Pinney & Pinney (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 934 (19 December 2025)

(a) The Mother will authorise any school at which the children are enrolled to communicate with the Father as they would with a parent with parental responsibility for the children;

(b) Should a major long-term decision need to be made, the Mother will advise the Father in writing of the decision to be made;

(c) The Father will have 48 hours to respond and provide his view about the decision to be made;

(d) The Mother will take into consideration the Father's view prior to making the decision;

(e) The Mother will advise the Father in writing of the decision once made.

1. The children will live with the Mother.
2. The children will spend time with the Father subject to Order 5 below each Saturday from 9.00 am to 7.30 pm, provided that, upon provision to the Father of at least four weeks' notice in writing:

(a) The Mother may suspend the children's time with the Father on three non-consecutive occasions a year during school terms, with such weekends not to include the Father's Day weekend, nor a weekend upon which any of the children's or the Father's birthday falls; and

(b) The Mother may suspend the children's time on one weekend in each school term holiday and two consecutive or non-consecutive weekends during the long school holiday for the purposes of her having a holiday with the children.

1. The children's time with the Father pursuant to Order 4 will commence upon the Father providing a clear hair follicle test result for illicit substances and for alcohol not in excess of "moderate consumption" to the Mother where such testing has been carried out in accordance with Order 12 below ("the initial testing").
2. In order for the Father's time to progress beyond the time provided for in Order 4, the Father shall provide to the Mother four consecutive hair follicle test results in addition to the initial testing, carried out at approximately three-month intervals and covering a period of 12 months which are clear for illicit substances and for alcohol not in excess of "moderate consumption" and in accordance with Order 12 below.
3. Upon the Father's compliance with Order 6, the children shall have time with the Father as agreed between the parents in writing and, failing agreement, as follows:

(a) During school term time each alternate weekend from Friday after school or 3.00 pm until Monday at school or 9.00 am; and

(b) During the term school holiday periods from after school or 3.00 pm on the last day that Z is required to attend school for seven nights with changeover to occur at 4.30 pm; and

(c) During the long school holiday periods for 14 nights commencing on 26 December in odd numbered years and for 14 nights commencing on 12 January in even numbered years with changeover to occur at 4.30 pm.

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these orders, following the commencement of time pursuant to Order 4 and thereafter, the children shall spend the following special occasion time with each parent:

(a) With the Mother on Mother's Day and the Father's time is suspended on that weekend;

(b) With the Father on Father's Day from 10.00 am to 4.30 pm, or for the weekend from after school Friday until at school on Monday if his time pursuant to Order 7 above has commenced;

(c) With the Father from 9.45 am to 1.00 pm on Christmas Day 2026 and each alternate year thereafter;

(d) In 2026 and each even numbered year thereafter, with the Mother from 1.00 pm on Christmas Day until either:

(i) if the children are spending time with the Father pursuant to Order 7, the commencement of the children's holiday time with the Father on 12 January pursuant to these orders;

(ii) if the children are spending time with the Father pursuant to Order 4, then until the next occasion on which the children are spending time with the Father pursuant to that order.

(e) In 2027 and each odd numbered year thereafter, with the Mother until 1.00 pm on Christmas Day and with the Father from 1.00 pm until 7.30 pm on Christmas Day, or, if the Father is spending time pursuant to Order 7, until the end of his holiday time with the children commencing on 26 December.

(f) With the parent who does not have care of the children pursuant to these orders on the morning of each child's birthday, on each child's birthday from after school or 3.00 pm to 7.00 pm.

1. The parents will facilitate the children communicating with the other parent at all reasonable times and in accordance with their wishes.
2. Where changeover does not occur at school, then changeover shall occur on all other occasions by way of the Father collecting the children from the Mother's place of residence at the commencement of the children's time with the Father and the Mother collecting the children from the Father's place of residence at the conclusion of their time with the Father and with changeover to be facilitated as follows:

(a) Neither parent will enter upon the property of the other parent's residence;

(b) The parents will not approach each other at changeover unless this is required to ensure the physical safety of a child.

(a) Consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to the children coming into his care and at any time the children are in his care pursuant to these orders;

(b) Consuming any illicit substance;

(c) Leaving the children unsupervised at any time the children are in his care pursuant to these orders unless supervised by an immediate adult paternal family member or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.

1. Where the Father is required to do so in these orders, the Father shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to facilitate chain of custody hair follicle testing by an Australian Workplace Drug Testing Service ("AWDTS") Clinic or its nominee as follows:

(a) Collection is to be conducted by a qualified and certified collector;

(b) Chain of custody procedure is to be applied to the sample and confirmed by way of being recorded on the result;

(c) The Father shall provide a 4cm segment of hair to be tested;

(d) Testing is to be conducted at an approved laboratory, accredited to conduct hair drug testing to the recognised International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by the relevant accreditation body for that laboratory;

(e) Either head or body hair may be collected for testing;

(f) The testing is to be conducted for the detection of drugs of abuse including alcohol, methamphetamine, ecstasy, amphetamine type substances (and metabolites), cannabis (and metabolites) and, if possible, psilocin (illicit substances);

(g) The Father is at liberty to provide AWDTS with a copy of these orders;

(h) The Father is to provide the collector with photographic identification to be recorded before each hair collection and authority, with compliance with that identification to be clearly marked on the result;

(i) The Father is to authorise that a copy of the result be emailed to the Mother directly from the laboratory to an email address nominated by the Mother pursuant to Order 17;

(j) Any costs associated with the hair follicle testing shall be met by the Father.

1. Both parents are restrained by injunction from:

(a) Abusing, denigrating, demeaning or belittling the other parent, their partner and/or members of their family in the presence of or hearing of the children;

(b) Allowing or permitting any other person to abuse, denigrate, demean or belittle the other parent, their partner and/or members of their family in the presence of or hearing of the children where that parent is present;

(c) Showing the children any document produced in these proceedings.

1. The Mother and Father are permitted to attend all of the children's schooling and extra-curricular events and activities, including all practice and sporting events where parents are welcome to attend irrespective of whether that parent is scheduled to spend time with the children at the time of the activity taking place.
2. For the purposes of Order 14, the Mother is forthwith, and on the occasion of each change, to advise the Father in writing of the extra-curricular activities the children are engaged in and the names and contact details of the relevant providers and is to authorise the relevant providers to communicate with the Father and give him information about the children's participation.
3. The parents shall communicate by way of a parenting app as agreed between them in writing, and failing agreement by way of AppClose, and both parents shall download the communication platform and have it operational within seven business days of the making of these orders.
4. The Mother shall provide to the Father an email address to be used solely for the purpose of Order 12 within seven business days of the making of these orders.
5. The parents shall at all times advise the other parent of their current residential address.
6. Each parent shall immediately advise the other parent should any of the children be seriously injured, be seriously ill or be hospitalised as soon as is reasonably practical and shall advise the other parent of the location of the child, the diagnosis and prognosis with both parents at liberty to attend upon the child if hospitalised pursuant to the recommendation of the child's treating medical practitioner.
7. The Mother (and the Father once the children's time with the Father is occurring pursuant to Order 7) is at liberty to travel with the children outside of the Commonwealth of Australia during the time the children are spending with the travelling parent pursuant to these orders provided that:

(a) The travelling parent must notify the non-travelling parent, in writing, no less than 42 days prior to the travel including the dates of travel and destination of travel;

(b) At least 14 days prior to the travel, the travelling parent shall provide the non-travelling parent with a copy of the itinerary including copies of return flights or cruise details, all accommodation details, a contact telephone number for the duration of the travel and evidence of travel insurance for the children;

(c) The travelling parent will facilitate the non-travelling parent having telephone, text message or other electronic communication with the children at all reasonable times during the travel or at least twice each week to be arranged between the parents in writing and to occur at local time for the children.

1. The Mother is entitled to obtain passports for the children without the consent of the Father.
2. The Mother shall hold the children's passports at all times that the children are not travelling.
3. The Mother shall provide the children's passports to the Father no later than 14 days prior to any scheduled departure from Australia by him with the children in accordance with these orders.
4. The Father shall return the children's passports to the Mother at the first changeover of the children pursuant to these orders upon return from travel.
5. The parents are permitted to provide a copy of these orders to:

(a) Any school which the children attend or are proposed to attend;

(b) Any provider of extra-curricular activities for the children; and

(c) Any medical practitioner engaged in respect of the children.

1. The parents are permitted to provide a copy of the Family Report of Dr AE dated 27 September 2024, and the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Behrens to:

(a) Any mental health professional who is treating them and for the purposes of that treatment;

(b) Any mental health professional who is treating the children or any of them and for the purposes of that treatment.

1. Within six months of the date of these orders, each parent will pay to Legal Aid (NSW) one half of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer, being the sum of $8,390 each.

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 Pinney & Pinney has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. These are parenting proceedings concerning W, aged 14, X, aged 12, Y, aged 10 and Z, who is six. Their parents are Mr Pinney and Ms Pinney. Mr and Ms Pinney separated for the final time in late 2021 or early 2022. Since separation, the children have lived with Ms Pinney. They have spent time with Mr Pinney during the day, with various conditions in place. It is uncontested that, at times, Mr Pinney has engaged in drug use and excessive alcohol consumption.
2. These are the second set of family law proceedings for this family in which final orders have been sought. Ms Pinney commenced financial proceedings in 2022, and final property and child support departure orders were made on 19 May 2023 ("the 2023 orders") following a final hearing. Mr Pinney then commenced parenting proceedings by an Initiating Application filed on 4 October 2023. Those proceedings are determined by the orders I make today. In addition, in a separate judgment today, I determine an application made by Ms Pinney for the enforcement of aspects of the 2023 orders and a costs order made in her favour.
3. Interim parenting orders were made by consent on 9 April 2024, providing for the children to spend time with Mr Pinney each Saturday from 9.00 am until 7.30 pm and each Tuesday from 3.30 pm to 7.30 pm, as well as during the school holidays and on special occasions. The orders required Mr Pinney to undertake hair follicle testing for drug use and BACtrack breath testing and CDT testing for alcohol use.
4. In early 2025, Z was admitted to hospital having consumed a metabolite drug while in Mr Pinney's care, and Ms Pinney suspended the children's regular time with Mr Pinney. Since that time, the children have not spent time with Mr Pinney other than on some birthdays, Father's Day, and on occasions when Mr Pinney has attended sport training and games. The children have continued to have communication with Mr Pinney.
5. The children's interests in these proceedings are represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"). I was told that the ICL last met with Z, Y and X on 20 October 2025. W was away at school camp during that time. The ICL met with W remotely on 17 November 2025.
6. Notwithstanding the making of an order pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"), and that previously he had told me at a case management hearing that he intended to "direct brief" a barrister, Mr Pinney did not have legal representation at the final hearing, and therefore was unable to cross examine Ms Pinney. Ms Pinney was represented pursuant to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme, including by counsel. Counsel appeared for the ICL and cross-examined both Mr Pinney and Ms Pinney.
7. Broadly, Mr Pinney is seeking orders for the reinstatement of the children's time with him and that that time be unsupervised. Formally, by his Amended Initiating Application filed 23 October 2025, he was seeking orders for what he referred to as "equal shared parental responsibility" and equal time. He did not modify his formal position but in cross-examination, and to his credit, he acknowledged that his time with the children would need to be "staged" and could reasonably start at one overnight a fortnight, given he is living mainly at his sister's house (where the four children would have to share one bedroom), and where he apparently has no income and no assets. He sought orders for Ms Pinney to be tested for alcohol and drug use, given her admission to the Single Expert that she had engaged in some drug use during her relationship with Mr Pinney. He also sought orders that restrained Ms Pinney from relocating the children's residence outside of the Sydney area.
8. Ms Pinney was formally seeking orders that the children's time with Mr Pinney be daytime only and supervised either by his elderly mother or by a professional supervisor. In submissions, her counsel indicated that she would agree to unsupervised time if Mr Pinney was required to use a "BACtrack" system for testing for alcohol prior to spending time with the children. I did not receive a minute of order to that effect. She sought sole decision-making responsibility for the children.
9. The ICL sought orders that the children commence spending unsupervised time with Mr Pinney twice a week during the daytime only after he has provided a satisfactory hair follicle test. Subject to him completing a further four satisfactory tests not less than three months apart, time would then progress to four nights a fortnight during school terms and block time during school holidays (seven nights in holidays following Terms 1, 2 and 3 and 14 nights in the holidays following Term 4). The ICL's orders sought provided for the four nights during the school term to be one night in week one and three nights in week two. Counsel for the ICL indicated, however, that there would be no opposition from the ICL to the four nights a fortnight being in one block in a fortnight. The ICL sought an order for sole decision-making responsibility for the children to be allocated to Ms Pinney, with an obligation to consider Mr Pinney's views. The ICL did not press an order previously sought that Mr Pinney continue to attend upon his psychologist and provide reports to Ms Pinney before time progressed to overnight. That was in circumstances where Mr Pinney gave evidence that he was no longer seeing a psychologist.

1. Mr Pinney relied upon his affidavit filed 6 November 2025. That was a very brief trial affidavit, and the quality of the evidence it contained was poor.
2. Ms Pinney relied upon her affidavit filed 6 November 2025.
3. I received the affidavits of Mr Pinney and Ms Pinney into evidence without their annexures/exhibits.
4. Various documents were tendered in each of the parent's cases and on behalf of the ICL.
5. I also received into evidence the Family Report of Dr AE, the Single Expert, dated 27 September 2024. Dr AE is a clinical psychologist. The parents had not paid Dr AE's costs of attending for cross-examination, and so his evidence was not updated and was untested. A further limitation was that Dr AE had not seen the children or the parents since August 2024. I had before me no expert evidence relevant to what has occurred in 2025, including the critical event in early 2025.
6. The Single Expert recommended that the children only commence overnight time with Mr Pinney once he has "demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that he can remain free of excessive alcohol and illicit drug consumption" which, in Dr AE's view, would require a time period of "at least six months" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.47). Dr AE recommended that the children should then spend overnight weekend time with Mr Pinney, with such time ultimately reaching alternate full weekends (approximately 48 hours), and at least three consecutive days over the school holidays. With respect to Z, however, Dr AE noted that, in light of her young age, and in the event she continues (as reported by Ms Pinney) to show reluctance to spend time with her father, she may need a period whereby she does not spend time with Mr Pinney as frequently as her other siblings - though Dr AE noted that the length of any such period "would be difficult to determine" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.48).
7. I have read and considered all this evidence.
8. I received the parents' and the ICL's filed Case Outlines and considered the written submissions in them, along with the oral submissions made by or on behalf of each of them.

(1) Can I be satisfied that the children are safe in the unsupervised care of Mr Pinney, given his history of cocaine use and excessive alcohol consumption?

(2) If so, what, if any, testing regime should be put in place?

(3) If I am satisfied that the children are safe in the unsupervised care of Mr Pinney, what time arrangements are in the children's best interests and how should those time arrangements progress?

(4) What order in respect of parental decision-making is in the children's best interests?

1. When making parenting orders, the best interests of W, X, Y and Z are the paramount consideration (s 60CA of the Act). In working out what is in their best interests, I am required to have regard to the matters in s 60CC of the Act as set out below. As the children do not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, the matters that apply only to such children are not extracted below.

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

...

General considerations

(2) ... the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

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

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

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

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

(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:

(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and

(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.

1. I am also required to apply s 60CG of the Act, which provides:

(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:

(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and

(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.

1. Ms Pinney has alleged that Mr Pinney has used family violence against her. However, those allegations were not the subject of any detailed evidence, nor were they tested. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order has not been applied for. I find, based on text messages tendered in Ms Pinney's case, that Mr Pinney has verbally abused and threatened her from time to time. The risk of that continuing will be mitigated by orders which minimise the contact and communication between the parents.
2. Mr Pinney alleged that Ms Pinney has engaged in a deliberate campaign (he described it as a "war") to keep the children from him, following his decision to leave the marriage. There was no evidence of any weight in support of that submission. I am satisfied that Ms Pinney has acted appropriately and protectively in the face of what she knew was Mr Pinney's (at least historic) drug and alcohol use. I have, however, made some findings about some of her conduct under "parenting capacity".
3. The issues of safety which are central to my decision relate to Mr Pinney's use of alcohol and drugs, and the risks any continuing use may pose for the children. Ms Pinney gave evidence that she was particularly concerned about the risk of Mr Pinney driving the children while affected by alcohol. Mr Pinney does not have any conviction for drink driving or the like. She also gave evidence that she was worried about the risks for the children in the decisions Mr Pinney may make while affected by alcohol or drugs, and that the older children had experienced distress on seeing Mr Pinney affected by alcohol.
4. Mr Pinney denied that alcohol or drugs had caused any problem for him. He denied that he was or had been addicted. He admitted to a long history of excessive alcohol use which he described as part of the culture of the finance industry in which he previously worked. He admitted to historic regular cocaine use.
5. I am satisfied that in November 2018 he had reached a point of realising that he needed to change his behaviour. His psychiatrist Dr AG recorded on 22 November 2018:

He quit drinking on 15 November and is planning to have a period of a year of abstinence. He found that his gambling and cocaine use escalated in the context of being on antidepressants and more susceptible to disinhibition with alcohol binges. The antidepressants have been helpful in reducing his panic sensations of contricted [sic] breathing, but this remains an ongoing challenge. When I first met [Mr [Pinney]], he was having 2 ventolin puffers per day as a compulsive safety behaviour for Panic Disorder symptoms. We tried CBT for panic disorder with limited success. [Mr [Pinney]] now plans to go 'cold turkey' on Ventolin over Xmas and force himself to find a way to deal with the chest discomfort sensations that arise. [Mr [Pinney]] said he would come back in the New Year. I'm a bit concerned that there is a risk of 'flight into health' that may not be sustained, so I do hope he comes back for review.

(Exhibit M3)

1. In evidence were all the results for testing undertaken by Mr Pinney in the context of the parenting dispute. Some of those tests had been carried out by Mr Pinney prior to the commencement of proceedings. He admitted that he had not disclosed those to Ms Pinney nor to the Court (she had access to them when they were produced pursuant to a subpoena), and he said he had undertaken them for the purposes, effectively, of "seeing how he would go". Testing for cocaine by way of hair follicle testing stopped after a test that was clear for cocaine in early 2024. Testing for alcohol use by way of hair follicle testing stopped in late 2023. Alcohol was tested for by CDT testing between early 2024 and early 2025. Most of those results were either equivocal or showed excessive consumption. There has been no testing at all since early 2025.
2. The results of these tests were as follows:

(1) A hair follicle test of 0-3.9cm collected on 21 September 2022 - positive to cocaine and positive for excessive consumption of alcohol (36.2pg/mg where 30 or over is indicative of excessive consumption);

(2) A hair follicle test of 0-3.9cm collected on 18 November 2022 - positive to cocaine and positive for excessive consumption of alcohol (32.2pg/mg);

(3) A hair follicle test of 0-2cm collected on 28 March 2023 - positive to cocaine and positive for low to moderate consumption of alcohol (28.1pg/mg);

(4) A hair follicle test of 0-2cm collected on 4 May 2023 - positive to cocaine and positive for low to moderate consumption of alcohol (9.1pg/mg);

(5) A hair follicle test of 0-3.6cm collected on 4 September 2023 - negative to cocaine and positive for excessive consumption of alcohol (34.6pg/mg)

(6) A hair follicle test of 0-3cm collected on 16 February 2024 - positive to cocaine. No test for alcohol consumption;

(7) A hair follicle test of 0-3.2cm collected on 12 March 2024 - negative to cocaine. No testing for alcohol consumption;

(8) A CDT test on 14 March 2024 with a measure of 1.9, where results between 1.7 and 2 are "considered equivocal";

(9) A CDT test on 23 April 2024 with a measure of 2.8 (no descriptor is attached but it is indicated that 1.7-2 is equivocal, so I infer this shows probable excessive use);

(10) A CDT test on 29 May 2024 with a measure of 2.5 (no descriptor is attached but it is indicated that 1.7-2 is equivocal, so I infer this shows probable excessive use);

(11) A CDT test on 14 June 2024 with a measure of 2.4, indicating "probable recent or ongoing excessive alcohol use;

(12) A CDT test on 4 July 2024 with a measure of 2 and so equivocal;

(13) A CDT test on 31 July 2024 with a measure of 2.5 (no descriptor is attached but it is indicated that 1.7-2 is equivocal, so I infer this shows probable excessive use);

(14) A CDT test on 22 August 2024 with a measure of 1.6;

(15) A CDT test on 18 September 2024 with a measure of 1.7 and so equivocal;

(16) A CDT test on 29 November 2024 with a measure of 1.5;

(17) A CDT test on 24 December 2024 with a measure of 1.8 and so equivocal;

(18) A CDT test on 22 January 2025 with a measure of 1.5;

(19) A CDT test on 7 March 2025 with a measure of 1.7 and so equivocal.

1. In addition, Mr Pinney had undertaken BACtrack breath testing prior to and after his time with the children during 2024. There was no evidence other than that testing had shown negative for alcohol, but I accept Ms Pinney's evidence that there were a significant number of weeks when Mr Pinney did not spend time with the children when he could have. He did not provide testing on those days. The BACtrack testing therefore does not enable me to find that Mr Pinney is consistently able to avoid using alcohol on each occasion when he is able to spend time with the children.
2. Mr Pinney had not undertaken any drug or alcohol testing since March 2025. He conceded that his evidence in his trial affidavit that he had undertaken tests "over the last five months" was erroneous. Presumably that evidence was taken from a much earlier affidavit. He admitted that his evidence that "In 2024 I produced, 3 [hair follicle] tests, 192 breath alcohol tests by Backtrack Analysis every one of them showed zero evidence of excessive alcohol and zero drug useage" (Mr Pinney's affidavit filed 6 November 2025, paragraph 60) was incorrect - both because the hair follicle tests in 2024 had not tested for alcohol and because the first hair follicle test in 2024 was positive for cocaine. This was typical of what I find was his cavalier approach to the giving of evidence.
3. Mr Pinney gave evidence that he had "offered" to undertake testing during 2025, but only on the condition that if the tests were clear, he would be able to spend time with the children. That was not agreed. He therefore put himself - but more importantly the children - in a position where I have no drug or alcohol test results for him for the last nine months.
4. The ICL had written to Mr Pinney on 24 November 2025 requesting him to undertake CDT testing within 48 hours. He gave oral evidence that he had not received that email. When asked during cross-examination by counsel for the ICL to check his email on his phone, he said at first that it had gone to junk. When I asked him to confirm that was his sworn evidence, he then said that it had gone to trash. He denied that he had deliberately deleted the email. I do not believe him and find that he deliberately deleted the email. The inference I draw is that he knew or feared that the testing may not be favourable to his case that he is not drinking excessively and is not using illicit drugs. I would likely have been able to draw that inference in any case by reason of his failure to undertake a test of his own volition when he must have known that drug and alcohol use would be a major issue for determination in these proceedings.
5. Mr Pinney denies that he has or has had any difficulties associated with excessive alcohol use or illicit drug use and says that he manages his anxiety. To the Single Expert and to the Court he downplayed his alcohol use and minimised its effects on him. This is notwithstanding that he has admitted to health professionals that he has had difficulties with gambling causing him "intense feelings of anxiety attached to gambling losses", he faced assault charges against two hospitality employees in 2023 (which were dealt with on mental health grounds), he resigned from his employment in 2023 in response to how he was treated after an employee complained about his behaviour at a party, he now has no income and no home of his own, and he has apparently spent very significant sums of money in ways which are not accounted for over the last 15 months.
6. In relation to his mental health and what occurred in 2023 when he was charged with assaulting two hospitality employees, the Single Expert opined:

In considering the father's treatment plan further to dismissal of criminal charges of common assault on mental health grounds, Prof. [AH] was clear in his recommendations of the outcomes of Mr [Pinney's] treatment. Based on feedback from Mr [AJ] [Mr [Pinney's] psychologist] and Mr [Pinney], there was little to support the view that Mr [Pinney] has gained insight into what led to his alleged behaviour in [date redacted]2023. He described his mental health as 'fine' and that there was essentially nothing wrong with him. He showed little insight into how he could have used the treatment to better understand how he ended up in such a precarious position. I also doubt that viewing one's psychologist as a 'friend and mentor' is helpful. This may be in some way linked to Mr [Pinney] not being comfortable in the 'patient' role.

Although he understood the associated risks of alcohol, antidepressant, and cocaine use when he saw Dr [AG], Mr [Pinney] does not appear to have made use of the time with Mr [AJ] in reflecting on similar risks that appear to be attached to his excessive alcohol consumption when he went on holiday earlier in the year given he is currently taking anti-depressant medication.

(Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.43)

1. Consistently with the evidence of the Single Expert, Mr Pinney presented generally as someone who was determined not to admit to any difficulties, who did not acknowledge that he needed any assistance in dealing with what he admitted was a long history of excessive alcohol use during the time he worked in the financial services industry, and who was unwilling to take responsibility for his behaviour.
2. It remains to be seen whether he can manage to contain his alcohol use and be abstinent from illicit drugs while not admitting that he has any difficulties - let alone whether he can reach the next stages of committing to containing his alcohol use, taking concrete steps to address it, and maintaining those behaviours through all of the challenges which likely lie ahead. If he is not able to do so then testing will show that and the children will be deprived of more time with him.
3. In early 2025, the children were spending time with Mr Pinney when Z was returned to Ms Pinney in a state of considerable distress. Ms Pinney gave evidence that Z was "mute". Ms Pinney took her to hospital. She was observed to have "acute behavioural changes (distressed, inappropriate laughter), dilated pupils, GCS 11 (non-verbal) and fidgeting and moving constantly" (Exhibit ICL4). She was monitored in the Emergency Department over night, where she spiked fevers. She "slowly returned back to her baseline neurologically during the observation period" (Exhibit ICL4). Subsequent testing revealed that she had ingested a metabolite drug. A higher dosage may have been lethal to Z. There were subsequent Department of Communities and Justice ("DCJ") and police investigations. All four children were interviewed by police, as were the parents. Neither of the investigations are apparently proceeding any further.
4. Mr Pinney gave evidence that he has recently come to the view that Z ingested the metabolite drug-laced chocolate which was stored in a bottom drawer of his kitchen along with other lollies, and which he gave to her, not knowing that it was laced. He gave evidence that he believes that the chocolate was brought into the house by a flatmate of his. Mr Pinney denied that he had brought the chocolate into the house, or had ever taken the metabolite drug. He was evasive in his evidence about when he came to believe that it was his flatmate who had brought the substance into the house.
5. On [date redacted] 2025, it was proposed to him by police that there was a possibility that Z had consumed chocolate laced with magic mushrooms that his flatmate had owned. He is recorded as having "abruptly denied that". He did not tell police when he was interviewed on [date redacted] 2025 that he believed the metabolite drug was in chocolate he had given to Z. In an interview with DCJ on [date redacted] 2025 he is recorded as saying "Only thing 100% sure is that there was none in my house". He apparently told the worker that Z could have gotten it from a coffee shop and criticised the worker for being "presumptuous" in concluding that Z had ingested it at his home. The flatmate, who is recorded as having a history of drug use, declined to participate in an interview.
6. I cannot find how it was that Z came to be poisoned, other than that it was while she was in the care of Mr Pinney.
7. Irrespective of how Z came to ingest the metabolite drug, I am not satisfied that Mr Pinney acted appropriately protectively in the aftermath. I am satisfied that he failed to give a full account of what had occurred to Ms Pinney either when she spoke with him on the telephone or when he handed Z back into her care. When Ms Pinney rang him with a further inquiry, his only response was that he had nothing there except Panadol and Nurofen.
8. He immediately asked his flatmate to move out of the house (which the flatmate did), but continued to deny to police and DCJ that Z could have ingested the metabolite drug at his home. Extraordinarily, Mr Pinney has subsequently sought in his evidence to this Court to blame Ms Pinney on the basis that she knew that his flatmate might have been using the metabolite drug but did not tell him and continued to take the children there and that she gave a false report to police in the context of the investigation about Mr Pinney's drug use.
9. Further, rather than understanding that this incident justified Ms Pinney acting protectively in relation to the children's time with him, Mr Pinney gave evidence that "I believe the mother knows very well what happened in this situation and has used the scenario to fulfill her early 2022 threat to prevent me leaving her of 'if you do this you will start a war and you will never see your children again'" (Mr Pinney's affidavit filed 6 November 2025, paragraph 69).
10. I find that Ms Pinney has acted appropriately protectively in relation to the poisoning of Z in early 2025 by seeking that Mr Pinney's time with the children be supervised (either by his mother or a professional supervision service). I reject that what she has done has been part of "a war" designed to keep the children from Mr Pinney, as he has alleged.
11. What happened to Z is the realisation of the most direct and serious of the risks to children arising from the use of illicit drugs by their parents or those they associate with.
12. I cannot be satisfied that Mr Pinney no longer engages in illicit drug use. I cannot be satisfied that Mr Pinney no longer uses alcohol to excess. Such behaviours give rise to a multitude of serious risks for the children in the care of Mr Pinney - including that he will be inebriated while they are in his care and therefore not be able properly to supervise and care for them, and/or that he will behave in ways which are illegal or otherwise inappropriate. Those are particular risks for Z, who is only six.
13. If he now undertakes appropriate testing (as he assured the Court he would do) and that is clear for illicit drugs and shows no more than moderate consumption of alcohol, then I am satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk of the children spending unsupervised daytime only with him. Otherwise, there is an unacceptable risk which could only be addressed by supervision (which, on Mr Pinney's evidence, will mean no time) or the ongoing use of BACtrack testing (which was only proposed at the conclusion of the final hearing and about which I have minimal evidence).
14. Further testing over a more extended period is necessary for me to be satisfied that additional time (including overnight and holiday time) does not pose an unacceptable risk arising from illicit drug use and/or excessive alcohol consumption by Mr Pinney. Overnight time poses additional risks given the longer periods of time the children will be with him, the greater risk of drinking to excess and taking illicit drugs at night, and the greater vulnerability of the children during night hours. Given that Z ingested a metabolite drug while in Mr Pinney's care, such testing should include testing for this metabolite drug, if that is practicable.

1. In August 2024, the three older children expressed to the Single Expert that they wanted to spend more time with their father. X told the Single Expert that "he would like to have overnight time with Mr Pinney possibly on the weekend but did not think it would be good to do so on a Tuesday" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.31). W told the Single Expert that "he would like to spend an overnight time with the father and did not particularly mind which night of the week this would be, but indicated weekend would probably be better" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.32). The Single Expert wrote that "[Y] seemed keen when said he would like to have one sleepover a week with the father" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.33). Z was not interviewed alone and did not express any views.
2. There is no evidence to which I attach any weight about whether and, if so, how, the children's views may have changed since then. Ms Pinney gave evidence that she thought X, in particular, may be more reluctant given what has occurred during 2025, but she did not give any evidence about particular things the children had said to her about time with their father. I have no evidence before me which enables me to understand the children's perspectives on what has happened during 2025, including the impact of the breach in time on them and their views about that.
3. I accept the Single Expert's evidence that the children's views expressed in August 2024 were genuine, rather than coloured or impacted on by either of their parents.
4. The boys are old enough that their views should be given significant weight, although subject to the issues of risk. I give significant weight to their views that they wanted one or two overnights a fortnight with Mr Pinney, preferably on the weekend, and that they want to continue to live primarily with Ms Pinney. It was not clear to me why the ICL sought as much as four nights a fortnight given the children's views for more limited time, and the other issues in this matter.

1. I accept the submissions of counsel for the ICL that Mr Pinney has not prioritised the needs of the children over the period since separation.
2. I accept Ms Pinney's evidence that, during 2024, Mr Pinney missed a significant number of occasions when he could have spent time with the children. Mr Pinney is recorded as having admitted to the Single Expert that "there were several weeks when he forwent the Tuesday afternoon time with the children, essentially to go on holiday and drink by the pool with friends" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.40).
3. The Single Expert opined that an inconsistent approach by Mr Pinney to his time with the children "would be quite disruptive for the children, and also expose them to a sense of disappointment" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.41).
4. I accept the Single Expert's evidence that "[Mr Pinney] appears to have an ongoing issue with prioritising his limited time with the children over engaging in behaviour [drinking alcohol] that I believe he is aware presents a problem to his mental well-being" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.41).
5. As a result of Mr Pinney's conduct, the two oldest boys have faced considerable uncertainty and distress in relation to their schooling. This is in circumstances where the parents had agreed during the relationship that all three boys would attend AK School, and where Mr Pinney had agreed (and was ordered) to pay the fees. W was attending there, and X was due to start in 2026. Mr Pinney's failure to pay the school fees and the resultant uncertain schooling arrangements resulted in considerable distress for both of them. W faced the prospect of missing out on a long-awaited six month trip interstate until Ms Pinney paid his Term 1 fees herself, and X's enrolment was cancelled and he was unable to attend a much-anticipated Orientation Day. On 19 April 2025, Mr Pinney sent Ms Pinney the following message:

If you are to completely to [sic] cut me out like you have then I don't agree, nor can i afford [sic] provide schools for any of the kids" You explain to the kids what you have done"" I'll start again [Ms Pinney] because you give them and me no choice.

1. This reveals a transactional attitude in Mr Pinney by which he is willing to make decisions which are not in the children's best interests if he does not get what he wants. Other examples of these decisions are his refusal to sign passport applications for the children, which resulted in them missing their uncle's overseas wedding and an overseas trip at the end of 2024. That was in circumstances where he gave evidence that he had had holidays to Country AL and Country AM and where there was no conceivable risk that the children would be unlawfully removed from Australia or retained overseas. Mr Pinney sent Ms Pinney a message in respect of her request for him to sign the children's passports: "Offered you a simple solution in a border [sic] custody agreement which you refused that's on you".
2. In the period since the former matrimonial home sold in early 2024 the parties received their respective distributions of a property pool of approximately $10 million net. In July 2024, Mr Pinney had $2.4 million in a savings account. He now says that he has nothing. He was previously in highly remunerative executive employment. He is now self-employed and says that he earns no income at all. He no longer has a home of his own and lives between his mother's house and his sister's house. He apparently does not have the capacity to provide the children with an appropriate home, nor to support them financially.
3. Mr Pinney gave very evasive and unsatisfactory evidence about how he has spent the $2.4 million he previously had. He said he had some debts which were not allowed on the balance sheet and some legal fees (but he conceded only a relatively modest amount). He said he put some funds into developing an algorithm which he hopes to sell. I simply have no idea what he did with the rest of the money. Whether he has spent it or still has it somewhere I do not know, although it is most likely that he has simply squandered it. Either way, he has not prioritised his children's needs for financial support and his obligations under the child support orders over other matters, and that has caused great difficulty for Ms Pinney and distress for the boys.
4. In other ways, he has demonstrated a lack of capacity to take a child-focused approach. Ms Pinney proposed that time recommence in 2025 after Z's poisoning with the metabolite drug but supervised either by his mother or professionally. He gave evidence that he could not afford to pay for supervision of time with the children during 2025, and that his mother could not supervise time because she was too elderly. This has meant that he has not spent time with the children except at sporting events. I do not accept that it was beyond Mr Pinney's capacity to organise an appropriate supervision arrangement such that the children could have spent some regular time with him during 2025. Mr Pinney's decision to spend no time rather than supervised time was not in the children's best interests.
5. Mr Pinney agreed that he has engaged in abusive and threatening communication with Ms Pinney. He explained this away in submissions as him simply not being his "best self" in the difficult circumstances he found himself. He could not see that there was anything at all wrong in him messaging X and offering to pay him $30 a week to give him the location of the children's sporting events. This would undoubtedly have made X feel caught in the middle of the parents' conflict, and sent entirely the wrong message to him - namely that communication with parents can be seen as a kind of transaction. Mr Pinney was oblivious to this concern.
6. I accept the Single Expert's evidence as follows:

Mr [Pinney's] approach to parenting is particularly focused on sports/boys' things/keeping busy, and he seemed alarmed at playing in an ordinary way during the observation. It is not unusual, in my experience, to see this in parents who have a history of excessive drug and alcohol consumption. It is a somewhat restrictive way to parent and is likely to have implications for [Z] in particular in the not-too-distant future (if not already the case), and also for the boys when they get older. The boys may develop a sense the father is only interested in them as rugby players, and they may, as a result, be reluctant to come to him with worries or concerns during adolescence. It is not necessarily a given that the three older children remain interested in rugby. They may fall away from it and want to develop a more unique identity. This, in turn, may represent a risk to the relationship with the father as his approach to parenting stands. The lynchpin in the relationships may loosen and how the father would be able to respond is not easy to say given the way he largely parents at present. His repertoire of parenting appears somewhat narrow... Mr [Pinney] is unlikely to have the kind of parenting required to respond in an empathetic or sensitive way to handle the complexities of adolescent development. Moreover, he may prove dismissive of the vulnerabilities or any mental health concerns the children may exhibit as adolescents. This is brought into focus when one bears in mind the apparent dismissiveness he displayed towards his own mental health.

1. It is to Mr Pinney's credit, however, that he was prepared to agree to an interim order for Ms Pinney to have sole parental responsibility in respect of schooling decisions for W and X. This will ensure that she will be able to make timely decisions about their school enrolment in 2026, which is currently uncertain.
2. Ms Pinney has cared for the four children as a single parent for the last nearly four years and in very difficult circumstances (including repeat litigation and unreliable and minimal child support payments over the last about two years). To his credit, to the Single Expert, Mr Pinney described Ms Pinney as a "great mum".
3. I am satisfied that the children are doing well, although W and X have experienced the distress of uncertainty in their schooling arrangements. I am satisfied that Ms Pinney is dedicated to the care of the children and has good parenting capacity. I am troubled that she has seen fit to use a skull and cross bones to identify Mr Pinney in her text messages - particularly where it is likely that the children will see that. I assume that she has now thought better of that. I also do not understand (because Ms Pinney did not give evidence about it), why she has not provided Mr Pinney with information about the children's extra-curricular activities. Nonetheless, she now seeks orders that he have that information and be able to attend their activities. It is a sign that she has the children's best interests at heart that she agreed to the making of interim orders for them to spend time with Mr Pinney on Christmas Day this year.

1. The children need a relationship with Mr Pinney, even if he does continue to behave in a way which does not prioritise their needs over his own. They also need relationships with their paternal family. I am satisfied that, with appropriate restrictions and safeguards, it is safe for them to have a relationship with Mr Pinney. That relationship will necessarily be restricted until he has complied with the testing orders.

1. I am satisfied that it is in the children's best interests that they remain living with Ms Pinney. She should also have sole parental responsibility for them. She has significantly better parenting capacity than Mr Pinney, and, subject to what I have said above, has demonstrated that she prioritises their needs and makes decisions in their best interests.
2. The parents have no co-parenting relationship. Mr Pinney has communicated abusively towards Ms Pinney. I have no confidence that the parents will be able to make decisions cooperatively without exposing the children to conflict, and Ms Pinney to verbal abuse.
3. Nonetheless, Ms Pinney should be required to take account of Mr Pinney's input into major long-term decisions if he wishes to give it. Her counsel made no submission to the contrary. Mr Pinney is also permitted to communicate directly with the children's schools and extra-curricular activity providers, which should reduce the need for communication between the parents and reduce the risk of abuse.
4. I am satisfied that the children are safe in the care of Mr Pinney on the following conditions:

(1) He provides a hair follicle test which tests 4cm of hair and indicates no more than moderate consumption of alcohol and no illicit drug use;

(2) That time only commences after the provision of such a hair follicle test;

(3) That time be daytime only time until a 12-month period of testing has occurred.

1. The ICL sought that such initial time occur on a weekday in one week and on a Sunday afternoon in the other. Ms Pinney sought that time occur each Saturday (as was provided for under the interim orders made in April 2024). I am satisfied that Ms Pinney is in the best position to assess which day on the weekend will work best for the children to spend time with Mr Pinney, having regard to their routines and activities. There are advantages to Mr Pinney spending weekday time with the children (including that he can be involved in their schooling). I am not confident, however, that Mr Pinney would reliably exercise mid-week time, and such time would expose the children to another changeover between their parents, with the risk that they will at least be exposed to tension, if not anything worse. The children expressed a preference for time on the weekend. The children's initial time with Mr Pinney will be from 9.00 am until 7.30 pm each Saturday. He will also be able to attend extra-curricular and school events and that will likely provide them some additional time during the week.
2. This will mean that there may be a significant period during which the children do not have a full weekend with Ms Pinney, and during which she will not be able to take the children on holiday. If Mr Pinney takes some time to comply with the testing regime, or does not do so, then that will last indefinitely. That is not in the children's best interests, and so I have made orders which enable Ms Pinney, on appropriate notice, to suspend time during school terms for the purposes of enabling a weekend away and during school holidays so that she can share a holiday with the children. I do not make the orders sought by Ms Pinney in relation to suspending time when the children have to be away for sporting events and for up to 28 days, because after time has commenced Mr Pinney may wish to take the children to those sporting events, and 28 days is a long period for the children not to see Mr Pinney at all at least before he too is spending regular holiday time with them. She will be able to suspend time for two weekends (whether consecutive or not) during the long summer holiday to enable a lengthy holiday.
3. A period of at least 12 months before the children start spending overnight time with Mr Pinney will also allow him the opportunity to obtain a home of his own where the children can stay comfortably overnight - assuming that he does at some stage either obtain employment or find some other way to support himself and the children. Mr Pinney's current accommodation arrangements, combined with a total lack of income, mean that he is not in a position to provide a home for the children at this stage.
4. Once Mr Pinney has undertaken four "clear" hair follicle tests after the initial test (over a period of 12 months), the children should commence spending overnight and holiday time with him. I am satisfied that the school term time arrangement which is in the children's best interests is for one block of three nights (Friday afternoon to Monday morning) each fortnight. I prefer this over an arrangement where there is time each week, given the very poor relationship between the parents and the likely impact on the children of the more frequent changes between households. The children have expressed a preference for weekend time. The Single Expert recommended that time over each alternate weekend be approximately 48 hours, but I am satisfied that the benefits of changeover from and to school mean that it is appropriate to order more than that time, being three nights a fortnight.
5. Notwithstanding the Single Expert's tentative consideration of the possibility, I am satisfied that it is not in the children's (or separately Z's) best interests for there to be different time arrangements for the siblings. Neither parent, nor the ICL, sought such orders.
6. I am satisfied that the school holiday time sought by the ICL following 12 months of "clear" testing is in the children's best interests. It draws the right balance between enabling the children to have holidays with Mr Pinney, while ensuring that they remain in the primary care of Ms Pinney, who is better able to meet their needs, during school holidays.
7. Mr Pinney sought orders moving to equal time. Such orders would not be in the children's best interests. I am not satisfied that Mr Pinney is able to meet the children's needs adequately over a whole week during school term time. The children have not indicated any desire for such an arrangement, and have indicated that they want to live primarily with Ms Pinney and spend some limited overnight time with Mr Pinney. An arrangement for more than three nights a fortnight would also deprive the children of what I am satisfied is the good care provided to them by Ms Pinney, and would be a huge change for them. Further, the relationship between the parents is such that an equal time arrangement would not be workable and is not in the children's best interests.
8. The parents agree that they should each be able to attend the children's extra-curricular activities, and I have made that order. The orders I have made do not require that the parents agree on extra-curricular activities for the children; imposing such a requirement (even as a condition of Mr Pinney being required to take them to the activities) is likely to lead to difficulties which will affect the children, and so I decline to draw that link. By the child support departure orders, Mr Pinney is only required to pay for agreed extra-curricular activities. Otherwise, Ms Pinney has authority to make decisions about extra-curricular activities.
9. The children should have the opportunity to travel overseas with both of their parents during time they would otherwise be with them. For Mr Pinney, that will only occur once he has provided four "clear" hair follicle tests after the initial test. Mr Pinney has previously refused to sign passport applications for the children, and I am satisfied that it is appropriate that Ms Pinney be able to make the application without Mr Pinney's consent, and for her to hold the children's passports except just prior to and during any overseas travel Mr Pinney has with the children.
10. I make orders for Christmas time reflecting generally the orders I made by consent for Christmas 2025 - namely that Christmas Day is split between the parents - with Mr Pinney to have overnight time once he is having extended holiday time with the children.
11. I am not prepared to order that Ms Pinney undergo drug or alcohol testing. I am satisfied that she has not used alcohol regularly to excess while caring for the children, nor has she used illicit drugs in recent years or while caring for the children. Mr Pinney seeking testing represents a "tit for tat" approach which is unsupported by the evidence and denies the reality that he was demonstrably using cocaine and alcohol to excess in 2022 and 2023, and had a positive test for cocaine in 2024. The Single Expert did not identify that excessive alcohol or illicit drug use were issues for Ms Pinney, saying: "She did not deny she had a history of illicit drug consumption herself but appeared to convey a sense that she appreciated how regular drug and alcohol consumption impacts parenting and the two generally do not fit well together" (Single Expert report dated 27 September 2024, p.46). I accept that evidence.
12. I am also not willing to impose on Ms Pinney a limitation on where she lives, as Mr Pinney sought. The "spend time" orders which I have made will mean that, practically, Ms Pinney will have to remain living in Sydney. She gave evidence that she has purchased a house there and the children either are, or will be, enrolled in school there. While she gave oral evidence that if the boys obtained sports scholarships in Brisbane, she "would move", she presumably understands that she will not be able to do so with the children unless she has the agreement of Mr Pinney to amend the spend time arrangements or pursuant to a further order of this Court. Court orders should only restrict a parent's freedom of movement where that is necessary in the best interests of children - it is not here.
13. I am satisfied that it is just to make an order that the parents each pay half of the costs of the ICL. Neither parent incurred any legal costs in respect of the final parenting hearing - Mr Pinney being self-represented, and Ms Pinney being in receipt of assistance through the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. Ms Pinney received a payment of close to $7 million by way of the property settlement. She has purchased a home in an expensive suburb. She is considering continuing to send her children to an expensive private school. Legal Aid resources are appropriately targeted to those most in need and play an important role in the protection of the vulnerable, including children. It is just that Ms Pinney contributes to the costs of the ICL. To his credit, Mr Pinney recognised that is appropriate for him to contribute - although, of course, his evidence is that he has no money from which to meet such a costs order. The ICL did not oppose the parents being given some time to make the payment. Mr Pinney sought 12 months. I find six months is appropriate, and I make that order.

I certify that the preceding eighty-three (83) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens.