas destinations such as Country RR.

1. The parties' competing property applications are to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part VIII of the Act. The High Court considered the approach to be adopted in the determination of proceedings pursuant to s 79 of the Act in the decision of Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 ("Stanford").
2. Section 79(2) of the Act provides that a court should not make an order for property settlement unless it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so. I am of the view that it is just and equitable to make an order adjusting the property interests of the parties. The parties now live separately and no longer enjoy the common use of their property. As the parties competing property applications demonstrate, their financial interests currently remain entangled and contentious and both parties seek that there be an adjustive order, making an order altering their interests a necessity.
3. The preferred approach to be adopted in a financial adjustment case pursuant to s 79 of the Act is well established by authority applying the following the four-step process (see Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93‑143).
4. It is necessary to first identify the legal and equitable interests of the father and the mother, consider what (if any) liabilities each of them has, and consider any superannuation and financial resources in the names of the father, the mother, or either of them, at the date of the hearing.
5. It is necessary to then assess the contributions of the parties and determine a contributions-based entitlement having regard to relevant matters set out in s 79(4) of the Act. The assessment of contributions is usually approached in a holistic fashion. In this case, contributions were agreed to be equal.
6. The third step is to identify and consider relevant matters under s 75(2) of the Act to determine whether, and the extent of, any adjustment as is necessary to the contributions-based entitlement.
7. The final step requires the Court to consider the effect of the findings and determine whether in all of the circumstances the orders are just and equitable.

1. The parties filed a Joint Balance Sheet as set out below:

LEGAL EXPENSES MET AT FIRST INSTANCE BY THE [FATHER]

1. The balance sheet filed on 8 April 2025 by the father identified a number of areas of dispute, however the Joint Balance Sheet filed 14 April 2025 indicated those matters were no longer in dispute. It was unclear when the mother was making her final submissions as to whether the areas of dispute remained in contest however, she made a number of submissions indicating areas were in contest. Accordingly, I make findings in respect of matters that became disputed.
2. The areas of dispute identified in respect of determination of the assets and liabilities are as follows:

(a) The value of the mother's contents which she assets should be included at $2,000;

(b) The value of the mother's Motor Vehicle 1;

(c) The consideration of the loan to Ms L and its inclusion in the property pool;

(d) The treatment of legal disbursement expenses met at first instance by the father's and their inclusion in the property pool;

(e) The treatment of the father's outstanding fees to Feeney Family Law;

(f) The value of the joint shares the father sold and whether they should be "added back" and adjusted 70 per cent to the mother as sought by the mother or not taken into account at all, as sought by the father;

(g) The identification and treatment of the overseas property the mother alleges was purchased in 2015.

What is the value of the mother's home contents and furniture?

1. The father stated in the balance sheet that the value of the mother's home contents and furniture was $2,205. The mother contended that the value was $2,000.
2. The father relied on the single expert report prepared by Mr Q ("Mr Q") from WW Pty Ltd dated 19 April 2024. He opined that the mother's home contents, and furniture was valued at $2,205. Th evidence was not challenged. There was no evidence to support a finding that a value other than the opinion of the valuer should be accepted.
3. I accept the opinion of the single expert as set out in the valuation report of $2,205.

What is the value of the mother's Motor Vehicle 1?

1. The father contended that the value of the mother's Motor Vehicle 1 was $3,000. The mother contended the value was $400.
2. The WW Pty Ltd report prepared by the single expert Mr Q was relied upon by the father and was not challenged. He opined the value of the vehicle is $3,000. The evidence was not in contest nor was there any evidence that explained the significant claimed decrease in the value of the vehicle.
3. I include the value in accordance with the opinion of the single expert as set out in the valuation report of $3,000.

What is the value of the liability owing from the father to Ms L and should it be included in the property pool?

1. The father abandoned his claim that the liability of $60,000 to Ms L, his cousin, should be included as a liability of the parties. His evidence was that the liability was incurred to meet his legal costs. There is no basis for his legal costs to be borne also by the mother.

What is the value of the disbursement expenses met at the first instance by the father and should they be included in the property pool?

1. The father listed various expenses met in the first instance by him, for inclusion in the property pool as liabilities of the parties. The mother disputed that they should be included. These legal expenses are as follows:

(a) First Mediation - Ms UU - $1,925

(b) Second Mediation - Ms UU - $1,925

(c) Dr T Report - $7,160

(d) Mr N Report #1 - $3,850

(e) Mr N Report #2 - $4,125

(f) Real Property Valuations - $1,912

(g) WW Pty Ltd - $825

(h) Dr O Reports - $2,500

1. The father gave evidence that he has had to obtain loans to meet parts of his legal expenses in the proceedings, which include the loan to the Commonwealth Bank for $80,000 and the loan to his cousin, which has an outstanding $60,000 owing.
2. The father is seeking the mother reimburse him for a half share of the above expenses, which have been met solely by the father.
3. The expenses were necessary expenses for the litigation. They were paid for by the father in circumstance where the mother had no regular income. I do not propose to "add back" the expenses met by the father and apportion half of the cost already paid to the mother. I will take into account that the father has met the joint expenses of disbursements incurred in the litigation of $24,222 when I consider of the factors in s 75(2) of the Act.

What is the value of the father's outstanding fees to Feeney Family Law and should they be included in the pool?

1. The father owed outstanding legal expenses to Feeney Family Law in the amount of $31,671.69.
2. On 5 February 2025, Feeney Family Law were joined to the proceedings and on the first day of the final hearing, the father and intervenor reached agreement about the payment of the outstanding fees owing to Feeney Family Law. Consent orders were made by me on 14 April 2025, dismissing the outstanding applications made by the Intervenor, and noting the agreement between the intervenor and father for payment of the quantum of fees owing, and noting that the father had discharged the debt to Feeney Family Law.
3. As such the outstanding about owing to Feeney Family Law is nil and I do not include the father's paid legal costs in my determination of the assets and liabilities of the parties.

1. The father accepted that he had sold shares with a value of $173,818.81. The mother contended that the shares should be notionally added back into the pool as they had been prematurely disposed of. The mother sought that she receives 70 per cent of the share value.
2. The guiding principles which emerge from the decisions of Omacini & Omacini [2005] FamCAFC 104; (2005) FLC 93-218 ("Omacini"), Kowaliw and Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70; (1981) FLC 91-092, and Townsend & Townsend [1994] FamCA 144; (1995) FLC 92-569 identified the three categories of add backs being where the parties have expended money on legal fees, where there has been a premature distribution of matrimonial assets, and where there has been "waste." It is appropriate in cases that fall outside the exceptional, that justice and equity is otherwise achieved by taking other relevant factors into consideration under s 75(2) of the Act, as opined by the Full Court in Trevi & Trevi [2018] FamCAFC 173; (2018) FLC 93-858 ("Trevi").
3. Add backs are the exception rather than the rule, and an addback does not necessarily occur whenever a "party has expended money realised from the disposition of assets that existed as at the date of separation" (Omacini at [39]). The proposition that any money expended would be added back is "unduly simplistic".
4. The father contended that because there had been a Joint Balance Sheet that did not include the shares, they should not be considered. However, the mother had identified in her Case Outline that she sought consideration of the share portfolio, an asset she says the father had disposed of.
5. I do not accept the contention that it would be appropriate to disregard the shares used by the father to meet his legal expenses, particularly in circumstances where he continued to have an earning capacity and it is not in dispute that the mother's income was derived only from Centrelink benefits since separation.
6. The father's sworn evidence was that by 20 March 2024, he had sold all the ZZ shares and received a total of $173,818.81 for the sale of these shares. There was no evidence as to any taxation implications arising from the realisation of the shares.
7. The father agreed he used these funds to meet legal costs and expenses and to purchase a car for the mother's use. On 20 March 2024, orders were made by consent which provided for the father to pay $7,000 to the mother from the shares that had been sold. The father also gave evidence that he used his post separation income, including some rental income to meet expenses of the parties after separation such as the mortgage expenses on the property in which he lived and X's school and extracurricular expenses.
8. The parties shared in the sale proceeds of J Street after the mortgage arrears were paid. The circumstances of the arrears accumulating are unclear. The mother met the mortgage repayments of $3,000 per month on the property in which she was living after the sale of the J Street property.
9. The father's evidence as to the use made of the funds and his contributions from his income to other expenses was not the subject of any challenge when he was cross examined. I accept his evidence.
10. There needs to be a principled reason consistent with authority to add back an amount of money that no longer exists as notional assets should only be included in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the share sales proceeds were used for legal costs but also contributed to other expenses including the purchase of the mother's car and to make a cash payment to the mother of $7,000. Income and proceeds of sale from J Street were used for the benefit of both parties in payment of accommodation and educational expenses also after separation. In these circumstances, justice and equity is better able to be achieved by taking the share sales amount into consideration under s 75(2) and I will do so.

The overseas property purchased in 2015 not included in the balance sheet

1. The mother asserted in her Case Outline, but without evidence, that the parties purchased a property overseas that has not been included in the balance sheet. The father was not cross examined in relation to the allegation. The evidence relied on by the mother in support of the contention was that the father's lawyers forwarded communication to her on 24 June 2022 stating:

As your client is aware, our client's mother owns an apartment in [Country RR]. Our client's name currently on that title is only notional. As has always been expected, that apartment will be transferred into her sole name at some point in the future.

1. The father was not challenged about the contention that the property was in fact his mother's property.
2. There is no evidence upon which I can be satisfied or make any finding that any additional property is held by the parties. There is no evidence identifying the property nor any evidence as to the value of the property in Country RR. Accordingly, I do not include any sum or make any finding that the Country RR property is a financial resource of the father.
3. It follows that I determine the property pool is as follows:

1. The assessment of contributions in a property case calls for the exercise of discretion, and for an undertaking of a holistic consideration of the respective contributions of the parties. The Court is required to consider all of the contributions of the parties, as stated by the Full Court in Dickons v Dickons (2012) 50 Fam LR 244.
2. The Full Court in Horrigan & Horrigan [2020] FamCAFC 25 made clear that the proper approach to the assessment of contributions is not a mathematical exercise but involves the identification and assessment of all of the parties' contributions, in a holistic way.
3. It is also necessary to ensure that evaluation of all contributions to the property of the parties is undertaken so that consideration is made of the myriad of contributions that each of the parties has made during the course of and after the relationship as set out by the Full Court in Jabour & Jabour [2019] FamCAFC 78; (2019) FLC 93-898.
4. Thus, the many and varied contributions throughout the relationship of all types, are to be assessed in a holistic way in undertaking the task of assessment of the parties' contributions.
5. The father sought a contributions assessment of 55 per cent in his favour because he contends that his initial contributions, his financial contributions during the relationship, and his post‑separation contributions were greater than those of the mother and warranted an adjustment. The mother seeks no adjustment after an assessment of contributions.
6. The father gave evidence that prior to the parties commencing cohabitation, he owned a 50 per cent share of an apartment in City XX with his father, which was sold during 2009 before the father moved to Australia. He said that he received approximately $70,000 from this sale. He did not give evidence of the use made of the funds. He said that prior to moving to Australia, he had received payments of around $10,000 from his employment following his resignation.
7. Beyond this, the father stated that he and the mother had similar assets upon commencing cohabitation and neither had any assets of significant value.
8. The parties were married in 2009 and moved to Australia in late 2009. The father stated that whilst the parties were living in Melbourne from 2010 until 2014, he supported the mother financially whilst she was taking on volunteer work to gain experience.
9. The father says the mother has not been in paid employment since the beginning of 2020. The mother agreed that she is currently unemployed and had been the primary parent for X from the time of his birth. The father contended that he was also very involved in the homemaking duties and the care of X when he was at home.
10. Both parties contributed their incomes from time to time to the benefit of the family, and shared expenses throughout their relationship until separation. However, the father asserted that his financial contributions were far more significant than those of the mother.
11. During the relationship, the father was employed as a professional earning between $100,000 to $200,000 per annum.
12. The father's evidence was that he would maintain the home and would take on the majority of the household duties, whilst maintaining his full-time employment. This was not agreed by the mother.
13. The mother stated that the father was engaged in fly-in-fly-out ("FIFO") work, which meant that she took on the role of primary caretaker of X and often cared for X by herself when the father travelled for work. The father's uncontested evidence was that there were only two periods in which he was engaged in FIFO work, which was from 2016 to early 2019, and then the second period for around six to nine months in 2015. The father stated he was only engaged in FIFO work prior to the birth of X.
14. The mother contended that even when the father was home, he did not often assist with the childcare and would leave the mother alone to look after X even when she was sick and exhausted.
15. The father agreed that the mother was the primary caregiver for X, that she had taken an extended maternity leave to care for him, and that she has not been in paid employment since 2020. I find that the mother was the primary homemaker and parent during the relationship.
16. The mother remained X's primary carer from birth until 1 September 2023. From July 2024, the father has been the sole carer for X other than the supervised visits the mother now enjoys.
17. The mother contributed financially during the parties' relationship having been employed since shortly after the parties arrived in Australia. Her evidence that her income was used to save for and purchase the matrimonial properties was not in contest.
18. The mother gave evidence that throughout the parties' relationship, she paid for bills, groceries, X's childcare, rent and the mortgage for the Suburb D property.
19. I find that the father's income exceeded that of the mother during the course of the relationship. I also find, consistent with both parties' evidence, that during the course of the relationship the parties jointly utilised their income for the benefit of the family.
20. Since the parties separated in 2021, the father continued to meet the mortgage repayments for the G Street, Suburb F and J Street properties however he received the rental income from the Suburb F property from separation and the J Street property up until its sale.
21. In March 2022, the mother moved from the G Street property to the Suburb D property, and around that time the mortgage repayments associated with this property were paused. The mother made repayments from time to time towards the mortgage but when the J Street property was sold in mid-2024, $23,025.94 was applied towards the missed repayments in the mortgage. Since this time, the mother has been paying $3,000 each month towards the loan.
22. In March 2022, the father purchased Motor Vehicle 1 for $6,000 for the mother to use.
23. The parties sold the J Street property in mid-2024 for $730,000 of which they each received $113,151.10. The father applied this to his outstanding legal fees to his previous lawyers, towards the Family Report and the Psychiatric Report.
24. Prior to X living with him, the father was paying child support for X, as assessed, being a total of $28,071.10 in the period between 11 April 2022 and 1 August 2024. It was not contested that the father has paid all costs associated with X's attendance at EE Childcare Centre and his after-school activities. The mother currently pays the father the amount of $41.00 in child support a month, as assessed.
25. The father was made redundant from his position in late 2024 and received a redundancy payment of $44,926 which he stated has been applied in part to repay the loan to his cousin and to cover his living expenses. The father has since recommenced full time work at YY Company in Brisbane.
26. In adopting a holistic approach to the assessment of the parties' contributions, I have had regard to all the contributions, direct and indirect, financial and non-financial, referred to in the evidence of the parties. While there are some disputes in respect of who undertook more homemaker and parenting duties, I accept that both parties made contributions in this regard. I have had regard to the length of the parties' relationship and the various post separation contributions. I have considered the myriad of contributions made by both parties including the changed arrangements for the care of X since separation. I do not propose to assess each contribution in a piecemeal fashion as to do so risks failing to look holistically at the contributions each party made.
27. I am not satisfied that any adjustment is warranted after carefully considering all of the contributions of both of the parties.

1. The father contended that there should be an adjustment under s 75(2) of the Act in his favour and the mother sought an adjustment in her favour.
2. Since early 2025, the father has been working for YY Company as a professional, and is currently paid $150,874 per annum, with his probation period having ended in mid-2025.
3. The mother is currently unemployed and is in receipt of only Centrelink benefits. The mother has not been in employment since 2020 when she was made redundant. I recognise the mother has no current earning capacity and modest financial resources.
4. The evidence from Dr O and Mr N suggests that the mother has an anxiety condition and this has had an impact on her functioning, although, it is unclear on the evidence of the status of her mental health and the extent of her engagement with treaters. I am satisfied that the mother's mental health has impacted her functioning and warrants some adjustment in her favour.
5. This significant earning disparity between the parties is likely to continue. The father is a professional, has historically earned regular income commensurate with his training and is likely to continue to do so until he is of retirement age. This warrants an adjustment in favour of the mother.
6. I have taken into account that the father will retain the mortgage liabilities and will, pursuant to these orders, be required to pay to the mother an adjusting sum. I have also considered that the father must meet any legal costs that remain unpaid. He however sought to retain two properties in the orders he seeks, at least one of which will be an investment property and will likely derive income to offset the liability.
7. Pursuant to these orders, each of the parties will retain one real property where they can each reside if they so choose.
8. The mother gave evidence that she wishes to continue seeing a psychiatrist as recommended, and she needs the financial capacity to pay for her necessary supports. She also raised that there will be maintenance costs associated with the property she will retain. This applies to both parties, however, the father as referred to above, has a superior income earning capacity from which to meet such expenses.
9. The father will have the ongoing sole care and likely have the majority of the responsibility for the financial care of X. X is only six years of age, and this is a significant responsibility over the next 12 years, which warrants an adjustment in his favour.
10. As referred to earlier in these reasons, I have had regard to the fact that the father had the benefit of the use of a significant proportion of the sales proceeds of the shares, but he has also met joint disbursements in relation to the proceedings of $24,222 and met some other expenses of the mother.
11. After considering all the relevant factors, a modest adjustment in favour of the father of 5 per cent is warranted.

1. I have read all of the evidence relied upon but have not found it necessary to repeat all of it or all of the submissions in these reasons (Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447).
2. The father proposed and the mother accepted that she wished to retain the property at Suburb F which is unencumbered. Neither party sought an adjustment to superannuation given their ages.
3. The total assets are $2,515,815. The total superannuation is $274,900. The total liabilities are $1,049,022.
4. The total net property pool is $1,741,693.
5. The father sought to retain two real properties at Suburb D and G Street. The mother accepted she had no capacity to borrow and accordingly an order that she retain an unencumbered property in which she can live is appropriate.
6. The father will retain superannuation of $221,810. The mother will retain her superannuation of $53,090.
7. On balance, I find that the transfer of the unencumbered Suburb F property to the mother should be ordered to ensure a just and equitable outcome for the parties as the mother can reside in the property if she so elects or can sell it.
8. The mother will retain the following assets and liabilities:

1. The mother is to retain property of $575,205 and liabilities of $13,821 with her net total value of $614,474.
2. The father will retain the following assets and liabilities:

1. The father is to retain property of $1,940,610 and superannuation of $221,810 and liabilities of $1,035,201 with his net total value of $1,127,219.
2. Forty-five per cent of the net pool is $783,761.85. Fifty-five per cent of the net pool is $957,931.15.
3. The father is to pay to the mother the adjusting sum of $169,287.85 to give effect to the 45 per cent division as ordered and payment is to be made within 60 days, failing which interest will accrue at scale.
4. If the payment is not made within the 60 days, I will order the sale of the G Street property by public auction and for the mother to receive her payment plus interest from the sales proceeds.
5. That adjusting sum of $169,287.85 is a little over one year's annual salary of the father. I accept he will have a liability to meet if he elects not to sell the second property that he will retain under these orders, but this is a matter for him.
6. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the orders set out herein are just and equitable and I make orders accordingly.

1. Both parties sought costs orders against the other.
2. It is appropriate to order that any costs applications are to be filed within 28 days of the date of these orders.

I certify that the preceding four hundred and forty-nine (449) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Curran.