Ragni & Carrera [2025] FedCFamC1F 394 | Case summary

Ragni & Carrera [2025] FedCFamC1F 394 | Case summary | Zoe

[44]

These are parenting proceedings between Mr Ragni, the applicant father, and Ms Carrera, the respondent mother. Mr Ragni and Ms Carrera are the parents of X. X was born in 2022, and is now three years old. X's interests in these proceedings were represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL"). I was told that, given X's young age, the ICL had not met with her.
X's parents had a very short relationship and separated before X was born. They were in a relationship for about nine months, married for just few months, and separated on a final basis in September 2021. At the time of the final separation Mr Ragni was charged with assault and intimidation of Ms Carrera, and an interim Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ("ADVO") was made for the protection of Ms Carrera from Mr Ragni on the application of NSW Police. At the time of separation, Ms Carrera was pregnant with X. Following defended proceedings which took place in the Local Court in mid-2022 and late 2022, the charges against Mr Ragni were dismissed, as was the ADVO.
Mr Ragni commenced these proceedings very shortly after X's birth. From 23 November 2022, X began spending time with Mr Ragni on a supervised basis at K Contact Centre. Following a contested interim hearing, orders were made on 1 March 2024 progressing X's time with Mr Ragni to unsupervised. In June 2024 she commenced spending unsupervised time with Mr Ragni each Thursday and Saturday from 12.00 pm to 5.00 pm, with changeovers professionally supervised. Those are the arrangements that have remained in place until the orders which I am making today.
By his Initiating Application filed 15 March 2022, Mr Ragni sought that he and Ms Carrera have equal shared parental responsibility for X, that X live with Ms Carrera and that X spend gradually increasing amounts of time with him, such time culminating in a week-about arrangement. On the final day of the final hearing, Mr Ragni provided Amended Final Orders Sought, which provided for he and Ms Carrera to share responsibility for long-term decision making (with attendance upon Family Dispute Resolution in the event they are unable to reach a joint decision), for X to live with Ms Carrera and spend gradually increasing time with Mr Ragni culminating in a week-about arrangement, as well as orders in relation to overseas travel, special occasions and changeover. He sought that overnight time (being one overnight each week) commence immediately upon the making of these orders, and then progress to two nights a week from 1 July 2025.
By her Further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 22 July 2024, Ms Carrera sought that she have sole parental responsibility for X, that X live with her, that X spend gradually increasing unsupervised time with Mr Ragni, with such time ultimately reaching an alternate weekend arrangement from 2029, and for any changeovers that do not occur at X's school to take place at a nominated changeover service. Ms Carrera filed an Amended Minute of Orders Sought at the conclusion of the proceedings, which provided that she hold sole parental responsibility for X but give Mr Ragni the opportunity for input, that X live with her and spend increasing amounts of time with Mr Ragni, ultimately reaching an arrangement whereby, when X was seven, X would spend one night in week one and three nights in week two with Mr Ragni. She sought that overnight time commence when X is five. She also sought orders for X to spend progressively increasing school holiday time with her father once she starts school, such that X would be spending half the school holidays with him when she was in her third year of school. She sought a restriction on international travel, and that X's name be placed on the Airport Watchlist.
The ICL filed a Minute of Orders sought after hearing the evidence. That Minute provided for Ms Carrera to have sole parental responsibility (with the requirement to consult Mr Ragni in relation to any major long-term decision, consider any response he provides and notify him of her ultimate decision), and for time with Mr Ragni to progress to four nights a fortnight over two years, and commencing overnight time within six months of the making of these orders (when X will be nearly four). The ICL also sought a gradual progression of school holiday time to half school holidays by the third year that X is at school.
X will start full-time school either in 2027 (when she will be about to turn five) or 2028.
The parents were able to reach agreement about the orders to be made for special occasions and most ancillary orders.
The parents did not reach agreement about overseas travel orders, with Mr Ragni seeking orders that the parents be able to travel overseas with X and Ms Carrera seeking an Airport Watchlist Order until 2040. Mr Ragni and Ms Carrera were both born in Country L.

[64]

44 The definition identifies certain behaviour that may fall within the definition, namely, violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. Violent behaviour or threatening behaviour are stand-alone behaviours that fall within the definition of family violence. Such behaviours may coerce or control or cause fear, but it is not essential. It might be, for instance, that a female punches her male partner but the punch neither coerces nor controls nor causes the male to be fearful. The behaviour may nevertheless be an act of family violence.

...

46 In fulfilling the onus of proving an allegation of family violence that involves behaviour that coerces or controls, it is not necessary to prove the alleged perpetrator intended the behaviour to be so. That does not mean that intention is irrelevant, but it is not dispositive. A person who engages in such behaviour may be completely oblivious to the impact of their behaviour or they may believe that they are acting in such a way to protect the other family member. Notwithstanding that subjective belief, the behaviour may nevertheless coerce or control the other family member and fall within the definition of family violence.

47 The focus of the fact finding process is on the behaviour and the impact of the behaviour. It is the behaviour that coerces or controls. It requires action and reaction. A single act is unlikely to be coercive or controlling but it may be. Behaviour that coerces or controls may be innocuous, subtle, capable of different interpretations, complex, undermining, etc. Such behaviour may create impossible expectations for the other family member. It may be transactional and involve punishments for perceived failures. The impact of the behaviour can be insidious. A confident and happy family member may lose their confidence, their self-esteem, question their sanity, shun their family and friends, become depressed, irritable, inefficient, and unhappy. There may be times when they strike out either verbally or physically.

48 When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, a trial judge will undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

(a) identify the behaviour about which complaint is made;

(b) identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;

(c) identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);

(d) make all relevant factual findings; and

(e) explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

49 Once such behaviour has been identified it is then a question of what weight is to be given to it and any impact on the orders under consideration.

50 The definition of family violence is necessarily broad and any interpretation that may be perceived to, or actually, create unnecessary hurdles to an alleged victim proving an allegation of family violence should be avoided.

51 Whilst the key feature of coercion or control is that a person is induced (many other words are also apt here) to do as the other wishes, the statutory focus is simply on behaviour that coerces or controls and not the intention of the perpetrator.

52 ... the finding that there is coercive or controlling behaviour is an evaluative one, having regard to all of the circumstances and all of the evidence before the court. Whilst patterns of behaviour may be particularly illuminative, they are not essential. Importantly, for present purposes, the trial judge does not need to spend time and trouble searching for an inference that there is an intention to coerce or control. It is sufficient simply to apply the words of the statute without embellishment and assess whether there is behaviour that coerces or controls.

[66]

Ms Carrera gives evidence that, during this very short marriage, Mr Ragni physically assaulted her on five occasions - three of those occasions resulting in bruising to her and one occasion resulting in an injury to her foot. She gives evidence that four of the occasions of physical violence were after she was, and Mr Ragni knew she was, pregnant with X. Ms Carrera gives evidence of other occasions when Mr Ragni verbally abused her or otherwise behaved in ways which could constitute family violence - including taking her phone from her. She also gives evidence of him recording her without her consent, and behaving in ways which may be characterised as financially controlling and as controlling of her movements and relationships.
Mr Ragni either denies this behaviour, says that it was in response to Ms Carrera's behaviour towards him, or says that it does not constitute family violence - save that he made some relevant concessions during cross examination by the ICL. He gives evidence that Ms Carrera used family violence towards him, and that, on the specific occasions about which she gives evidence, she was behaving in ways which were aggressive or otherwise dysregulated, sometimes accompanied by expressions of jealousy. He says that Ms Carrera caused the bruising and injury to her foot herself. He acknowledges that bruising occurred to Ms Carrera on the night when they separated but does not accept it was caused by contact between them. He says that this contact was by way of him defending himself or using his knees to put space between them.
Ms Carrera denies she acted in these ways and it was said on her behalf that that evidence was an attempt by Mr Ragni to deflect the focus on his behaviour.
On both parents' evidence, their respective family members were involved in various ways at various stages. On Ms Carrera's evidence, Mr Ragni's sisters were critical of him and of his behaviour. On Mr Ragni's evidence, there was no such criticism. Mr Ragni's evidence was that Ms Carrera's brother had been unhelpfully involved. Ms Carrera's brother gave evidence that he collected Ms Carrera a number of times at her request and that she told him at those times that Mr Ragni had been aggressive towards her.

[85]

"a traumatic event has that impact on the formation of memories"

"'[d]ue to the potential for cuing of emotional responses to fragmented memories, memory can change, be subject to the reconsolidation effects, and even when these effects are not marked initially, memories may remain labile for some time (thus changes in what the person reports as their memory of an event can be expected)'" (Lehrmann at [117(2)]);

"a lack of clarity and confused accounts can be expected until such time as the memory has consolidated after - this is after a traumatic event." (citing Lehrmann at [117](3)]);

"'after a traumatic experience, that 'inconsistencies in reporting following a traumatic event are often observed and explicable through underlying theories of trauma and memory function'" (Lehrmann at [117(3)]);

"That 'omissions can be understood as alterations in awareness due to high arousal at the time of the event that consolidate over time'" (Lehrmann at [117(4)]);

"That inconsistency is often observed in reliable reports, in this case it was of a sexual assault, and is not ipso facto a measure of deception - that is not just in relation to sexual assault matters, but traumatic events more generally" (citing Lehrmann at [117(6)]);

"... 'in understanding the account of an alleged "survivor", a person must consider how the account was elicited; this includes the skill and attitudes towards the person by the investigating officers; the time elapsed between the time of the event and the formal interview; and the psychological/emotional state of the person being interviewed at the time of the interview'" (Lehrmann at [117(7)];

"'the first forensic interview is potentially a trigger for intrusive thoughts that can lead to fragmentation of memory and disassociation; patterns of behaviour such as high confidence and clarity in the account are not helpful in determining whether the account is accurate'" (Lehrmann at [117(8)]);

"'despite the belief that the emergence of inconsistencies across interviews is a sign of lying (people "can't keep their story straight") ... the literature on memory, impacts of trauma and the dynamic between interviewee and interviewer must be considered'" (Lehrmann at [117(9)]);

"'multiple interviews are typically necessary to construct a clear narrative of the events; however, the consequence of these multiple interviews may be patterns of inconsistency or omission[s] especially early in the interview process (which need to be carefully evaluated but are not in and of themselves necessarily indicative of deception or accuracy)'" (Lehrmann at [117(10)]).

[86]

One of the difficulties with applying this evidence is that it assumes trauma (in this case arising from the use of family violence) has occurred, and explains lack of consistency in that context - whereas the existence or otherwise of family violence is the very issue I need to determine. In other words, in assessing the significance of the inconsistency and the reason for the inconsistency, there is a risk of assuming the very thing that has to be proved. Nonetheless, it is helpful evidence, because I am reminded that I must not assume that Ms Carrera is lying - in the sense of deliberately not telling the truth - just because there are inconsistencies in the accounts that she has given. At the same time, however, I cannot assume that an inconsistency is a product of trauma, rather than a product of untruthfulness, or something else. Further, unlike in a case where there are no credibility issues with a witness, I have not been able to make findings about the detail of what occurred simply on the basis that Ms Carrera is giving accurate evidence about these incidents.
Damaging to Ms Carrera's credibility was that she had been recorded as having told Dr C that Mr Ragni's mother saw him push her down the stairs. She told Dr C that, in light of Mr Ragni having pushed her down the stairs and Mrs Ragni failing to intervene, she was not confident that the paternal family would protect X in the event that Mr Ragni physically abused her. Ms Carrera admitted under cross-examination that there were no stairs at the place where she said this occurred. She said that she would not have told Dr C that Mr Ragni pushed her down the stairs, despite having earlier agreed with the proposition put to her by senior counsel for Mr Ragni that the reason Dr C had recorded this incident in the family report was because she had told her that Mr Ragni had pushed her down the stairs. Dr C was a meticulous witness and I do not accept that she would have mis-recorded that. Additionally, Dr C asked Ms Carrera whether she stood by the serious allegation that, based on this event, the paternal family would not protect X from any physical abuse perpetrated by Mr Ragni. Unlike with some other sets of events, this could not be a case where Ms Carrera was misremembering, and I find that she at least added this untrue detail by way of exaggeration when speaking with Dr C.
Ms Carrera presented in cross-examination as genuinely anxious about dealing with Mr Ragni, notwithstanding that she agreed with propositions put to her by senior counsel for Mr Ragni that, with the assistance of her psychologist, she had made some progress. She made reasonable concessions - including that at one time she had not seen any benefit in X having a relationship with her father, and that she now did.

[104]

Mother: Ok

Mother: Sorry

Mother: This all shouldn't be happened

Mother: There's nothing literally nothing wrong.

Mother: And I wasn't even ignoring you

Father: I know that's the worst part

Mother: You were just really rude n arrogant to me which I didn't like

Mother: You don't respect

Mother: Rolling your eyes n your tone changes

Mother: You talked very rudely

Father: [Ms Carrera] given the way you stormed off like that I won't accept nothing was wrong on your end.

Mother: That was my reaction to how you behaved to me [Mr Ragni]

Mother: i try to forgive all the time but it's getting worse

Mother: You're in your defensive mode again

Mother: You always think worst about me

Father: I will send you the video. I have listened.

Mother: If its like this and you don't care about me then this is not good

Mother: Seriously

Mother: That's why you wanted me to talk near your car?

Mother: So you can record ever

Mother: Everything

Father: No

Father: But I didn't think I was rude. All I said was why are you ignoring me and you started to say stop the car.

Mother: That's all your camera recorded?

Father: Your behaviour is serious too. When we have kids inshallah will you do the same?

Father: It has the entire two minutes that's all I saved. Once you listen I will delete. The whole thing was under two minutes

Father: [Ms Carrera] - it's not to blame or anything, we need to learn from this

Father: If I was rude then you can show me and I will apologise. Vice versa.

Mother: Sure, send me this video now.

Father: No, it's in the app. I won't download it onto camera roll. I won't circulate it. Once we listen together, we delete it then and there.

Mother: Send it to me now

Father: Sorry I won't. Like I said, it's not coming off the app. I don't want this existing.

Mother: You really think you were not rude to me?

Mother: ?

Mother: Sorry [Mr Ragni] i am not like who records everything we spoke about and therefore you avoid **cut off**

Mother: That's why you asked me to sit near your car so you can record

Mother: Near your feet

Father: No I genuinely wanted to be there with you. I couldn't believe what just happened

Father: [Ms Carrera] I'll delete it if you want. That's the only one I downloaded.

Mother: Don't know what happened in your past relationship I never asked you

Mother: I don't think i can live my life like this

Mother: Recording all the conversations

Mother: I am sorry but I can't continue like this

Mother: I don't think i can go ahead anymore

Father: You have to physically go in and download it. I only downloaded these videos. The rest will get over written. If you don't believe me then I don't know. I show you all the crash ones

Father: So I will delete these as well

Father: Mentioning my past relationship is pretty low.

Father: If you think I'm a lier - well I can't change that

Mother: Sorry i can't live my life like this

Mother: You recorded everything

Father: I'm not hiding anything

Father: It's what dash cams do

Mother: I can't do this

Father: Your choice

Father: It's just a silly act so you can break up. I will still love you.

Mother: I can't do this.

Father: Why cause you're confronted with the truth? All the lies in your head about me are not true

Mother: Really [Mr Ragni]

Father: Yes.

Mother: ?

Mother: Really?

Mother: Why don't you send me all those videos now

Mother: Really?

Mother: Why [Mr Ragni]? You do you hate me this much?

Father: I don't

Mother: I am going away from your life.

Father: Please don't

Mother: I can't do this

Mother: I am really scared of you now

Father: Me too

Mother: Please forgive but i never had any bad intentions. I genuinely love you and wanted to be your wife and keep you happy and take all your pain away

Mother: That's all

[143]

When these messages were put to Mr Ragni, he denied that he believed Ms Carrera's brother had a reason to be angry with him. He denied that he had written "I want to stop being the bad guy" because his aggression towards Ms Carrera was problematic, and stated that he had written "I'm trying to make changes for myself and for the sake of [Ms Carrera] and coming baby" because he wanted to make an effort to and "change the way things are handled and by not being the bad guy, as in ... being blamed for the violence when I'm not the one doing the violence, but by change ... improve ways to de-escalate, potentially." I did not believe this evidence and find that the messages were an acknowledgement that he had behaved badly and needed to change his behaviour.
It was put to Ms Carrera, and she agreed, that when asked by police in September 2021 about any previous incidents of family violence, she did not make reference to what was, on her evidence, a very serious incident of physical family violence.
This is another occasion about which Mr Ragni gives evidence that Ms Carrera acted out of jealousy. I find it is unlikely Ms Carrera bruised herself and behaved in the ways alleged by Mr Ragni.
On 16 July, Mr Ragni sent Ms Carrera a message with a link to a child and family psychologist. Under cross-examination, he denied that this was for the purpose of obtaining some assistance with anger management, and also denied that he had sent the link to Ms Carrera in an attempt to "smooth things over" rather than as part of any efforts to change his behaviour, and denied it was part of a "ruse" to get her to return to the relationship. Mr Ragni confirmed that he did not attend upon the child and family psychologist the subject of the text message. On 20 July, Ms Carrera had an appointment with Dr AA, the General Practitioner. The record of this appointment created by Dr AA indicates that Mr Ragni attended with Ms Carrera, but that her preference was to start the appointment alone. In relation to Mr Ragni, Ms Carrera reported to Dr AA that "he has started seeing a counsellor for anger management issues." There is no reason Ms Carrera would have said this to Dr AA if she did not believe that was what Mr Ragni's message on 16 July related to. I find that the message sent by Mr Ragni on 16 July was another recognition by him that he had behaved poorly. I find that he led Ms Carrera to believe he was getting assistance for anger management.
At that appointment, Ms Carrera is not recorded as having told Dr AA about anything that had happened, but she did tell Dr AA that she had been staying with her family for the previous week, that her family was "very very supportive", that Mr Ragni had come to the family home every day and the family "didn't let him come inside." She also told Dr AA "[e]ventually at the end of the week he convinced [Ms Carrera] to come home with him." I am satisfied that [Mr Ragni] telling [Ms Carrera] that he would get assistance for anger management was one of the reasons that she returned to him around a week later.
Notwithstanding that there was no report about this incident to Dr AA, nor to police, I am satisfied that Mr Ragni was physically violent towards Ms Carrera in 2021, when he knew she was pregnant, causing some bruising.

[149]

On 30 July 2021, at approximately 8.15pm, we went to pick up dinner at the local kebab store. [Ms Carrera] waited in the car. I answered a telephone call. When I entered the car [Ms Carrera] was furious with rage. She insisted: "You are cheating on me!". By the time we returned home, she had lost complete control of herself. [Ms Carrera] threw the food, my mobile phone, and hit me. She was yelling and crying, rambling and pacing, and [Ms Carrera] was knocking into furniture like the coffee table and the television unit. [Ms Carrera] did not this time knock the vase off the television unit, although she had before. [Ms Carrera] paced a loop around the apartment towards the front door, then towards the bedroom and back around through the kitchen. I telephoned her mother to help calm her down. I changed the setting to speaker so [Ms Carrera] could hear her mother. [Ms Carrera] continued yelling and crying. [Ms Carrera]'s mum and I were both talking to [Ms Carrera] trying to calm [Ms Carrera] down. Eventually [Ms Carrera] calmed down. She lay on the sofa and I hand fed [Ms Carrera] dinner (a snack pack from "[the kebab store]"[)]. Later I moved [Ms Carrera] to bed, and continued to hand feed her dinner. [Ms Carrera]'s mother later messaged me: "Thank you beta". "Beta" means Son.

[Ms Carrera] became irate again at approx. 10.45pm. I again contacted [Mrs Carrera]. During the call, I heard the phone be exchanged and then [Ms Carrera]'s brother's voice started yelling at me saying "Look, if she's not going to calm down and not going to stop, just bring her back to [Suburb G]! Do you want me to come? If I come, it won't be good...". I agreed to take [Ms Carrera] back to her mother and brother's home at [Suburb G]. [Ms Carrera] then began to empty out entire cupboards, everything from clothes to appliances. [Ms Carrera]'s folded clothes were in our main bedroom. She collected them in her arms and said to me: "pack these". [Ms Carrera] grabbed armful after armful of hanging clothes from the wardrobes in the spare room, directly off the hook and said to me "Take these to the car". [Ms Carrera] did not seek to pack the items in any form of container or luggage. She collected the juicer, a Dyson hair appliance kit, an electric toothbrush, her toiletries, a computer screen and her lap top computer. I then dropped her home late that night. The entire way, she kept grabbing the steering wheel, slapping me and hitting me. [Ms Carrera] said to me: "Why are you cheating on me?" and "Our marriage is over!". When we arrived at the [Suburb G] house, [Ms Carrera]'s brother, [Ms Carrera] and I unpacked [Ms Carrera]'s belongings from the car.

Over the next few days I did message and call [Ms Carrera] however I felt it was best she stay with her family in [Suburb G] given her erratic behaviour and to prevent any harm to the unborn baby. [In] 2021 was [Ms Carrera's] birthday. I slept over a few nights hoping her health would improve. By this I mean that I observed that [Ms Carrera] stopped yelling, crying and hitting me, she began eating regularly and stopped accusing me of cheating. I also dropped off her medications she sent the electronic prescriptions for.

[157]

My client didn't ram herself against the door on this day, did she? All I could see was on the screen of, you know, FaceTime, and I could see her running, and she hit the door. Yes, she did.

Now? And then she went inside and slammed the door and sat behind the door, yes.

Well, you don't know where she sat in the room? No. Because she had blocked the - the door. She sat behind it. Because I tried to talk to her and come out and eat and thing, and that's what I thought. That's what -

Okay? Mmm.

So to follow that, [Mr Ragni] takes you on the FaceTime call and moves towards the door? No. He was sitting on the sofa that - I think he was still in the lounge.

Okay? And he just turned his phone to show me that she was running there.

But how do you know the door is blocked? Because the - the door was closed.

Right. But you just gave evidence that she sat down behind the door and that the door was blocked? No. I'm talking about that - she got up -

Yes? and ran towards the door, hit herself against the - I think the - the door - the edge or something, and then she opened the door, went back and slammed it from the - behind her.

And then your evidence just after that, ma'am? Mmm.

was that the door was blocked and that she had sat down? Yes.

Right. And I'm putting to you? But that's what my understanding was, yes.

HER HONOUR: Just wait until the question is asked before you answer anything further? Mmm.

Yes.

DR BARNETT: And is the way that you knew that the door was blocked and that she was sitting down behind the door? Mmm.

is because [Mr Ragni] took you, in the FaceTime on the phone, and went towards the door? It's a very small lounge, and he just turned it. I could only see whatever - the door, and that - that she's there.

And [Mr Ragni] tried to open the door, and it was blocked? No. Nobody - I - nobody was trying to open the door, but I was - remember calling her "[Ms Carrera], come out, come out. Come and - come and eat your food." That - I remember that much. And she didn't.

Ma'am, it was your own evidence a moment ago? Mmm.

that it was blocked and that she was sitting behind the door? That's what I thought that she has done, yes.

The only way? Mmm.

that you would know that the door was blocked and that she was sitting behind it was if the father had gone over to the door and it? Yes. Maybe he would have gone close

HER HONOUR: No, wait. Wait? Mmm.

DR BARNETT: If the father had gone over the door and attempted to open it. Do you accept that proposition? Yes .....

Okay. And then you've just - before her Honour asked you to wait, you were saying, "He may have" and you put your hand out. Were you saying that he may have walked over there and tried to open the door? He just - he did try. He was just - I remember saying that she's not opening the door. Yes, that much I remember.

And so he may have gone over the door and tried to open it. Is that your evidence? That is - no. I didn't - I don't recall anybody pushing the door and trying to open, I think. I don't recall that, or even trying to open the door.

But your evidence is knowing that the door was blocked and that she was sitting behind it - that information may have come about because he may have tried to open the door; is that right? He would have checked. He would have asked her to come out. Yes.

All right, but listen to my question. But he may have gone over to the door and attempted to open it. Do you accept that proposition? I can only answer what I could see on a FaceTime screen, and it's very, very limiting. So asking me this question to specifically say yes or no, I - I - I can't answer this.

Well, I'm asking you a very specific question. The - do you accept the father may have gone over to the door and tried to open it? He was definitely asking her to come out, but I don't know if he did go there and push the door or anything, no.

[162]

The most serious allegation of violence made by [Ms Carrera] with respect to me, is in relation to an incident which occurred on [...] September 2021. On this night [Ms Carrera] became very angry after I took the rubbish out with my mobile telephone in my possession, accusing me: "You are cheating on me! You are talking to women on the phone!" I went to bed to try and avoid [Ms Carrera] escalating. [Ms Carrera] entered our bedroom and began hitting, scratching and pinching me. She punched me in the head twice. I was also strangled, had my mouth with her hand covered and her nails subsequently dug into my cheeks and punched multiple times in the back. I jumped out of bed and grabbed my phone trying to move away from her into the spare bedroom, turning the light on as I entered. Before I had the chance to close the door [Ms Carrera] turned the lights off. I turned them on again. [Ms Carrera] turned them off again. I had activated my video recording by now. I believe [Ms Carrera] realised I was recording and so she started saying things like: "He's hitting me" and "He's hitting the baby as well. He's trying to kill me".

On that night I overheard [Ms Carrera] make a telephone call to who I now understand to me (sic) a 000 operator. I heard [Ms Carrera] request "Police". I heard [Ms Carrera] inform the operator "Hands, hands". I was scared of her, and glad she had called Police. [Ms Carrera] exited the bedroom and entered the spare bedroom, still talking to the operator. She closed the door behind her. Then [Ms Carrera] exited the spare bedroom and walked straight past me down the hallway and out of the apartment towards the lift. I do not recall her limping or showing any sign of discomfort.

I followed behind [Ms Carrera] for a few steps as she left the apartment. [Ms Carrera] entered the lift and I saw it travel to the ground floor. I saw [Ms Carrera] walking along the street. The Police arrived sometime later, and [Ms Carrera] and I were interviewed. I deny physically abusing [Ms Carrera]. If physical contact did occur, it was to protect/guard myself against her physical abuse. I am not aware of any photographs which support evidence [Ms Carrera] was bruised in her abdomen or anywhere else, arising from the abuse I am alleged to have carried out on [Ms Carrera] that night. I understand that [Ms Carrera]'s allegations eventually became that I kneed her in the stomach, which I would not do because I am protective of my knees ...

[Ms Carrera] assaulted me that night. It was frightening and I think I was left in shock. My instincts were to protect the baby and I said to police following the incident that I had plead with [Ms Carrera]: "Stop this, you will harm the baby!" I believe that [Ms Carrera] informed NSW Police I said to her - "Stop this, you will harm the baby!" which caused her to pause momentarily before she then kept hitting me. I do not know if this was (another) episode of hallucination or schizophrenia. I cannot explain her behaviour.

I note that I have previously undergone a [...] knee reconstruction procedure in 2015 and [another] knee reconstruction procedure in February 2021, and therefore using my knees as a weapon is something I would definitely avoid for fear of re-injuring the same. The [...] knee has two screws within the tibia and fibula, and required around 12 months of rehabilitation. Neither knee is reliable to date, and I would never have risked further injuring either knee which might have resulted in a regression in my mobility and stability...

Had I used my knee/s as a weapon I would have required and would have sought treatment of the same from my physiotherapist and medical practitioner.

[167]

His record of interview with the police was put to him, as was the accusation that he "grabbed the phone out of her hand and pushed her". He is recorded by police as having responded "[y]eah, that's because - so that's like - that's when - when I asked, like, do you think that you approached her and assaulted her at any point, like, that's what I mean, like, yeah, because it's been going on for like two hours by then. Yeah, so just out of frustration then." He agreed that he said that but denied that he had made that comment because he pushed Ms Carrera. He admitted, notwithstanding that he did not give the evidence in his affidavit, that he had said "I will break your phone in a minute."
It appears from a police record dated February 2023 that it was the grabbing of Ms Carrera's phone from her hands and an allegation that he assaulted her in the process of doing so which resulted in Mr Ragni being charged. The criminal charges were dismissed following a defended hearing over two days at Local Court. The police were shown videos of the incident taken by Mr Ragni on his phone, and the police record notes that the video shows Mr Ragni grabbing Ms Carrera's phone from her hands, pushing her and saying to her "I'm going to smash your phone." During cross-examination, he confirmed that he had seen images which depicted bruising on Ms Carrera's thigh and forearms. Photographs were tendered, along with a record from a social worker made in September 2021 to the effect that there was "an approx. 8 cm linear bruise to the top of her right thigh". There was also light bruising on Ms Carrera's forearms. Mr Ragni nevertheless did not accept that Ms Carrera was bruised because of his physicality to her.
Ms Carrera has given different accounts about what occurred in September, including in relation to where she and Mr Ragni were positioned before the physical violence occurred. Under cross-examination, it was put to her that she was the initial aggressor, there was a physical fight between them, Mr Ragni grabbed her by the arms to stop her from hitting him, and Mr Ragni's knee connected with her body. It was put to her that these propositions were consistent with what she told the police in September 2021, and that her affidavit evidence effectively put the order of events the other way around, omitted that she had been the aggressor, and constituted false evidence. She denied that, but her evidence about what actually occurred was unclear and, when questioned about the same incident by counsel for the ICL, she commenced giving a different account from that given in response to questions from senior counsel for Mr Ragni.
To the social worker at the hospital the following day, Ms Carrera is recorded as having said the bruise "was incurred during the assault, cannot remember if it was the result of a kick or a punch as 'everything was happening at once'". The social worker also recorded that:
- "[s]he does not want to be connected to her husband & knows that by having the baby she will always be linked to him. He has threatened her earlier in pregnancy that he would get custody of the baby if they separated."
- She "has lost approx. 3 kg of weight since conceiving due to hyperemesis" and "pt states her husband thought she was 'making it up'".
- "there has been another incident of DV during the pregnancy & after he kicked her he said it was her fault"
- "Pt anxious that her husband may try & come to her mother[']s house, which he has done when she left him after the incident of DV earlier in pregnancy."
I am unable to make findings about the detail of what occurred on the night of separation. I do not accept Ms Carrera's affidavit evidence that Mr Ragni got on top of her and thrust his knees multiple times into her abdomen. That evidence was not consistent with the accounts she has given at other times (including the inconsistent accounts she gave during cross-examination). Had that actually occurred in the manner described by Ms Carrera in her affidavit it is hard to see how I would have made an order for Mr Ragni to have any time at all with X. Ms Carrera's evidence is probably an exaggerated and inaccurate account of what happened.
Nonetheless, I am satisfied that, in September 2021, Mr Ragni used physical violence towards Ms Carrera, causing bruising to her, and in circumstances where he knew she was then in the early stages of pregnancy. I am also satisfied that Ms Carrera used some physical violence towards Mr Ragni on this occasion. I am not able to determine whether Ms Carrera's physical violence was used in self-defence or not. What is clear is that the circumstances in which Ms Carrera and Mr Ragni used physical violence towards each other were quite different. The parents were differently situated. All of Mr Ragni's witnesses deposed to how thin Ms Carrera was. From that evidence and my own observations, I can safely infer that Ms Carrera was physically much smaller than Mr Ragni at the time. Ms Carrera was pregnant and ill and therefore vulnerable. Ms Carrera suffered bruising. She was frightened and called police for assistance. She was found by police and the ambulance services standing barefoot outside the parties' residence.

[179]

Mr Ragni agreed that he had told his psychologist Ms P that he was "'more assertive'" with his partners after marriage than when dating. By way of example, he indicated that during the dating stage, if his partner had made food he did not like, he would nevertheless try the prepared meal, but that if the same scenario arose after marriage, "I would just tell her '[h]ey don't make it'". When pressed about that statement, Mr Ragni clarified that he meant "... like, '[h]ey, let's do something else - eat something else'. Yes" and, in response to a question that he was not going to eat something he didn't like, replied "Yes. I can have my own food. She can have - welcome to have her - you know, if she wants to make something, then that's ... all good". These responses appear to be him dictating what should be cooked for him by Ms Carrera, but that proposition was not put to him in cross examination, so I am unable to make anything of that evidence. Mr Ragni complained to his mother about Ms Carrera not cleaning up her vomit in the bathroom at a time when she was suffering from hyperemesis gravidarum in the early stages of pregnancy. It was not put to him that he might have cleaned up the vomit given Ms Carrera was ill - it seems to have been the assumption of both Mr Ragni and his mother (who said to Ms Carrera words to the effect of "try and clean it up if you can") that Ms Carrera would necessarily be the one to clean up the vomit, notwithstanding she was unwell. While I cannot draw the connection in this matter, evidence of assumptions that certain tasks should be undertaken by a person because of their gender may be relevant to, or an aspect of, findings of family violence.
I accept Ms Carrera's evidence that Mr Ragni told her that she was not allowed to lock the bathroom door when she was taking a shower, and that from that point she did not lock the bathroom door because she was worried that Mr Ragni would be angry at her.
Mr Ragni gave evidence that he expected Ms Carrera to tell him where he was going when he sent her a text message on 17 September 2019 that read "[w]here are you going, you need to tell me." He explained this on the basis that Ms Carrera had been unwell, and he was worried about her safety. He did accept from me that Ms Carrera was a grown woman who was able to assess her own interests.
Previously, he had sent a message to Ms Carrera's mother: "please find out where [Ms Carrera] has gone without telling me. I gave her vomit medicine at 7.15am, it is unopened. I went to Coles early to get her food she just walked out. She was sitting outside in cold at 3am. She is harming the baby." He also sent a photograph of groceries which he had purchased. Ms Carrera's evidence was that she had told him she had a doctor's appointment and asked him to come. The message to Ms Carrera's mother is further evidence that Mr Ragni expected Ms Carrera to tell him where she was going. More troublingly, it is evidence of him trying to persuade her mother that she is somehow "harming the baby" and otherwise trying to portray himself in a good light and Ms Carrera in a bad light. Dr C identified that this kind of behaviour, that is, contacting a relative after an incident and providing a false narrative of said incident so as to "discredit her ... and cause reputational damage", could, depending on the circumstances, be family violence.
In cross-examination by the ICL (after I had raised the issue with him), Mr Ragni admitted that his behaviour in sending the text message about Ms DD was not appropriate, although he still tried to justify it - "I had concerns about the unborn baby inside of her". He also came close to acknowledging that the sending of the message about Ms Carrera needing to tell him where she was going was inappropriate, and was appropriately reflective about it:

[181]

With respect to the incidents about which Ms Carrera gave evidence, Mr Ragni sought to explain them on the basis that they were caused by Ms Carrera's extreme behaviour. Notwithstanding that he gave evidence that at times Ms Carrera was kicking and thrashing uncontrollably and that he thought she was having hallucinations or schizophrenia, he did not seek any professional help for her. The only records in evidence in which he refers to concerns about that behaviour (save for a text message he sent to Ms Carrera's mother and referred to above) were records of reports he made after separation and in the context of these proceedings. I find it is unlikely that, if Ms Carrera had behaved in the ways which Mr Ragni said she did, he would not have sought assistance for her. I do not accept Mr Ragni's evidence about extreme and dysregulated behaviour by Ms Carrera.
I find that reports made by Mr Ragni after separation regarding Ms Carrera's behaviour during the relationship and in the context of these proceedings were unjustified and had the effect of causing her further anxiety. For example, I am satisfied that he told police on 21 October 2022 that Ms Carrera had an undiagnosed mental health illness, made comments to the effect that Ms Carrera would make threats about harming X "when she becomes unstable" and he was concerned that she was now over-medicating X. I do not accept his oral evidence that he expressed a concern to police that she might be over or under-medicating X. In response to a question from senior counsel for Ms Carrera, he said "I understood her to be on medication, so, yes, whether it has been taken or not, yes", and confirmed that his concerns pertained to "both" over-medicating and under-medicating. That is not consistent with the record and Mr Ragni resorted to that evidence only after he was challenged about having told police Ms Carrera might be over-medicating X.
When asked about the basis of his statements that Ms Carrera "makes threats about harming the baby", he referred to what had occurred more than 12 months earlier and before X was born:

[217]

On 12 December 2022, Mr Ragni's lawyers sent Ms Carrera's lawyers lengthy correspondence challenging that X should not return immediately to spending time with Mr Ragni and referring to various medical documents. The communication concluded: "[i]n the event that we do not hold your response regarding the foregoing by 1pm 13 December 2022, please inform your client the father will make application [sic] to relist this matter on an urgent basis, and seek an order that your client pay the costs of the same." There was a further letter sent by [Mr Ragni]'s lawyers on 13 December 2022, which included the statements that "it is unclear how your client formed the conclusion [X] was distressed at the contact centre on the single visit which has occurred to date" and "if [X] was stressed, it is unclear how your client can assert that spending time with our client was the reason [X] was stressed. Did [X] articulate this to your client?" During the final hearing, a supervision report for the first contact visit was tendered. The report showed that the first visit only lasted for 15 minutes because of X's distress on what was her first meeting with Mr Ragni. On that occasion, Mr Ragni was assured by staff at the contact centre that "he did well with [X] and it will be a slow progress but over time [X] will become more familiar with father and centre and will settle." I bear in mind that Mr Ragni did not write the correspondence from his solicitors referred to above, but he probably read it and approved it, including the sending of follow-up correspondence on 13 December 2022. Mr Ragni's approval of these communications shows a lack of insight into X's needs at that time, and a lack of insight into the impact of his conduct upon Ms Carrera at a time when she needed to focus on X's needs.
He also gave evidence that, while Dr FF recommended that X be cared for in her home, and that medical clearance was often required before a child returned to day care or other care arrangements, "my interpretation is ... the care centre is basically a home. That's the closest thing to a home. It's, like - it is a house. It's not like there was other kids or anything. It's completely isolated." When asked to accept that the contact centre was not a familiar place for X, he gave evidence that because X had gone to the contact centre on several occasions (he acknowledged fewer than five), he saw it as comparable to her home. This evidence showed considerable lack of insight into X's needs at that time.
I am also troubled about Mr Ragni's attitude to Dr D, X's General Practitioner, about whom he wrote a long complaint to numerous bodies, including the Health Care Complaints Commission (subsequently dismissed), which included the following:

[223]

And did the police then tell you they were looking at charging the mother? They - they asked those kinds of questions. Like, "Do you want us to charge her? Do you want us to" - like, you know, "Why are you here?" But - yes. I didn't, like - I didn't - yes. Like, we didn't have - we didn't go into that. It was just, "Come back with your information." But - yes. The main purpose was to make a statement and - yes. And then they obviously say, like, "We can look at a charging her if there is" - yes. But I wanted them to - yes.

HER HONOUR: You wanted them to what? Sorry. If you don't finish your answer, I don't know what your answer is? Sure. Sure. Sorry. Yes. I wanted them to consider - like, consider, you know, if there is - like, what action - not necessarily charge, but, like, a warning, perhaps. Yes. Or have a speak - chat to her.

MS CLIFTON: It actually says, [in] February 2023, on page 1346:

[Ragni] wanted the victim charged with perjury and false accusation offences.

So you did want her charged, didn't you? Not necessarily, no. I don't - yes.

Why did you tell the police that then?

HER HONOUR: Or did you tell the police that?

MS CLIFTON: Well, it's written here. Quite - so quite right. That's what it says. It says:

[Ragni] wanted the victim charged with perjury and false accusation offences.

Did you say that to the police? Like, I'm not - I wanted it to be -

HER HONOUR: "Did you say that to police?" is the question? No.

MS CLIFTON: No. No. You're saying it was incorrectly recorded? Yes. I wanted it reviewed. Like, them to review it. Yes.

Okay. So the police made a mistake, do you think, then? Yes. Or they're writing it in their context because - but - yes. I definitely wanted it, yes, reviewed. Not necessarily go back to court and have a trial on it and all of that, but - yes. You know, it's - yes. Definitely. Like, if there is action to be taken, then, yes, to do - you know, whatever. If they think it's appropriate to have a chat with her, then, yes, that's fine. If they think that, you know, she committed an offence, then we can, yes - like, obviously, then I will get legal advice. But - yes.

[224]

Having regard to the records, and to what Mr Ragni told the supervision centre, I find that Mr Ragni did tell police that he wanted Ms Carrera charged with perjury. That reflects poorly on his ability to consider X and the impact on her of such a course of action - including because of its impact on Ms Carrera.
In October 2023, Ms Carrera's lawyers wrote to Mr Ragni's lawyers notifying him that X was on the wait list for a number of day care centres close to where she lived and asking that he "confirm which daycare centres [he] has made inquiries within the vicinity of the mother's residence so that our client can consider your client's views". That correspondence was not responded to until nearly a month later and that response indicated that Mr Ragni had made inquiries about daycare centres "in the midpoint between the parties' residences." At that time, Mr Ragni was spending time with X on two occasions a week, supervised. He did not agree to X attending one of the day care centres for which X was on the waiting list until the parents were back in court in February 2024. Mr Ragni's conduct in this matter lacked child focus.
Mr Ragni gave evidence that he "could have done certain better steps" when asked by senior counsel for Ms Carrera to reflect upon the impact on X and Ms Carrera of his post-separation conduct. When pressed as to what these "certain better steps" could have been, he identified speaking to the police about Ms Carrera being charged with perjury, and later gave evidence that this was conduct about which he had some regret. Other than speaking to police on this occasion, Mr Ragni was unable to identify any other instances or behaviours in relation to which he felt he could have done better or about which he had regrets.
Mr Ragni refused to give Ms Carrera his address, despite the fact that she had requested it formally through her solicitors on 31 May 2024. By way of explanation, he indicated that he had requested from Ms Carrera a confirmation that she would not disclose the address "which we haven't received back". He then conceded that a letter sent by Ms Carrera's solicitors on 11 July 2024 contained the following:

[228]

Mr Ragni's evidence about things that X has said to him and what they might mean was surprising. Mr Ragni gave evidence that, based on a conversation he had with X on 9 November 2024, in which she spoke about the police and made comments that Mr Ragni "broke" Ms Carrera's car, he thought X was being used to make threats against him. He did not accept the proposition that "a not quite three year old is an inaccurate historian?" When it was put to him that a three year old's ability to recall what has been said previously and then to articulate it in a consistent and accurate fashion is limited, he replied "I - I don't know. I - I - yes". Mr Ragni also could not simply accept that, on occasion, X has big emotions at daycare, based on a report from the daycare centre to that effect which had been provided to him. It was put to him that "she has big emotions when sometimes things change unexpectedly or they don't go her way, is that what you understood?", to which he replied "[n]o, because I didn't understand that, because the - I'm prevented from seeing the carer notes, so I don't have visibility in terms - like around what's happening." He did, however, appropriately communicate with the daycare centre to obtain more information, and ultimately conceded that X was experiencing big emotions at daycare and that strategies were required to assist in X growing her emotional capacity, stating "Yes. Like, I knew that was an issue, yes."
Mr Ragni has received assistance from his clinical psychologist, Ms P, since November 2021, and had attended 28 psychology sessions as at 27 January of this year. Ms P reported that Mr Ragni initially sought treatment in the aftermath of his hospitalisations for his COVID vaccine reaction, and that his symptoms meant that he met the diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Though Mr Ragni no longer met this criteria, in Ms P's report dated 20 July 2024 it was reported that he continued to seek assistance, though on a less frequent basis, in relation to stress and anxiety associated with "separation, court proceedings and barriers to having contacts [sic] with [X] ". Whilst Ms P noted that Mr Ragni wanted to learn more about, and engaged in appointments in relation to, anger management, and it was observed that Mr Ragni was receptive to the possibility that some of Ms Carrera's behaviours towards himself and X were influenced by her anxieties, fears and perceptions stemming from their relationship (rather than forming part of a strategy to alienate him from X), Ms P variously noted that he felt frustration, confusion, mistrust and anxiety towards Ms Carrera. He also denied to Ms P that he had perpetrated family violence against Ms Carrera. In her subsequent report dated 27 January 2025, Mr Ragni's distrust of Ms Carrera continued to be evident, for example, through his reporting of X calling him a "monster" and speculation of whether Ms Carrera had spoken about him in that way in X's presence, though it was noted that he had used his most recent psychology sessions to explore "ways of creating a balanced perspective of [Ms Carrera] to improve their co-parenting relationship".
Mr Ragni has the assistance of his family and I am satisfied that, with that assistance, he has or will develop sufficient capacity to meet X's needs as her time with him progresses. He does not have the parental capacity nor the insight which Ms Carrera has. His behaviour in relation to the matters outlined above is significant in my decision to make an order for sole parental responsibility, as I explain below.

[233]

(1) While Ms Carrera gave evidence that she was able to communicate with Mr Ragni about X by email, it is a different thing to say that she is able to participate in a process of decision-making with him, given what I accept is her considerable anxiety and fear associated with dealing with Mr Ragni - in part at least because of his use of family violence against her. It is in X's best interests to minimise such anxiety and fear on the part of Ms Carrera.

(2) There is absolutely no trust between the parents. Both are highly suspicious of the other. As an example, both parents said that X had used the term "monster" towards them and both attributed it to something that the other parent had said to X about them. Dr C agreed with the proposition that the parents' attitudes towards X's comments about "monsters" "demonstrates really quite a significant distrust between one and the other."

(3) There is no history of co-parenting and no reason to be confident that the parties will be able to engage in co-parenting. The parents have not yet communicated directly and have been using lawyers or the changeover service to communicate between them. Dr C agreed with the proposition that "the likelihood of distrust abating in a quick fashion is a bit limited."

(4) Mr Ragni has behaved in ways of which I am critical in relation to X's medical treating professionals and enrolment in daycare.

(5) Given the history of his behaviour, I am not confident that Mr Ragni would communicate with Ms Carrera in a respectful and appropriate way.

(6) Ms Carrera can be trusted to make appropriate decisions for X.

(7) There are a number of major long-term decisions which will soon need to be made for X, including which year she will start school (whether in 2027 or 2028), and where she will go to school.

(8) It was Dr C's recommendation in relation to parental responsibility and decision-making that one parent have parental responsibility for X but be required to seek and consider the views of the other parent. She confirmed under cross-examination that remained her recommendation.

(9) Ms Carrera gave evidence that she does not intend to change X's name, and I am satisfied that she will not do that.

[234]

I am not satisfied that the difficulties which will arise if there is a requirement for joint decision-making can be overcome by putting into place a default process, such as Family Dispute Resolution. Any benefits which may arise from requiring joint decision-making are outweighed by the benefits to X of avoiding conflict and a further decision-making process, particularly noting a decision about when and where X goes to school will need to be made in the next 18 months or so. A requirement for joint decision making and involvement in Family Dispute Resolution will likely cause anxiety in Ms Carrera, even if it is carried out by way of video link. My conclusion is particularly in circumstances where I am making orders which require Ms Carrera to seek and consider Mr Ragni's input, provided such input is timely. I am satisfied she will do that and take account of professional advice that she receives, notwithstanding that she did not consult with Mr Ragni in the very difficult circumstances surrounding X's birth.
Ms Carrera sought orders that she be required to inform Mr Ragni in advance of a decision with respect to major long-term issues for X, and give him the opportunity for input. Her orders sought that she could give and receive information through a nominee, but she gave evidence that she felt able to communicate directly with Mr Ragni by email. I have therefore made orders which provide for that, and which include a requirement to consider Mr Ragni's input.
I am satisfied that it is in X's best interests for her to continue to be in the primary care of Ms Carrera. There remain the questions of how quickly time (including school holiday time) progresses and whether time during school terms progresses to four nights a fortnight (as Ms Carrera and the ICL seek) or to equal time (as Mr Ragni seeks).
Dr C recommended that two full days commence immediately as a precursor to the introduction of overnight time and so that X becomes used to having a full day in Mr Ragni's household including any nap time, and gets used to being away from her mother. She opined that X would likely cope well with two consecutive days with Mr Ragni now, and also that the mid-week time could be continued, although on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday so that the transitions between the two households are not too close together in the week. X is not currently at daycare on Wednesday. The orders embrace that recommendation and provide for an immediate move to consecutive full days on each alternate weekend, and a continuation of the current mid-week arrangement but on a Wednesday.
In answer to questions from senior counsel for Mr Ragni, Dr C recommended that progression occur after each stage has been in place for about six months and avoid the period just after X has commenced school (and so occur in the November prior to X starting school or in February/March, after X has been at school for a period). However, she agreed with the subsequent proposition put to her by senior counsel for Ms Carrera that "if this Court found that family violence with the father being the perpetrator - as I have outlined, in particular with those incidents of physical violence - did occur, that that finding should impact on the rate of change of time for X."
Dr C explained:

[235]

if the mother is - has experienced family violence from the father, and particularly with elements of coercive control, then her tolerance for - and capacity to exhibit parenting behaviours that help [X] cope with living in two households, would be very limited. And so what that would mean, on a practical level, is the longer she spends away from her mother, the more anxious the mother would become, the more likely the mother would scrutinise [X]'s behaviour, body, mannerisms, utterances when she returned to the father, through the lens of, "He is a dangerous man, and he might have either hurt her directly, or sought to manipulate her psychologically to undermine me as a mother", for example. So she would be unlikely to help [X] have the sort of adaptive and positive skills to cope with different things in dad's house. So I would say that it would - if the court finds the mother has been a victim of family violence, and particularly coercive control, the mother would - would not have a - a well-developed set of capacities to help this very young child cope with a - a sort of effectively shared care arrangement. And so that would be the first response to it. The second would be that if - if that is the case, and the court has found family violence occurred with the father as the perpetrator, then it's quite - quite substantial literature that often, patterns of coercive control are played out in parenting dynamics, with children being effectively used to sort of - the perpetrator undermining the parental authority of the victim parent, by subtly or overtly undermining their parental authority to the child. "You don't have to do what Mummy says. She is too strict. There are no iPad rules here". That kind of thing. And therefore undermining her confidence, and confusing [X] about how trustworthy her mother is ... there would be things in the parenting behaviours which would make living between two households, accepting and trusting my parents love me and want the best for me, would make those things very challenging for a young child.

[240]

She agreed with the proposition that "there are countervailing considerations on each position, that is, commencing overnight time sooner or having it later."
Having considered this evidence, the progressions I have ordered are not as fast as Mr Ragni seeks, but are not as slow as Ms Carrera proposes. I have left the first stage in place for nearly a year. This means that X will be almost four and a half when overnights commence. The introduction of overnight time is a particularly critical transition, and I find that a delay for 12 months or so between Stage 1 and Stage 2 strikes the appropriate balance between on the one hand giving Ms Carrera more time to work with her psychologist, allowing X to develop further and allowing Mr Ragni to continue to develop his parenting capacities, and on the other providing X with access to appropriate experiences in her father's household so as to deepen her relationship with Mr Ragni.
Stages 2 and 3 will each last for six months. I have made the penultimate stage a little longer (nine months). Again, I am satisfied this strikes the appropriate balance and is in X's best interests. By the time X is just a little over six, and at full-time school, she will be spending four nights a fortnight with her father.
Both parents proposed that school term time for X with Mr Ragni occur in all weeks (rather than in one block a fortnight). I have considered Dr C's recommendation that mid-week time occur weekly to enable X to have a consistent day with her father each week when they can share the after-school routines. There are factors which, combined with my decision that time should not extend beyond four nights a fortnight, outweigh the benefit of a consistent night each week - namely, the obvious considerable benefits to school pick ups and drop offs (meaning there is only one night a fortnight left to make up the four), and that a mid-week overnight each week will mean more and closer transitions. While such transitions are necessary while X progresses through the first stages towards more time with Mr Ragni, they are best avoided in the final two stages. Further, X will have an after-school period with her father each week - in the last stage one week it will be on a Thursday and in the other week it will be on a Friday. While Friday afternoons are qualitatively different from mid-week afternoons, Mr Ragni will also have the opportunity to get X ready for, and take her to, school each alternate Monday.
I am satisfied that an arrangement where X ultimately spends time with Mr Ragni four nights a fortnight during school terms strikes the right balance for X. With the assistance of his family members Mr Ragni will continue to develop the capacity to care for X in ways which meet her needs, but Ms Carrera has already proven excellent parenting capacity, greater child focus, and greater insight. It is in X's best interests to put into place a parenting arrangement whereby she will continue to enjoy the benefits of Ms Carrera's parenting as her primary carer while also having sufficient time to continue developing her relationship with Mr Ragni and benefiting from time in his household. Further, having regard to the reasons provided above, any more time than four nights a fortnight during school terms would require a degree of cooperation between the parents which I am not satisfied will be able to occur. It would also likely create considerable anxiety in Ms Carrera, which is contrary to X's best interests.
The parents agree that time should progress to include half school holidays. I accept Dr C's recommendation that such a progression should not occur until X is in her second year of full-time school (whether that be 2028 or 2029), and that prior to that there should just be an addition of a night or two to the regular weekend block during school holidays. If X's first year of full-time school is 2027, she will have four nights in a block during school holidays (or blocks over the summer holiday). If her first year of school is 2028, she will have five nights in a block (or blocks over the summer holiday). This arrangement adds for school holidays two nights to the block weekend time she will be having in the relevant school term, and so is an appropriate gradual transition for X and Ms Carrera, and in X's best interests.
I am satisfied that in 2027 (if X is having school holiday time in that year) and 2028 it is in X's best interests that she be back in the care of Ms Carrera for the commencement of the school year, so that Ms Carrera can prepare her and take her to school.
I have not made any orders for X to spend three-week blocks with each parent for the December/January school holidays, because it is so difficult to predict how things will be for X and her parents so far ahead (assuming such a progression would not be at least until the end of year 3, as Dr C recommended). I cannot be satisfied such blocks will be in X's best interests.
I was asked by Ms Carrera to make an order restraining international travel and putting X's name on the Airport Watchlist until 2040. There was no evidence of any weight that there was a risk that Mr Ragni would take X to live overseas. To the contrary, he has lived and worked in Australia for many years, and has significant extended family here. It was surprising that Ms Carrera could not agree with the proposition that it is unlikely that Mr Ragni would take X to live overseas. That is an unreasonable position for her to take. In submissions, I was told by senior counsel for Ms Carrera that I should make that order because Ms Carrera is anxious about Mr Ragni taking X overseas and the order would ameliorate that anxiety. I am not willing to make what is a significant restraining order on that basis alone. By virtue of the operation of s 65Y of the Act, neither parent will be able to travel overseas without the written consent of the other parent, properly authenticated. It is a criminal offence to do so. The parents agreed to orders that they be restrained from applying for Country L travel documents without the consent of the other. Those two matters should be sufficient reassurance to Ms Carrera.
The parents have each spent approximately $600,000 in legal fees on these proceedings. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that I make an order that they pay the ICL's relatively modest costs in equal shares, subject to any application based on financial hardship which either of them may make to NSW Legal Aid.
The balance of the orders are made by consent between the parents - with the ICL expressing no view to the contrary - and I am satisfied that they are in X's best interests. It is to both parents' and their legal representatives' credit, and a hopeful sign, that they were able to agree these matters, including the ability for Ms Carrera's brother to continue to be involved in facilitating arrangements for X, such as changeovers, as Ms Carrera's nominee.

Ragni & Carrera [2025] FedCFamC1F 394 (30 June 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (241 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)