Pickford v Pickford

(a) the father be restrained from stalking the mother or X;

(b) the father be restrained from directly or indirectly threatening, harassing or abusing the mother or X;

(c) the father be restrained, either directly or by his agents, from contacting the mother or X including by any social media or form of electronic or other communication); and

(d) the father be restrained from posting or publishing on Facebook, YouTube or any other form of social media any content which:

(i) refers to these proceedings or the orders made in these proceedings; and

(ii) identifies the mother or X.

1. The father, within 24 hours of the date of these orders remove all videos of X from YouTube, Facebook and any other social media platform where he has published the same and delete the YouTube account titled "the Adventures of X".
2. The mother have leave to provide a copy of the reports of Dr B of November 2023 and 28 July 2025 to any medical health practitioner consulted by either she or X.
3. The mother have leave to provide a copy of these orders to any school in which X is enrolled.

1. The Court finds that the father, without reasonable excuse, contravened order 4 of the orders of this Court of 30 August 2024 on the following dates:

(i) Mid-December 2024 (two counts);

(ii) Late December 2024; and

(iii) March 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings in respect of the parties' one child namely X born in 2017 (aged 8 years).
2. Ms Dillon ("the mother") seeks orders whereby she have sole parental responsibility for decision-making in respect of major and long-term issues affecting X together with an order that X live with her. She argues for no time and no communication for X with Mr Tremayne ("the father").
3. The father argues that he and the mother have joint decision-making responsibility for X. He concedes that X live primarily with the mother. He asks for time with X as follows:

(a) for six visits on a supervised basis at the M Children's Contact Centre on days and times subject to availability at the Centre;

(b) then for a period of two months on each alternate weekend from 10.00am Saturday to 4.00pm Sunday;

(c) then on each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school on Friday to the commencement of school on Monday;

(d) by telephone or video call each Wednesday at 4:30pm;

(e) at such further or alternative times and communications as may be agreed between the parties from time to time;

(f) equal time during school holidays from the commencement of 2026; and

(g) various special days including Father's Day, X's birthday, and Christmas.

1. The mother seeks specific personal protection orders pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") including that the father be restrained:

(a) from stalking her or X;

(b) approaching or remaining within 100 metres of she or X;

(c) contacting the mother or X directly or indirectly; and

(d) posting or publishing any references to she or X on social media.

1. The Court had the very great benefit of an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") who supported the mother's application.

1. The father was born in 1989 and is 36 years of age. He is employed in manual labour. He has been in a relationship with Ms D for almost two years. They have a son, E, born in 2025. Ms D gave evidence and was cross-examined.
2. The father has two other children with a former partner, Ms F, being G born in 2022 (aged 3 years) and H born in 2024 (aged 1 year). The father and Ms F were in a relationship between 2021 and September 2023.
3. There is no evidence that the mother has currently re-partnered. She lives with X and her own mother, Mrs J, at Town K in Tasmania. Mrs J provided an affidavit and was cross-examined.
4. The parties commenced a relationship in 2015 when the mother was 17 or 18 years of age and the father was 23 or 24.
5. X was born in 2017.
6. The parties separated in April 2018 when a Police Family Violence Order was made against the father for the mother's protection. Throughout the duration of the relationship there were further Police Family Violence Orders taken to protect the mother in 2016 and 2017.
7. The mother commenced proceedings in these Courts in 2019. Final orders were made by consent on 11 July 2019 including orders inter alia for equal shared parental responsibility; for X to live with the mother; and substantial and significant time for X with the father.
8. In early 2020 the father began a relationship with Ms L.
9. In May 2020 the mother filed a further Initiating Application seeking parenting orders.
10. In October 2020 further final orders were made by consent varying the orders of 11 July 2019 by extending the father's time with X from four nights to six nights per fortnight.
11. In late 2020 notifications were made to Child Safety Service Referral Line regarding concerns about X.
12. In July 2021 the father and Ms L separated. The father was charged with assault and a Police Family Violence Order was put in place for the protection of Ms L.
13. On the same day in July 2021 the father was charged with breaching the Police Family Violence Order and remanded in custody until later that month when he was granted Supreme Court bail.
14. In May 2022 a further Family Violence Order for a period of 18 months was made against the father for the mother's protection.
15. In late 2022 a four week Assessment Order was made in the Magistrates Court in respect of X and on an application by the State Child Safety Department.
16. Two days later the father's then partner, Ms F, made a Statutory Declaration detailing extensive family violence perpetrated by the father during their relationship.
17. In late 2022 a twelve-month Care and Protection Order was made in the State Magistrates Court on the application of the Department of Child Safety.
18. In 2023 X began receiving assistance from a Trauma Therapist.
19. In mid-2023 the father was sentenced in the Magistrates Court on criminal charges and received a three month sentence of imprisonment, suspended for two years.
20. In late 2023 a six month Family Violence Order was made in the Magistrates Court for the protection of the mother.
21. In 2024 X was diagnosed with autism and possible ADHD.
22. On 28 May 2024 Child Safety Services commenced these proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
23. On 30 August 2024 interim parenting orders were made by a Registrar in this Court reserving X's time with the father and making personal protection orders in favour of the mother and X.
24. In late 2024 the Care and Protection Order was revoked in the Magistrates Court.
25. On 26 November 2024 orders were made listing the matter for final hearing in 2025.
26. In mid-December 2024 the mother alleged that the father breached the Personal Protection Order on two counts.
27. In late December 2024 the mother alleged that the father breached the Personal Protection Order.
28. In March 2025 the mother alleged that the father breached the Personal Protection Order.
29. On 16 April 2025 the mother filed a Contravention Application in respect of the father's alleged breaches of the Personal Protection Order.
30. On 16 May 2025 a Notice of Discontinuance was filed by Child Safety Services in respect of the Family Law proceedings. The matter was listed for the trial to commence 6 June 2025 with the mother as designated applicant.
31. In July 2025 the father allegedly breached the interim orders by directly contacting the mother by text message and offering her $10,000 to discontinue the proceedings.

1. The mother has brought a Contravention Application filed 24 April 2025 alleging four counts of breach of orders by the father to have occurred in mid-December 2024 at 9:10am; on the same day in December 2024 at 9:45am; in late December 2024 at 11:07am; and in March 2025. The particulars allege direct contact and harassment of the mother and X by the father on social media.
2. The mother alleges that in mid-December 2024 the father made posts on his Facebook page, on two occasions, criticising the mother for not allowing him to give X Christmas presents and claiming that she had damaged X's childhood.
3. The mother alleges that in late December 2024 the father again posted on his Facebook story exposing details of Court arrangements in this matter and indirectly addressing X by saying "you deserve to be living with me" and "I'd never stop you doing what you want in life".
4. In March 2025 the father posted a video on YouTube directly naming and speaking to X and wishing him well. The video either expressly or impliedly stated that the father has done nothing wrong and that the mother is denying X a relationship with the father. This video remained open on YouTube until I made an order during the course of the trial to have it removed. In cross-examination the father admitted that he had a purpose of X seeing the video and that if X himself did not see the video then the father expected X's eight year old school friends to have viewed the video and inform X accordingly.
5. The father was requested by the mother's solicitors on 11 March 2025 to take down the YouTube video. He did not accede to that request.
6. The mother alleges that the father has frequently placed social media messages that both criticise the mother and potentially expose X as the subject of Family Court proceedings. The father's alleged behaviour has continued until just before the commencement of the trial in this matter.
7. The mother asks for her contravention application be dealt with and to be agitated as a part of the evidence in this trial. Culpability was conceded by counsel for father. No submissions were made as to penalty, but the Court retains its discretion as to penalty on what amounted to pleas of guilty to the particulars in the mother's application.

1. Part VII of the Act sets out the provisions in respect of parenting and where s 60CA mandates that the Court is to have the child's best interests as its paramount consideration when making parenting orders. The Court determines those best interests by referencing the probative evidence and the parties' proposals to the considerations set out at s 60CC of the Act with an emphasis now on what arrangements would best promote the safety of the child and persons who have care of the child.
2. The Courts is to take into account the child's views, if any, as to living and parenting arrangements, but within the context of the maturity and rationality of those views.
3. The Court is to consider the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child and importantly, the Court must consider the capacity of each of the parents to provide for those needs.
4. Section 60CC(2) specifically mandates the Court to take into consideration any history of family violence involving the child or person caring for the child and any family violence orders.
5. Section 61B defines "parental responsibility" as meaning all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children. Subject to any orders made by the Court, each parent has parental responsibility pursuant to s 61C.
6. Relevantly, s 61CA provides in respect of necessary consultation between parents on major long-term decisions and issues with children:

If it is safe to do so, and subject to any Court orders, the parents of a child who is not yet 18 are encouraged:

(a) to consult each other about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and

(b) in doing so, to have regard to the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

(i) If a parenting order provides for joint decision-making by persons in relation to all or specified major long-term issues in relation to a child, then, except to the extent the order otherwise specifies, the Court is taken to require each of the persons:

(a) to consult each other person in relation to each such decision; and

(b) to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

1. At its most abstract, the task of the Court here is to balance and determine the best interests of X as against the twin pillars of, firstly, orders which attend to the physical, emotional and psychological safety of both X and the mother, as against the consideration at s 60CC(2)(e) being the benefit to X of being able to have a relationship with both his parents.
2. There are issues of disputed fact and credit between the parents and in particular as to the extent of the father's actual propensity for family violence of various types where the father effectively denies the mother's serious allegations.
3. There are some issues as to the wishes or views of X albeit as an 8 year old who has not seen his father for nearly three years.
4. There is an issue as to the capacity of the mother to care for X if orders require X to spend time with the father and the mother to continue some co-parenting relationship with the father and with reference to the psychological and emotional welfare of the mother.
5. Where the father seeks an order for joint parental responsibility for decision-making for X, issues of coercive and controlling historical and potential family violence are to the fore in respect of the father towards the mother and other female partners.
6. There is a collateral issue of the benefit for X in having contact with his three siblings where two live with the father's former partner Ms F and an infant son with his current partner, Ms D.
7. On the mother's application for no time, there are considerations as to the likely impact on X and the psychological/emotional results as he traverses adolescence and adulthood together with a consideration of whether X might come to resent the mother for arguing against such a relationship and in turn impact on the mother-child relationship.

1. The father was a perplexing witness. He was superficially confident in the witness box but profoundly lacking insight into any impact of his behaviour, if proven, on both X and the mother.
2. Any admissions by the father as to improper conduct were reluctant and conditional, such as sending the mother a five page text message contrary to an interim injunctive order, or, perhaps even more concerning, producing a YouTube video directed at X where the father would have an understanding and expectation that X might view the video and with unambiguous messages to X from the father that he had "done nothing wrong" and that it was the mother who was preventing contact between X and the father. The father's lack of insight was compounded by his statement from the witness box, apparently oblivious to probable results, that if X did not immediately view the YouTube video then he hoped that X's school friends (8 year olds) would do so and inform X that his father had messaged him by YouTube. That the father should make these two communications blatantly contrary to Court orders and approaching a trial on this issue causes concerns as to his cognitive abilities and where again he demonstrates no apparent understanding of the likely impact of such communications on X and the mother.
3. Whilst I did not detect malevolence or sociopathic tendencies in the father, his sense of entitlement, self-interest, and attempts at justification were notable and serve only to give corroboration to the mother's case that the father is a consistent perpetrator of controlling and coercive violence.
4. That the father should give his evidence in this form of self-justification when armed with the report of the Court Child Expert, Dr B, the mother's affidavit, and the Case Summary of the ICL only adds to concerns about this man's sense of entitlement and lack of insight. Certainly, his evidence showed no hint of remorse, regret, apology or acknowledgement.
5. The father's trial affidavit of 14 July 2025 is replete with denials of family violence. After being tested in cross-examination, I am not persuaded by his denials. Any admissions against interest were tempered by either deflection of blame to the mother or other partners or attempts at justification such as "I have ADHD" or "I was frustrated".
6. The father was not a good witness. I did not see him always as a witness of the truth.

1. The mother relied on her affidavit of 7 July 2025. She gives a comprehensive history of the relationship with the father and particularises violence from the father of physical, emotional, sexual, and coercive/controlling types.
2. I observed the mother as intelligent, articulate and with a strength of character albeit with clear indications of being downtrodden and exhausted in her historical and continuing dealings with the father.
3. The mother gave her evidence in a frank, informed and thoughtful manner. The mother was child focused in her responses. I detected no agenda in her or mala fides in her application to obtain orders ceasing contact between X and the father. To the contrary, I understood the mother to be generally supportive of a beneficial relationship for a child with a parent but where the father's continued behaviour has caused her to emphasise the safety issues for her son. Notably, in this respect, the mother has previously on two occasions entered into consent orders which provided for both equal shared parental responsibility (as it then was) and substantial and significant time for X with the father. The mother was able to articulate in some detail why, with a focus on X, she has come to the position she now argues.
4. I found the mother to be an honest and candid witness albeit one at her wits end.

1. Ms F is a former partner of the father. She is the mother of his two children, G (aged 2 years) and H (1 year). Ms F and the father were in a relationship between 2021 and September 2023. In her affidavit, Ms F is positive and complimentary in respect of the father and his parenting of X and their two children.
2. At [16] of her affidavit Ms F references a complaint she made to Tasmania Police and the issuing of a Police Family Violence Order against the father at around the time of her separation from the father. She resiles in her affidavit from the need to obtain such Family Violence Order in 2023 and mitigates her position by saying that she was "pregnant, emotional and quite vulnerable".
3. In cross-examination Ms F was confronted with her Statutory Declaration that she made in September 2023 and in support of her complaint to Tasmania Police and the obtaining of the Police Family Violence Order. She was taken through that document in detail and reminded of the affirmation under which she gave her evidence. Her evidence quickly became confused, contradictory and unsatisfactory. Ms F, in fact, confirmed many of the complaints that she made against the father of various types of family violence in the Statutory Declaration of 2023.
4. It was put to the witness that she in fact came to Court and provided her affidavit under some coercion from the father. Although she denied this to be the case, her denials were unpersuasive. She conceded that the father pays no assessed child support for their two children but that he pays money to her upon her piecemeal requests. The evidence suggests further that the father might exercise time with his two young children in accordance with his wishes and other commitments. There is a significant age difference between the father and Ms F. The Court was left with the impression that she was and continues to be a victim of his coercion and control.

1. Ms D provided an affidavit of 14 July 2025. She is the current partner of the father and the mother of their infant son. Her evidence was complimentary of the father. She denied being the victim of coercion and control. Her evidence was otherwise unremarkable but must be seen within the context of her continuing relationship with the father. There is a significant age difference between the father and Ms D.

1. Mrs J is the maternal grandmother. She provided an affidavit for the mother affirmed 14 July 2025. She gave evidence and was cross-examined. Mrs J was candid and forthright in her evidence. She freely admitted that she does not like the father and was not supportive of her daughter's relationship with him. Both her affidavit in Court and her evidence in the witness box supported the evidence of the mother of a power imbalance in the relationship between the father and the mother.

1. Dr B is a psychologist and was the appointed Court Child Expert in this matter. Dr B completed an assessment and report dated 25 July 2025. She had prepared a previous assessment and report dated November 2023 for the purposes of the State Court Child Protection proceedings.
2. Dr B gave evidence and was extensively cross-examined. She is not supportive of a continuing relationship between the father and X and views the father as an unacceptable risk to the emotional and psychological health of both X and the mother.
3. The mother was interviewed and asked as to her views of risk to X. She responded at [50] of the report as follows:

She (the mother) said absolutely [the father] poses a risk to [X]. She said the videos he posted confirms all the concerns of manipulation, brainwashing, and coercive control. She said [the father] says it is all mum's fault, and she took him away from his dad. She said this is what she is concerned about in a big way. She said she is not concerned about physical abuse but is concerned about exposure to family violence. She said there have been four women with Family Violence Orders (FVO's) on [the father] describing him as a prolific family violence offender.

1. At [58] the mother is reported as indicating that she is experiencing "an elevated level of anxiety and tension".
2. At [62] Dr B describes the mother's interpersonal style as best characterised as generally submissive and conforming. She sees her as likely having difficulty asserting herself or effectively displaying anger in relationships.
3. Psychometric testing by Dr B indicated that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a diagnostic consideration warranting further investigation.
4. Dr B interviewed the father. He advised that he has had no contact with X for nearly three years and that he understood Child Safety Services to be now content with him and his behaviour noting that there have been no recent Family Violence Orders against him and that he has completed a number of courses or programs.
5. The father confirmed his own diagnosis of ADHD but considered his emotional regulation and anger to be managed.
6. At [87] the father volunteers his understanding of the parenting relationship as follows:

[The father] was asked about the benefits to [X] of them having a relationship. He said he offers [X] a father in his life. He said a mother and father are both different. A mother is more comfort whereas the father is about going out and experiencing things such as camping, fishing and the zoo. He said with him [X] can experience being with family and siblings. He said he can also offer [X's] time with [the mother's] father's side of the family.

1. Relevantly, to the denials in his affidavit, at [96] the was asked if he believed that he had perpetrated family violence. His response was:

... yes definitely but not in the way [the mother] has said. He said that he has raised his voice and there has been verbal abuse. He said he wouldn't hurt his partners, however.

1. [The father] was asked if he has ever been physically aggressive or abusive to any partner. He said he has grabbed [Ms F], but he hasn't just walked up and scruffed her. He said he broke her bong, she scratched him in the face and lip so he scruffed her and put her to the ground. He said he didn't choke her out or anything. He said it was in a defensive manner and not attacking.

1. At [100] the father was asked specifically about X's disclosures and reports of his exposure to family violence whilst in the father's care. The father responded:

...He said this was related to reports of violence between himself and [Ms L] and is the biggest issue. He said a mutual friend of his and [the mother's] had said that [the mother] is telling [X] to say things. He said [the mother] is telling him to say dad is a bad person who hurts his partners. He said [X] has never witnessed this and it is untrue.

1. The father was asked about whether he believes he has displayed controlling behaviours during relationships. He responded thus:
   1. ... He said he can be taken as a little controlling and a couple of ex-partners have said he is controlling. [The father] said this is because he doesn't appreciate them wearing skintight leggings where you can see the colour of their underwear. [The father] said they are free to wear what they want to wear but he won't be in a relationship with them. [The father] said he is all for nice clothing but revealing he is not for that. [The father] was asked if he believes he could be viewed as controlling in any other way to which he said maybe smoking. He said he is against smoking and doesn't like it. He said he won't be with partners if they smoke. [The father] denied displaying any financially controlling behaviour.
   2. [The father] was asked if he was controlling of partners' socialisation and other relationships to which he said not really. He then said yes and no. He said he won't tolerate them hanging out with drug addicts or bogans. He said it (sic) mostly a trust thing and these guys will try and take advantage of girls. He said he may be jealous of partners' guy friends. [The father] said if a partner was partying with some bloke, he wouldn't tolerate that or do that to them either. He said that is fair and he is not being unreasonable.
2. Where [the father] had, on the evidence, denied or not accepted X's diagnosis of autism and ADHD prior to some concessions in the witness box, he was asked as to these conditions by Dr B and said:
   1. [The father] said [the mother] is trying to say [X] has autism but, in the lawyer's reports it said they were monitoring it. [The father] said [X] had no signs of autism. [The father] said he watches lots of RFK Jr and he thinks the vaccines are causing autism. He said it is not something that can be diagnosed by blood test and it is someone's opinion. [The father] said he would like another report with someone else. He said the past three years have been a massive trauma and [X] was doing everything like the zoo, camping, and fishing to having had everything taken. He said he is now stuck in the house with an iPad given to him. He said [the mother] and her mother like their own time and a break and chuck [X] on his iPad.
   2. [The father] was asked about his view on [X's] diagnosis of ADHD. He said when he saw [X] last, he was active and happy and like every kid. He was very young and has gone through a lot of trauma from not only family violence but from not having contact with his dad. He said [X] has been put around certain people. He said there was a video of [X] on a bogan's lap with a vape right up near his face. He said [X] was also going to a house and playing with a girl the same age. He said there were YouTube videos and [X], and the girls were playing with knives on the YouTube channel.
3. Significantly, in cross-examination the father made some concessions as to X's diagnoses. The evidence suggests that he had not previously made such concessions. When asked how he would look at the treatment for X's diagnosis of autism and ADHD, the father said that he would enrol him in martial art.
4. The father was subject to psychometric assessment. Dr B reports that the father may not have answered questions in a completely forthright manner. She reports that he tends to present himself in a consistently favourable light and "as being relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit". She says that he is reluctant to acknowledge personal limitations, and this is likely to lead him to minimise or perhaps even be unaware of problems or other areas where functioning might be less than optimal.
5. Dr B interviewed X. She describes him as a friendly child who engaged well and that they easily established a rapport.
6. At [138]and following Dr B reports on X's views as to his father as follows:
   1. [X] was asked about his dad. He said he doesn't get to see many more and he was "very unnice". He said dad is the meanest in his family and the weirdest and the stupidest. [X] was asked why dad is these things to which he said, "because he does unnice things". When asked what kind of things he said he doesn't want to say. After a moment [X] said his dad has not been nice to girls. [X] said his dad does really love him though and is kind to him. He said mum and dad have both said he loves him.
   2. [X] said he has sometimes received letters from his dad and that's cool and he likes it. He said his dad gave him one not that long ago, but he forgot what it said. [X] was asked about receiving video messages from his dad to which he said he would not really want that. [X] was asked about video calls or phone calls to which he said no.
   3. [X] said he would want to see his dad on a weekend but only sometimes. He said this would be at least on two weekends. He said then he could decide if he wanted to keep going. He said he wants to see dad so he can see his cousins. He said he wants his dad to play with him and see his cousins. He said he doesn't want his dad to be with any girls when he is there. [X] said he would like his mum to come when he goes, and he only wants to see dad if mum comes too. He said he doesn't want to see his dad on school days as once he said to him why do you go to school you don't need to.
7. In cross-examination, Dr B places some significant weight on X's volunteered comments that he did not want females to be present when he saw his dad as being an indication of X having been exposed to his father's violence of various types to his former partners. Dr B placed similar significance on X wanting his mum to accompany him to his time with dad.
8. In her conclusions, at [145] Dr B opines that the mother presents with some stabilisation of her mental health since the previous assessment but continues:

Given [the mother's] past experiences and complex trauma history, the proceedings and related events pose a risk of triggering an escalation in post-traumatic stress symptoms. Currently, [the mother's] trauma symptomatology is low with no reports of nightmares or flashbacks.

1. Nevertheless, at [153] and in respect of any risks of re-traumatisation for the mother, Dr B says:

Although [the mother's] experience of Post-traumatic Stress symptoms has decreased since the previous assessment, she continues to experience distress particularly because of the current proceedings. For victims of family violence, being required to have contact with a male perpetrator including in settings such as Family Court or shared parenting arrangements can lead to significant psychological, emotional, and physical risks. The risks and effects of re-traumatisation for victims of family violence include: psychological and emotional harm (e.g. re-experiencing the trauma through flashbacks, nightmares, and/or intrusive thoughts, elevated anxiety, and re-triggering of post-traumatic stress syndromes) and a reduced sense of safety negatively affecting recovery. Contact with [the father] increases the risk of [the mother] being exposed to further coercive control (including using a child to relay information or gather information) which further increases the risk of re-traumatisation.

1. At [156] Dr B concludes in respect of the father that he presented with "poor reflective capacity and a limited self-awareness and insight into his own behaviours and functioning and the effect of this on others".
2. Dr B opined that the father externalises and places much of the blame on ex-partners and on matters such as a previous injury and his ADHD. Dr B is of the view that this is not an adequate explanation for the father's past behaviours and presentation.
3. Relevantly, at [158] Dr B says:

[The father's] emotional regulation and anger management has had a profound and negative effect on his intimate relationships. [X's] past exposure to these has cause (sic) significant trauma and distress. The best predictor of past behaviour is current behaviour.... (In the witness box [Dr B] corrected herself by saying "the best predictor of current and future behaviour is past behaviour").

1. Dr B says that without any shift and change in insight and self-awareness and with a continued low reflective capacity, the risk of further emotional dysregulation and abusive behaviours in relationships remains high for the father. Further, she notes that he takes little personal responsibility and shows low levels of motivation for any change in his behaviour.
2. Specifically in respect of the risk of harm to X, Dr B says [159]:

The risk of harm to [X] in [the father's] care remains high given the factors discussed above. While I do not believe [X] is at risk of physical harm from [the father], there is a risk of indirect physical harm if exposed to family violence. Given [the father's] understanding of his own behaviour and functioning, the risk of emotional and psychological harm to [X] remains high also. The YouTube videos posted by [the father] raise significant concerns about potential coercive control and exposure to negative and derogative views of [the mother]. There is a risk that if [the father] has any form of unsupervised access with [X] that he will be exposed to these narratives and views which have the potential to cause him confusion as well as significant psychological distress. There is also a risk of disruption to the mother-child relationship if exposed to these views which is currently [X's] most secure attachment relationship.

1. Dr B notes that the father continues to minimise his behaviour and the effects on others of that behaviour as well as deflecting blame. My observations of the father in the witness box were similar to those of Dr B.
2. When asked as to whether she could find any confidence in the father gaining insight into his own behaviour and the impact of his behaviour on others, Dr B was pessimistic. She said bluntly that she had no confidence that the father would change given the time that had elapsed since her first report and his prominent breach of Court Orders in the past couple of months by direct contact with the mother and X.
3. In summary, Dr B was of the view that the father was a perpetrator of family violence with an emphasis on his coercive and controlling behaviour and as indicated in the affidavits of the mother, the maternal grandmother, and perhaps Ms F.
4. In cross-examination Dr B was asked about the balancing process for the Court in taking into account the likely negative impact for X of being denied a relationship with one of his parents. She acknowledged that this is a consideration and a likely impact for X. She also acknowledged that X is likely to become more curious about his father and may well come to resent the mother for the denial of a relationship with the father. Nevertheless, in the balancing process, Dr B was of the view that these safety issues for X and the mother outweigh the benefits of X in having a relationship with the father.

1. I find that the father is a perpetrator of family violence. The victims have been his various female partners. Whilst there are instances of physical violence, the concern for the Court is the father's history of and propensity for exerting coercive and controlling violence. It is now understood that such behaviour is no less culpable in a perpetrator and no less impacting on the victim than physical violence. I am of the view that the father continues to display an attitude of dominance and control within his relationships. He does not pay child support to the mothers of his various children whilst delegating primary care to them. Rather, he deals out money on request. He seeks time with the children but not responsibility. He is personally demeaning of his female partners and exerts social and personal control including as to their choice of clothing.
2. I find that the father is oblivious to the impact on the various victims of his coercive and controlling violence. Rather, he tends towards self-justification or deflecting of blame to those victims. His evidence in Court was frequently justified by "I am frustrated" and "I have ADHD". I share Dr B's opinion that the father's diagnosis does not give him justification for his controlling behaviour.
3. Disturbingly, the father continues to show no insight into the impact on others of his behaviour. Equally disturbing, is that the behaviour continues despite being prohibited by injunctive Court Orders. Again, the father seemed oblivious to the rationale for Courts making protective injunctive orders. The father claims to have completed a number of commonly ordered courses which might be expected to have given him insight. Nevertheless, he continues to deny, fail to acknowledge, justify, and deflect.
4. On seeing and hearing the father give evidence, I cannot find that he acts out of malevolence. Rather, his intent appears to be simply one of recklessness. As such, I find that this is sufficient intent to make the coercive and controlling violence both objective and subjective in respect of the impact on the victims as exposed in the mother's evidence both in her affidavit and in Court.[1]
5. I accept the evidence of Dr B that there is an impact, psychologically and emotionally, on both X and the mother and that the risk to both is manifested by the father's behaviour and prima facie sits as an unacceptable risk given the mental health and diagnostic histories of both X and the mother.
6. The question for the Court, therefore, is whether orders can be structured and conditions imposed which would mitigate the unacceptable risk into an "acceptable risk"?
7. I have considered whether such risk can be mitigated by carefully structured court orders including clear and unambiguous injunctive orders. The difficulty for the Court is that there are extant clear and unambiguous injunctive orders. Nevertheless, and close to this trial, the father has blatantly breached those orders on two separate occasions by contacting the mother by text message and X by YouTube video. Of greatest concern, is the father's apparent lack of remorse or regret in this respect. Rather, he made attempts at self-justification all of which were unpersuasive but demonstrated some cognitive inability in the father to accept metes and bounds even if provided in Court Order. On the evidence, therefore, and where no remorse or insight is forthcoming, I cannot be confident that the father would adhere to Court orders in the future providing conditions on his contact with X and/or the mother.
8. I have considered whether I could make an order for limited time for X with the father as for example for a few hours on each fortnightly weekend. On reflection, however, the father's lack of insight into his behaviour is so profound that I could not be confident that he would desist from denigration of the mother or involvement of X in these family law matters. Again, with limited opportunity and despite injunctive orders, the father has entered into both criticism of the mother and involvement of X over recent months.
9. I have considered whether an order such as "such time and on such conditions as agreed between the parents" would effectively give the mother the right of veto but allow the prospect of some time in the hope that the father might gain insight through the confrontations of this trial and also by achieving some degree of maturity. Again, on reflection, I am fearful that this would be understood by the father as a licence to continue to make inappropriate approaches to the mother either directly or through his agents.
10. Any consideration I have must be within the context of Dr B's professional views that both X and the mother have potential for re-traumatisation if subjected to repeats of the father's behaviour.
11. Whilst I saw the mother in the witness box to be the person of some strength of character, I accept the evidence of Dr B that this is perhaps superficial given her diagnoses and history of being a victim of the family violence not at least at the hands of the father. I accept that the relationship between the mother and the father was one of power imbalance and her understanding of that relationship continues. I take into account the evidence as to X's diagnoses and the vulnerabilities in the child that result.
12. In conclusion, and where Courts are historically reluctant to cease a relationship between a child and a parent and do so as only a last resort, I find myself unable to find viable options which will mitigate what I find to be an unacceptable risk to both X and the mother of there being a contact relationship between the father and X whether that be direct time-with or by communication. As such, there will be an order that time and communication between the father and X be reserved.
13. It follows necessarily that the mother should have an order for sole parental-responsibility for important decision-making for X. She has historically been overridden by the father's dominance, control and coercion. She has suffered psychologically and emotionally. Dr B suggests that any contact between the parents brings risk of re-traumatisation for the mother. There is, therefore, no opportunity for consultation as required by the Act. Where the mother is the delegated primary parent for X, she should have sole parental responsibility for decision-making.
14. During final submissions, counsel for the father conceded that the particulars of the breaches in the contravention application filed by the mother. I can, therefore, take those as pleas of guilty and proceed to conviction accordingly on the four counts alleged. No submissions were made as to penalty. Where a conviction will be recorded, I do not impose any other penalty. The father should be aware, however, that any further breaches of Family Court Orders will inevitably result in penalties of some severity given that this will now operate as a prior conviction.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixteen (116) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McGuire.

[1] Pickford v Pickford (2024) FLC 94-230; [2024] FedCFamC1A 249.