Randolf & Martell [2025] FedCFamC2F 1721 (5 December 2025)

Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82

Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104; (2015) FLC 93-654

Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092

Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101

Napier & Hepburn [2006] FamCA 1316; (2006) FLC 93-303

Re K [1994] FamCA 21; (1994) FLC 92-461

SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

1. Pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of the final consent order made on 3 March 2021, the child do spend time with the father for the second half of the 2025/2026 Christmas school holidays, commencing at 4:00pm on 5 January 2026; and
2. Mr Ashley Kent, solicitor previously acted as Independent Children's Lawyer for the child in proceedings being File No: (P)ADC3088/2019.

1. The mother shall collect the child X born in 2014 ('the child') from the Court Children's Services at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Level 2, 3 Angas Street, Adelaide upon delivery of this Judgment.
2. Pursuant to section 67U of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a recovery order do issue authorising and directing the Marshal, Deputy Marshal and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the police forces of all of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia to find and recover the child and to deliver the child to the mother forthwith.
3. The recovery order as provided for in paragraph 2 herein is stayed.
4. Liberty for to the mother to apply for the lifting of the stay order as provided for in paragraph 3 herein upon joint email correspondence to the Chambers of Judge Dickson.

1. The mother, the father and the paternal grandmother be restrained, and injunctions are hereby granted restraining each of them from:

(a) questioning the child as to her preferences and views regarding living arrangements or allowing any other person to do so;

(b) discussing these proceedings with the child or in the presence of the child or allowing any other person to do so; and

(c) denigrating the other in the presence of the child or allowing any other person to do so.

1. The mother be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining her from physically disciplining or physically chastising the child or from allowing any person to do so.

1. Pursuant to section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) an Independent Children's Lawyer is appointed for the child:

1. The Legal Services Commission of South Australia is requested to make arrangements as soon as possible for appropriate representation for the child and forthwith upon such appointment, the Independent Children's Lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.
2. The parties' and/or their respective solicitors do forward all relevant documents to the Legal Services Commission of South Australia at ...@... within seven (7) days of today's date (NOTING the Court will advise the Legal Services Commission of South Australia of this order forthwith).
3. Each party make available to the Independent Children's Lawyer within seven (7) days of notification or filing of the Notice of Address for Service copies of all applications and affidavits upon which that party relies together with any existing orders and copies of any relevant reports.
4. Leave is granted to the Independent Children's Lawyer to issue such subpoenas as they consider necessary for the appropriate conduct of the matter and/or as is reasonably requested by a party.
5. The parties forthwith provide to the Independent Children's Lawyer the names and addresses of any medical practitioners, counsellors or other professional people or agencies they have attended within the last twelve (12) months together with the names and addresses of all medical practitioners, schools, day care centres and/or agencies whom the child may have seen or attended in the last twelve (12) months and provide to the Independent Children's Lawyer authorities for the release of information concerning themselves and the child from such person or agency.

1. Pursuant to section 62G (3A) and (3B) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the parties and the child X born in 2014 ('the child') are directed to attend with a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a Family Consultant) nominated by the Court Children's Service ('the Court Child Expert') for the purposes of the preparation of a Child Impact Report at the dates and times below, or as otherwise directed by the Court Child Expert.
2. Part 1 of the event will occur by video by way of Webex, on 12 February 2026 with:

(a) the Applicant to attend at 9:00am; and

(b) the first and second Respondents to attend at 10:30am.

Webex links will be provided to the parties by the Court Child Expert prior to the event.

1. Part 2 of the event will occur in person at the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Adelaide Registry at 3 Angas Street, Adelaide at 9:00am on 13 February 2026. Specific details regarding the attendance of the parties and the child on this date will be provided to the parties in Part 1 of the event.
2. Each party will do all things necessary to ensure the child attend upon the Court Child Expert pursuant to section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Court Child Expert that section 62G(3B) applies.
3. The parties and the child shall continue to attend at such times, dates and places as the Court Child Expert may advise.
4. No later than 4.00pm on 11 December 2025, the parties must provide their contact telephone numbers and email addresses to ...@....
5. Pursuant to order 13 herein, the Court Child Expert shall provide a written report to the Court, and the Child Impact Report shall deal with the following matters:

(a) include an observed interaction between the child and each party notwithstanding the terms of any interim or final intervention order;

(b) any agreement reached between the parties;

(c) identification of key issues requiring resolution;

(d) any views expressed by the child and any matters (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the court should place on those views;

(e) the impact of the issues/dispute before the Court on the child; and

(f) any other matters that the Court Child Expert considers important to the welfare or best interests of the child.

1. Upon completion, the Child Impact Report shall be provided to the Court for release to the parties, including by way of order made in Chambers.
2. The Court Child Expert will be at liberty to inspect any material filed by the parties, and otherwise the following:

(a) information provided to the Court by the respective Family Law Information Sharing Officers from the South Australia Police and the Department for Child Protection;

(b) if applicable, any section 91B Report provided by the Department for Child Protection;

(c) the Judgment of her Honour Judge Dickson dated 5 December 2025; and

(d) any other relevant documents.

1. All extant interim proceedings are hereby dismissed.
2. The proceedings are adjourned for directions before Judicial Registrar Derewlany on 18 March 2026 at 9:30am by way of Webex.

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

1. These proceedings come before the Court by way of Initiating Application filed on 20 October 2025 by the mother, Ms Randolf ('the mother'). The mother seeks a recovery order for the return of the subject child, X born in 2014 ('X') to her primary care.
2. The application is opposed by the father, Mr Martell ('the father') and the paternal grandmother, Mrs Martell ('the paternal grandmother'). The father and the paternal grandmother have each filed responding documents seeking, inter alia, that X remain living with the paternal grandmother in City B and that the mother spend supervised time with X.
3. The parties competing applications were ventilated at an interim hearing on 27 November 2025 which occupied most of the Court sitting day. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judgment was reserved.
4. These are the Court's Reasons following argument between the parties concerned.

1. The mother filed an Outline of Case Document (Interim Hearing) on 26 November 2025 which indicates at Part B that she relies upon the following documents:

(1) Initiating Application filed 20 October 2025;

(2) Affidavit of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025;

(3) Affidavit of Ms Randolf filed 21 November 2025;

(4) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 20 October 2025; and

(5) Costs Notice dated 26 November 2025.

1. The father filed an Outline of Case Document (Interim Hearing) on 25 November 2025 which indicates at Part B that he relies upon the following documents:

(1) Affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(2) Response to Final Orders of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(3) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 17 November 2025;

(4) Affidavit of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025;

(5) Response to Final Orders of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025;

(6) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 14 November 2025; and

(7) Costs Notice dated 26 November 2025.

1. The paternal grandmother filed an (Amended) Outline of Case Document (Interim Hearing) on 26 November 2025 which indicates at Part B that she relies upon the following documents:

(1) Affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(2) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 17 November 2025;

(3) Affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(4) Genuine Steps Certificate of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(5) Response to Final Orders of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025;

(6) Genuine Steps Certificate of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025;

(7) Affidavit of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025;

(8) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 14 November 2025;

(9) Response to Final Orders of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025;

(10) Affidavit of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025;

(11) Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 20 October 2025;

(12) Genuine Steps Certificate of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025;

(13) Application for Final Orders of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025;

(14) Section 67ZBD CDP (sic) Material dated 21 November 2025;

(15) Section 67ZBE SAPOL Material dated 26 November 2025; and

(16) Costs Notice dated 26 November 2025.

1. The parties and the Court also had regard to co-located information provided by the Department for Child Protection ('the Department') dated 21 November 2025 and the South Australian Police ('SAPOL') dated 24 November 2025 during the hearing.

1. In her Initiating Application filed 20 October 2025, the mother seeks interim orders in the following terms:

1. That this matter be listed urgently. 2. All times be abridged to allow this Application to be heard by this Honourable Court as a matter of urgency. 3. Pursuant to section 67U of the Family Law Act a Recovery Order issue authorising and directing the Marshall, Deputy Marshall and all officers of the Australian Federal Police and all officers of the Police Forces of all of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia to find and recover the child, [X] born [in] 2014, and deliver the said child to the Applicant mother forthwith, she being a person entitled to have the said child live with her pursuant to orders made by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (as it was then known). 4. A copy of this order be forwarded immediately to the AFP Operations Coordination Centre by the Adelaide Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. 5. There be liberty to apply on short notice including to list for mention. 6. That upon the return of [X] to the Applicant mother, time spending thereafter do occur in accordance with the terms of the Order dated 3 March 2021. 7. That the Second Respondent be restrained and an injunction be granted restraining:-

(a) The child, [X] from being left in the care of the Second Respondent. > > (b) The Second Respondent from contacting or otherwise obtaining information about the child, [X] from any of the child's treating medical professional or any service providing therapy or support to the child.

1. That paragraph 20 of the Order dated 3 March 2021 be discharged. 2. That the Second Respondent do pay the Applicant's costs of and incidental to this Application. 3. Such further as deemed necessary by this Honourable Court.
2. By way of oral application, the mother sought the following additional interim orders:

(1) that she have sole parental decision-making for X;

(2) a reduction in the father's Christmas 2025/2026 school holiday time spending so that the time occur on each alternate weekend and not for half of the holidays in consecutive weeks; and

(3) mutual injunctions restraining the parties from discussing these proceedings or X's living arrangements with her.

1. The mother consented to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and for a Child Impact Report to be ordered.

1. In his Response to Final Orders filed 17 November 2025, the father seeks interim orders in the following terms:

1. That the child, [X], born [in] 2014 ("[X]") live with the paternal grandmother, [Mrs Martell]. 2. The parties do all things and sign all necessary documents to enrol the child at [C School] NOTING the father signed the same on 3 November 2025 confirming his agreement to the same. 3. That the child shall spend time with the father as agreed between the father and paternal grandmother. 4. That the child shall spend supervised time with the mother as agreed between the paternal grandmother and mother in writing. 5. That the child communicate with the mother and father as agreed between them respectively with the paternal grandmother. 6. The mother do enrol in and complete the Circle of Security and KidsAreFirst Parenting Programs and provide the father's and paternal grandmother's solicitor with certificates of successful completion. 7. That the parties do all things necessary to obtain a Mental Health Care Plan for the child and forthwith attend upon enrolling the child to see a treating child psychologist as per recommended by her General Practitioner and that the paternal grandmother ensure the child's attendance. 8. A Child Impact Report in the usual terms. 9. Usual Orders pursuant to section 67ZBE to require information from South Australian Police, Victoria Police, the Department for Child Protection and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. 10. Pursuant to section 68L of the Family law Act 1975, an Independent Children's Lawyer be appointed. 11. Each party be at liberty to obtain a copy of the [X]'s (sic) report cards, academic records, school photographs and all information pertaining to [X]'s school and school activities at their own cost direct from the school. 12. That the paternal grandmother do inform the mother and father forthwith by SMS message in the event of any serious accident, injury or illness suffered by [X] and the details of all medical and/or other treatment received by her. 13. Pursuant to section 68B of the Act, the mother be restrained, and injunctions be granted restraining her from:

(a) removing the child [X] from school or from the paternal grandmother's care either directly or via any other person, except for as otherwise provided for pursuant to these Orders; > > (b) harassing, abusing, stalking or intimidating [X], the father, his family and friends, or instructing anyone else to do so on her behalf; and > > (c) discussing the proceedings or adult issues with or in the presence of [X] or allowing any other person to do so.

1. That the applicant do pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to this Response. 2. Such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit.

1. The father supported the oral applications made by the paternal grandmother and opposed the oral applications made by the mother. If the Court declined to make an order for parental decision making in favour of the paternal grandmother, the father sought that there be no variation to the final consent order made 3 March 2021.
2. The father consented to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and for a Child Impact Report to be ordered.

The Second Respondent Paternal Grandmother, Mrs Martell

1. In her (Amended) Response to Final Orders filed 26 November 2025, the paternal grandmother seeks interim orders in the following terms:

Lives with and parental responsibility

1. That the children (sic) live with the paternal grandmother.

2. That the paternal grandmother do have sole parental responsibility and parental decision making ability for the child [X] born [in] 2014 ('the Child').

Time spending arrangements

1. With the mother as follows:

   • 3.1. The parties each enrol at the [City B] Children's Contact Service to assess their suitability to take part in the supervised access program by no later than 14 days of the date of the orders.
   • 3.2. The mother spend supervised time with the child [X] born [in] 2014 ('the Child') on such occasions and at such times as the [City B] Contact Centre can accommodate the parties, subject to the following:
     1. There be no more than once session per fortnight which is not to exceed two (2) hours in duration;
     2. Each period is to be subject to the supervision of the Director of the Centre;
     3. The visits are to be at the expense of the mother;
     4. After no less than 6 visits the mother is to obtain a report at her sole cost from the Director of the Centre regarding the children's reactions to the visits with such report to be filed by Affidavit with the Court within 7 days of receipt.

2. With the father

   • 4.1. That the child spend time with the father as follows:
     1. Each alternate weekend from the conclusion of school or 4.00pm on Friday until 7:00pm Sunday during school term time;
     2. For a period of 5 consecutive nights in each short-term school holiday period commencing at the conclusion of school or 7.00pm on the last day of term and concluding at 4:00pm 5 days thereafter; and
     3. For half of the Christmas school holiday periods as agreed between the parties in writing and in default of agreement from 4:00pm on 5 January until 4:00pm on 26 January in 2026 and each alternate year thereafter, and from the conclusion of school or 7.00pm on the last of term 4 until 4:00pm 21 days later in 2026 and each alternate year thereafter;

3. All other times with the paternal grandmother.

Handovers

1. That the parent responsible for the collection of the child of the time in which the child is in their care shall advise to the other parent not later than by 10am on the day of changeover their preferred time and location of changeover on a school day whether:

   • 6.1. at the school of the child at the conclusion of school or
   • 6.2. at [D Service Station, Town E]; and
   • 6.3. at the [F Venue] in [City B]
   • 6.4. otherwise as may be agreed between the parties and evidenced in writing.

2. That each party at liberty to send an agent to effect changeover.

Parenting programs

1. That the mother do enrol in and complete the Circle of Security and KidsAreFirst Parenting Programs and provide the father's and paternal grandmother's solicitor with certificates of successful completing upon completion of same.

Mental Health

1. That the parties do all things necessary to obtain a Mental Health Care Plan for the child and forthwith enrol the child with a suitably qualified psychologist or mental health professional for psychological counselling or therapy and thereafter ensure that the child continues to attend such services as recommended by the treating practitioner.

Child Impact Report

1. Pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the parties and [X] born [in] 2014 are directed to attend with a Court Child Expert (practicing under their appointment as a family consultant) nominated by the Court Children's Service (the Court Child Expert) for the purposes of the preparation of a Child Impact Report at the dates and times below, or as otherwise directed by the Court Child Expert.

2. Part 1 of the event will occur by video, using Microsoft Teams, with:

   • 11.1. The Applicant to attend at a date and time directed by the court and
   • 11.2. The Respondent to attend at a time directed by the court

3. Part 2 of the event will occur in person at the Adelaide Registry at 3 Angas Street at a date and time as directed by the court. Specific details regarding the attendance of the parties and the Children on this date will be provided to the parties in Part 1 of the event.

4. Each party will do all things necessary to ensure the children attend upon the Court Child Expert pursuant to Section 62G(3A), unless otherwise determined by the Court Child Expert that Section 62G(3B) applies.

5. The parties and the children shall continue to attend at such times, dates and places as the Court Child Expert may advise.

6. Not later than 4.00pm 7 days after these Orders the parties must provide their contact telephone numbers and email addresses to ...@....

7. Pursuant to Order herein, the Court Child Expert shall provide a written report to the Court and the report shall deal with the following matters:

   • 16.1. any agreement reached between the parties
   • 16.2. identification of key issues requiring resolution;
   • 16.3. any views expressed by the children and any matters (such as the children's maturity or level of understanding) that would affect the weight that the Court should place on those views;

S.67ZBD & 67ZBE Order - Department for Child Protection

1. That pursuant to s.67ZBD & 67ZBE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) the Department for Child Protection provide the Court with the following documents or information:
   • 19.1. Copies of any notifications regarding abuse allegations arising or relating to the child [X] born [in] 2014;
   • 19.2. Any assessments or investigations into such abuse allegations specifically any CPS Report;
   • 19.3. The outcome or findings of any such assessments and investigations; and
   • 19.4. Copies of any reports received by the Department for Child Protection in the court of investigating any such notifications.

NOTING that upon production of the material from the Department for Child Protection and subject to any requests by the Department, the parties and/or their legal representatives consent to a Chambers Order issuing for the parties to inspect only and the legal representatives to inspect and copy the material.

1. That pending further Order, the parties are restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining them from issuing a subpoena to the Department for Child Protection.

67ZBE Order - SAPOL

1. Pursuant to 67ZBE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), it is ordered and directed that the South Australian Police provide to this Court within 14 days all documents and information held by them about one or more of the following:

   1. Any notification to the agency of suspected abuse of or by the following:

      1. [Ms Randolf], (previous Alias: [Ms Randolf], born [in] 1990 of [G Street, Town H] SA [...] (mother of child);
      2. [Mr Martell] born [in] 1992 of [J Street, City B] SA [...] (father of child);
      3. [Mrs Martell] born [in] 1972 of [K Street, City B] SA [...] (paternal grandmother of child); and
      4. [X] born [in] 2014 (Child).

   2. (sic) Any assessment by the agency of investigations into a notification of suspected abuse or family violence and/or the findings and outcomes of those investigations including but not limited to any CPS Report.

   3. Any reports commissioned by the agency in the course of investigation of a notification.

and provided that no document need be provided which identifies directly, indirectly or by reference the identify (sic) of any notifies or witnesses (unless a party to the proceedings or a Police Officer) and to achieve compliance with this order and with s.67ZBD & 67ZBE the entirety of documents in the possession or control of the agency are to be produced to the Court and prior to production of any names or notifiers or any material that would infer, suggest or disclose the identity of a notifier or witness is to be blanked out or otherwise removed or obliterated from the document/s so provided.

NOTING that upon production of the material from the South Australia Police and subject to any requests by them, the parties and/or their legal representatives consent to a Chambers Order issuing for the parties to inspect only and the legal representatives to inspect and copy the material.

1. That pending further Order, the parties are restrained and an injunction is granted restraining them from issuing a subpoena to South Australia Police.

Injunctions

1. That pursuant to s.68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), an injunction is hereby issued restraining the mother, whether by themselves, their servants or agents from:

   • 23.1. Removing or collecting the child from school or from the paternal grandmother's care unless otherwise agreed between the parties; or
   • 23.2. Attending at or within 50 meters of the paternal grandmother's home; or
   • 23.3. Discussing the proceedings or adult issues with or in the presence of the child or allowing any other person to do so; or
   • 23.4. Threatening, abusing, denigrating or harassing the parental grandmother's (sic) or the paternal grandmother's partner or family members in the presence or hearing of the child or allowing any other person to do so; or
   • 23.5. Consuming any illicit substances 24 hours prior to or during any time spending with the child.

2. That the mother do pay the costs of and incidental to this Application.

3. Such further and other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit.

(Emphasis in Original)

1. The paternal grandmother did not oppose the mother's oral application to restrain the parties from discussing these proceedings with X but opposed all other oral applications made by her.
2. The paternal grandmother consented to the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer and for a Child Impact Report to be ordered.
3. The paternal grandmother submitted through counsel, that if an order was made for the return of X to the mother, then she would abide by any order made by the Court to facilitate it.

1. The mother is aged 35 years and lives in Town H, a rural township on the outskirts of metropolitan Adelaide. She is married to Mr L ('Mr L'), a self-employed tradesperson. The mother has three children from an intervening relationship with a Mr N ('Mr N'), being M aged 10 years, O aged nine years and P aged six years.
2. The mother's relationship with Mr N ended in what would appear to be rather acrimonious circumstances. As at the date of hearing, it is understood that Mr N has been recently arrested and is currently on remand in relation to charges of family violence and assault against his most recent domestic partner. Hence, the three children, M, O and P, are now in the mother's primary care.[1]
3. The father is aged 33 years and lives in City B with his fiancée Ms Q and their two children R aged seven years and S aged six years. The father works as a tradesperson.
4. The paternal grandmother is aged 52 years and lives in City B with her husband Mr T ('the paternal grandfather'). They are described as "experienced therapeutic foster carers."[2]
5. It is agreed that the distance between Town H and City B is approximately three hours or a 280 kilometres drive one way.
6. The mother and the father commenced a relationship in or about 2012, before separating shortly thereafter in or about mid-2013.
7. There is one child of their relationship, being X now aged 11 years. It is agreed that X has an intellectual disability. Since 2023 she has been attending a mainstream school, U School R-6 Campus, where she is in a special options class. X receives NDIS funding and various supports for her development and care.
8. The parties are not novices to Court litigation as far as contested proceedings over X are concerned. Following their initial separation, final parenting orders were first made by consent in relation to X on 18 April 2016. Those orders provided for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility (as it was then called) and for X to live with the mother and spend time with the father.
9. In July 2019, the father re-applied to the Court, seeking different parenting orders. The father alleged that the mother failed to provide X with proper care, that X was at risk, and that the mother intended to relocate with X from City B without his consent or permission from the Court. Pending Trial, X remained living with the father in City B.
10. Ultimately, the proceedings were listed for Trial before Judge Young (as he then was). X was represented by her own lawyer, Mr Ashley Kent.
11. On 3 March 2021, and after the father had given evidence at final hearing, final consent orders were entered into between the parties ('the final orders'). The effect of the final orders was to provide, inter alia, that the parties retain equal shared parental responsibility (as it was then called) and for X to transition into the primary care of the mother in Adelaide as and from July 2021. X was then to spend time with the father on each alternate weekend, for 10 consecutive nights in each short-term school holiday period, for half of the Christmas school holiday period, for the special occasion of Father's Day each year, and at such other times as agreed between the parties. Further orders were also made in relation to specific orders pertaining to X's future care.
12. The current controversy between the parties regarding X arises from an incident which occurred as long ago as 24 November 2024.
13. On that date, an altercation took place between the mother and the paternal grandparents at a handover for X. The paternal grandparents confronted the mother about X disclosing to them that she had been slapped on the face and/or had her hair pulled by the mother. The mother alleges that the paternal grandparents told her to "keep her hands to herself" or words to that effect, and that X became upset because the paternal grandfather was being aggressive. The paternal grandfather later told the father that the mother had been dismissive of their concerns and said words to the effect of, "if you don't like it sweetie, you take it back to court."[3]
14. I am unable at this interim hearing, and without evidence from the parties concerned, to make findings as to who did what to whom at that handover. Suffice to say, each alleges that the other behaved in a rude manner to the other at a handover where X was present.
15. It is not in dispute that after the handover on 24 November 2024, X was not made available for time spending with the father and by extension, her paternal family. The mother argues that pursuant to the final orders made on 3 March 2021 the father could have collected X from school on a Friday. For whatever reason, the father did not do so. For her part, the mother was content to sit on her hands and make no actual effort to facilitate X's time with the father as per the final orders. The only time which occurred in this period was by way of telephone.
16. During the intervening seven months, none of the parties brought the matter back before the Court to break the impasse.
17. The mother did not file an application seeking to suspend or vary the final orders. The father made some perfunctory efforts to obtain legal aid and made attempts at corresponding with the mother via his solicitor but was unsuccessful in seeking any reinstatement of his time. The paternal grandparents did not file any application for relief in their own right.
18. To my mind, it is surprising that no formal steps were taken by the paternal family at that point in time given that the withholding was preceded by allegations of physical assault of X by the mother.
19. In January 2025, notifications commenced being made to the Department and to SAPOL in relation to the mother's care of her four children. At this interim stage the Court is unable to determine if the allegations were made by the father or the paternal grandmother about X, or by Mr N in relation to M, O and P, or by an independent third-party notifier.
20. The notifications are summarised as follows:[4]

(a) On 25 November 2024, concerns were raised that the mother had hit/slapped X to the face and that M had been kicked in the back by Mr N. M was reported as being violent towards his siblings. Additional concerns were raised that M had been physically harmed by Mr N over the weekend.

(b) On 2 January 2025, the Department received a notification alleging that X had disclosed that her mother had slapped her across the face. The child had no visible injuries, no marks, bruising or swelling. Complaints were also made in relation to the treatment of M. No interviews were conducted with either X or M.

(c) On 8 January 2025, a street check occurred after a reporting person contacted SAPOL about her three grandchildren. The report was described as a Family Court matter, and the reporting person was advised to take the matter back to court.

(d) On 24 March 2025, a street check was undertaken after a reporting person contacted police alleging that the mother was abusing the children. SAPOL recorded that the reporting person appeared as trying to make issues as her property had been removed from the house and put on the front lawn for her to collect. Nil concerns for the welfare of the children. Claims were described as baseless and appeared out of spite.

(e) On 26 March 2025, concerns were received that M was crying and complained that Mr N had hit him, punched him, kicked him and smacked him in the face. Additional concerns were reported that X was unwell at school and the mother refused to pick her up, and that the mother and Mr N leave the children unsupervised while they go to the pub at night. Further concerns were reported regarding the children being exposed to conflict and threats of harm from a cousin and her partner and with the children being provided with an unprescribed medication.

(f) On 13 April 2025, a notification was made alleging that the mother had provided melatonin to the children before heading out with her current husband, Mr L, leaving the children unsupervised. The mother asserted that the allegations were made by her niece who had been evicted from their property after the niece's boyfriend had behaved in an abusive manner towards M. There was nil evidence to support the allegations of the children being given unprescribed medications and with the reporting person described as being an aggrieved by family issues.

(g) On 7 June 2025, a domestic abuse offence was recorded by SAPOL wherein a third party reported having seen M pick up a brick from the front yard and approach her house. The third-party reported a loud bang and thought that she recognised a motor vehicle which belonged to the mother's partner. The third-party did not want M charged with any offences and complained that she did not think that her grandchildren were bringing brought up well by the mother.

(h) On 19 June 2025, a domestic abuse offence was recorded wherein SAPOL attended a school in relation to the child P disclosing that her brother M had choked her that morning and produced a knife before the mother intervened. Nil offences were recorded. Due to the age of M and his mental capacity, no further action was taken.

1. On 20 May 2025, the father received a telephone call from an officer of the Department inviting him to attend a Family Group Conference ('the Family Conference').[5]
2. On 26 June 2025, the father's solicitor forwarded to the mother's solicitor correspondence requesting a reinstatement of time pursuant to the final order.
3. On 4 July 2025, the father recommenced spending time with X after a hiatus of seven months. X spent 10 days with the father in the July school holidays.
4. On 29 July 2025, the Family Conference was convened by the Department. The family agreement reached at the Family Conference is contained in "Annexure A" to the affidavit of the mother filed 20 October 2025 ('the mother's affidavit').
5. Present at the Family Conference were a range of participants, including the parties, the paternal grandparents, the mother's current husband, Mr L, Mr V, various workers from the Department, and X's school wellbeing officer, Ms W.
6. Within the family agreement reached at the Family Conference, the heading of "Agreed Actions" records the following:

(1) That the paternal family be able to engage with X's support services and to receive reports and updates;

(2) That the paternal family support X's physical and emotional needs when she is in City B;

(3) That the paternal family have age-appropriate conversations with X; and

(4) That the paternal family plan activities with X when she attends in City B.

1. For her part, the mother's agreed actions were reported as:

(1) That supports to be put in place for X's mental health;

(2) That X not be involved in adult conversations at the mother's home;

(3) That the mother provide the father with a list of X's support services;

(4) That the mother is not to leave X alone for more than 30 minutes in duration; and

(5) The mother contact the father or her parents when X needs supervision.

1. On 24 September 2025, the Department sent out correspondence to the parties.[6] In that correspondence, the Department records that the child protection concerns were not substantiated but acknowledged the family's history of similar concerns. The Department determined that further support and intervention was required to ensure that X's needs continued to be met. The family agreement was noted which included appropriate boundaries and safeguards surrounding child protection concerns. Due to the mother's ongoing engagement with the Department and other appropriate services, together with her willingness to address those concerns, the Department determined that they would play no further role with the family and the case would now be closed.
2. On 26 September 2025, X commenced spending time with the father as agreed with the mother. X was due to return to the mother's care on Saturday, 11 October 2025.
3. On 28 September 2025, the paternal grandmother and the paternal aunt attended at the City B Police Station with X. It was alleged that X had disclosed that she was scared to return home to her mother and that she wanted to speak with the police about incidents in her mother's care. The entry records that police officers spoke with the paternal aunt in private and were advised (incorrectly) that the family was "currently going through Family Court in an attempt for full custody."[7]
4. The SAPOL entry of 28 September 2025 records that X was afraid to go back to her mother but has been reluctant to speak with police officers or workers from the Department in the past. SAPOL officers then attempted to interview X who was described as "shutting down and not wanting to speak further." SAPOL reported X as being reluctant to give information due to concerns that her complaints would be reported back to her mother. X was described as becoming upset, visibly uncomfortable and not saying anything when questioned further by her paternal family members or SAPOL officers.
5. On 10 October 2025, the paternal grandmother's solicitor wrote to the mother's solicitor advising that X would not be returned to the mother at the agreed time being 11 October 2025.[8] In the letter the paternal grandmother appears to resile from the agreement reached at the Family Conference where she was present, alleged that X had expressed a view to remain in City B and had disclosed concerns about the mother's care. The letter advises that counselling had been arranged for X at Y Centre and sought the mother's consent for this to occur.
6. It is an agreed position that X has been living in City B since 26 September 2025. Exactly who (being the father or the paternal grandmother) she has been living with is unclear. X has not been attending at school and has had limited telephone communication with the mother and her half siblings. The mother declined the paternal family's invitation to re-enrol X at the C School. Accordingly, X has remained at home being allegedly homeschooled by members of the paternal family.
7. On 20 October 2025, the mother issued her application seeking an order for the return of X. She vigorously denies the allegations made by the paternal family and contends that it is in X's best interests to be returned immediately to her primary care. The mother argues that the Department has investigated previous complaints and as at October 2025, closed their file with no substantiations recorded for the children.[9]
8. The mother's application is opposed by the paternal family who seek orders for X to remain living with the paternal grandmother and spend supervised time with the mother. The paternal family allege that X is expressing strong views not to return to the mother and that X is at risk. The alleged risk is said to arise because of the mother's failure to attend to X's special needs including appointments and school, and because of the physical and emotional abuse as outlined above.

1. Orders in respect of children are made under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'). The definition of a parenting order is defined in section 64B of the Act. The Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper within the context of the objects of the legislation, as set out in section 60B of the Act.[10]
2. When making parenting orders, the Court is mandated to regard the best interests of a child as the paramount consideration.[11] The Act specifies the criteria which must be considered when determining the form of orders which meets and promotes the child's best interests, as set out in section 60CC of the Act.
3. These proceedings arise at an interim stage. The family are polarised, and X has not had any direct contact with the mother for a period of about two months. There has been no attempt at mediation.
4. The evidence at this interim stage is necessarily in truncated form. There is no opportunity for cross-examination, and many of the controversies which arise from the parties conflicting affidavit material cannot be resolved because of the restrictive nature of this hearing.
5. The parties themselves fundamentally disagree about the nature of the crisis and who is responsible for it. Each blames the other for the situation that they now find themselves in. At this interim stage, there is a paucity of independent evidence. Clearly, moving forward, there will need to be some form of detailed assessment in relation to X's relationship with each of her parents, her paternal grandmother and extended family members.
6. At this stage, due to the evidence available to me and the nature of this hearing, much of the evidence is anecdotal in nature. I cannot make any definitive finding on matters where the parties do not agree. The Court's responsibility is to assess the degree of risk arising for X, if she is to return to the mother's primary care.
7. In making the required assessment of risk, the Court is required to assess the degree of possibility that a harmful event will occur in future and what will be its level of severity to any individual, particularly any child who will be potentially affected by it.[12] Essentially, the Court's duty is to assess the risk arising for the child on the material currently before it. It is not possible for the Court to defer any assessment until a later stage.
8. Rather, the Court must, as best it can, assess the nature and quality of the risk arising and put in place orders considered to be proportionate to the degree of risk so assessed. The Court must look at the available evidence at hearing and consider what is the likelihood of any deleterious outcome occurring with, or without, precautions.
9. The assessment of risk is an evidence based conclusion, not the product of discretion.[13] The assessment requires determination on the evidence whether there is a risk, the magnitude of that risk and the potential consequences of harm.[14]
10. Being an interim hearing in respect of parenting orders, the procedure that I must follow is well established. The Full Court in Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 ('Goode'), stated at [68]:

...the procedure for making interim parenting orders will continue to be an abridged process where the scope of the inquiry is "significantly curtailed". Where the Court cannot make findings of fact it should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. The Court also looks to the less contentious matters, such as the agreed facts and issues not in dispute and would have regard to the care arrangements prior to separation, the current circumstances of the parties and their children, and the parties' respective proposals for the future.

(Footnotes omitted)

1. In Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 at [47]- [50], the Full Court observed how a paucity of uncontested evidence means only limited consideration may be given to the factors prescribed by section 60CC of the Act. Interim disputes should be confined to only those issues which, in the best interests of the child, require determination prior to a proper determination at Trial. The Trial is the time and place to settle factual controversies. Interim hearings ought not be used for that purpose unless circumstances are urgent and there is no alternative.[15]
2. These cases confirm that the Court must be circumspect about making factual findings of disputed matters at an interim hearing. In addition to the Full Court decision of Goode (supra), I also refer and rely upon the decisions of Marvel & Marvel [2010] FamCAFC 101, SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 and, in particular, Eaby & Speelman [2015] FamCAFC 104; (2015) FLC 93-654 at [18]- [19], whereby the Full Court observed:

18. ... It is true that in Goode & Goode, at [68], the Full Court said that the circumscribed nature of interim hearings means that the court should not be drawn into issues of fact or matters relating to the merits of the substantive case where findings are not possible. However, that does not mean that merely because the facts are in dispute the evidence on the topic must be disregarded, and the case determined solely by reference to the agreed facts. Rather, the proper approach to contentious matters of fact in the determination of interim hearings is as explained in Marvel v Marvel, at [122] and [123], as follows:

[122] In SS v AH [2010] FamCAFC 13 the majority (Boland and Thackray JJ) discussed at [88] of their reasons the care necessary to be exercised in making findings in interim parenting proceedings. Their Honours said:

[88] In our view, findings made at an interim hearing should be couched with great circumspection, no matter how firmly a judge's intuition may suggest that the finding will be borne out after a full testing of the evidence.

[123] Later, at [100] their Honours amplified their comments and said:

[100] The intuition involved in decision-making concerning children is arguably of even greater importance when a judge is obliged to make interim decisions following a hearing at which time constraints prevent the evidence being tested. Apart from relying upon the uncontroversial or agreed facts, a judge will sometimes have little alternative than to weigh the probabilities of competing claims and the likely impact on children in the event that a controversial assertion is acted upon or rejected. It is not always feasible when dealing with the immediate welfare of children simply to ignore an assertion because its accuracy has been put in issue.

1. As would be immediately apparent, this approach enables the court to appropriately and carefully deal with contentious issues relevant to the welfare of the child, and for those issues to not be ignored.

1. Although the nature of an interim hearing is different in its scope to that provided by a final hearing, the same legal principles apply. In deciding whether to make any parenting order, the Court must always regard the best interests of the child as the most paramount or important consideration.

1. In determining what is in X's best interests, regard must be had to the non-hierarchical list of criteria set out in section 60CC(2) of the Act.

Section 60CC(2)(a) - What arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child)

1. This is an important subsection on the facts of this case. The father and the paternal grandmother allege that X would not be safe if returned to the mother's primary care given their allegations of neglect and physical abuse in the form of slapping/hair pulling as set out in their affidavit material.
2. The mother denies the allegations of neglect, abuse or violence directed towards X. She has provided detailed explanations in her affidavit in reply addressing those various allegations.
3. Given the disputed facts, there being no agreed position and no independent evidence, it is not possible for the Court to make any finding at this interim stage as to the veracity of the allegations made.
4. I acknowledge that there is a history of involvement with the Department and the family commencing in 2017. However, as recently as October 2025, the Department closed the case after investigating the complaints and convening a Family Conference. I consider that significant weight must attach to the proximity of the Department's case closure vis a vis the applications that the Court is being asked to determine now. This is a persuasive factor in my view because aside from X's views, there are no new developments since the Department ceased their involvement almost proximate to the foreshadowed intention to withhold by the paternal grandmother.

Section 60CC(2)(b) - Any views expressed by the child

1. There are no reliable expressions of X's views before the Court.
2. The evidence about X's views come before the Court by way of statements alleged to have been made by her to members of the paternal family or to SAPOL when X was taken to the City B Police Station on 28 September 2025 by her paternal grandmother and aunt.
3. X is 11 years old. It is agreed that she has an intellectual disability, although attends at a mainstream school.
4. I am not prepared to place weight on any expressed views alleged to have been made by X when presented for interview at the City B Police Station or via various complaints made by members of the paternal family.
5. It has not been satisfactorily explained why it was the paternal grandmother who took X to SAPOL rather than the father, who has final orders for equal shared responsibility. Nor has it been explained why a notification was not made by the paternal grandmother to the Department. The paternal grandmother is a mandated notifier and aware of the usual protocols involved.
6. Rather, X who is 11 years old and with an intellectual disability was presented to, and interviewed, by SAPOL without the knowledge of her mother who also final orders of the Court for X's long-term care. It is also not clear on the evidence if the interview was undertaken with the consent of the father.
7. I am satisfied that in those circumstances little weight can be attached to the only "evidence" of X's views as expressed to SAPOL on 28 September 2025.

Section 60CC(2)(c) - The developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child

1. X is only 11 years of age. It is agreed that she has an intellectual disability.
2. X had been attending school regularly at the U School. The mother has provided a copy of X's 2025 Semester 1 school report which indicates an attendance rate of 92% for the first half of the school year.
3. X is in receipt of NDIS funding for various support services in Adelaide. Necessarily, if she remains living in City B many of those services will need to change.
4. There are no special cultural needs to be considered for X.

Section 60CC(2)(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

1. There are complaints in the Department's co-located material dating back several years regarding the mother's failure to attend to X's needs, including from service providers or with respect to her education.
2. The mother's counsel makes the point that no similar criticism is levelled at the father who has a final order for equal shared parental responsibility. This submission ignores the reality that X has been in the mother's primary care since mid-2021 and the huge distance between the parties' respective homes.
3. Whilst there is a sense in this matter that the father is content to leave the management of these issues to others (being the mother and his own mother), I cannot make that finding at this interim stage. The father has now conceded that due to his own intellectual disability, he has struggled to organise and engage fully with X's allied mental health care appointments.[16]
4. The final orders provide for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility. In 2021 the parties had sufficient confidence in each other to consent to this order being made.
5. The Court also notes that many of the complaints raised at hearing regarding the mother's failure to attend to therapies and appointments are dated from 2022 and 2023.

Section 60CC(2)(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

1. It is usually considered that, where safe to do so, there is benefit for a child in having relationships with their parents, siblings and extended families.
2. In this case, X has been deprived of having a meaningful relationship with her mother and her three half-siblings for a period of two months.
3. The paternal grandmother and the father seek orders, at hearing, for the mother spend supervised time through a Children's Contact Service in City B. Such an order, if granted, would not permit X to continue a relationship with her three half siblings which I consider to be important and in her best interests. Further, the mother only has a Learners Permit drivers license.

Section 60CC(2)(f) - Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child

1. The mother's application would see X returned to the home where she has lived primarily since 2021, with her mother and half-siblings. Importantly, X would return to attend at U School. The school report provided by the mother speaks positively of X's attendance at the school. The school report is an important piece of independent evidence in my view.
2. By contrast, the paternal grandmother's application would see X attending at C School in City B. True it is that X attended that school prior to the final orders being made, but that was many years ago. Since then, X has attended at U School since 2023, after the mother moved to Town H from Suburb Z.
3. Further, it is significant to observe that if the paternal grandmother and the father are successful in their applications, X will effectively relocate 280 kilometres away from her family, school and NDIS supports in Adelaide.
4. Counsel for the mother submits that if the application is acceded to, the paternal grandmother and the father will have succeeded in securing not only a change of primary care in the face of a long status quo ante, but also an interim relocation which should not be countenanced by the Court. In my view, there is merit in this submission.

1. I have carefully read through all the material relied upon by the parties and listened to the submissions made by counsel.
2. In this case, I have formed the view that the order which is in X's best interests is for her to be returned to the primary care of the mother and for the final orders made by consent in 2021 to remain in full force and effect.
3. The Court cannot condone the unilateral retention of X by the paternal grandmother. This behaviour is reminiscent of the mother's actions in November 2024. X should be supported to have meaningful relationships with both families.
4. The recent involvement with the family by the Department and that case being closed in October 2025 combined with the Semester 1 school report satisfies me that there is insufficient risk for X being returned to the mother. Any risk arising from future alleged physical assaults can be addressed by the Court making an order restraining the mother from physically disciplining or chastising X pending further order. I consider that any such risk will be ameliorated by this protective measure.
5. I propose to make an order permitting the mother to attend at the Court Children's Services following the publication of these orders to collect X and to leave the Court building with her thereafter. X will then remain in the mother's primary care until she commences Christmas school holiday time spending with the father as provided for in the final orders.
6. It became apparent during the hearing that paragraph (5)(c) of the final orders contains a typographical error. It is acknowledged by all parties that the first half of the Christmas school holidays in 2025/2026 will be with the mother this year. The paternal grandmother submitted that it was her expectation that the rotation would be reversed for 2025/2026 given that X had spent the entirety of the 2024 Christmas period in the mother's primary care.
7. In circumstances where X has been in the care of the paternal family since 24 September 2025, I propose that she be in the care of the mother for the first half of the Christmas school holidays before transitioning to the father for the second half of the school holidays in accordance with paragraph 5(c) of the final orders.
8. I decline to make the order sought orally by the mother at hearing that the father's half school holiday time spending be suspended and that there be a reduction in time spending to each alternate weekend across the balance of the school holiday period. I consider such an order to be punitive in nature. There is a history in this case of the parties withholding X from the other and acting in what could be described as a high-handed manner. It is to be expected that orders of the Court will be complied with moving forward.
9. I decline to vary paragraph 2 of the final orders for the disposition of parental responsibility. I see no proper basis for an apportionment of parental responsibility to the paternal grandmother at this interim stage. It has not been satisfactorily explained to the Court why it is that the paternal grandmother is "leading the charge" in prosecuting this application in lieu of the father, who has final orders in his favour.
10. At this interim stage, and pending further evidence before the Court, I consider that there is no proper basis for interfering with the orders which reflect the rights and responsibilities of the mother and the father as the biological parents of X. It follows therefore that I see no proper basis for making an order in favour of the paternal grandmother for parental responsibility.
11. I propose to make injunctive orders restraining the parties from discussing these proceedings with X or from denigrating each other in the presence of X or allowing any other person so to do. I decline to make an order in relation to questioning X regarding her living arrangements. Clearly, there will need to be some discussion with X from a practical point of view, given that she will be spending ongoing regular time with her father. I do propose, however, to make an injunctive order restraining the parties from questioning X as to her preferences and views regarding living arrangements.
12. The Court would be extremely concerned if further conversations take place with X which culminate in attendances at the City B Police Station. The paternal grandmother is a mandatory notifier and aware of the protocols available to her in making a notification to the Department. The Court expresses concern that a decision was made to attend at a police station with an 11-year-old child, who has an intellectual disability, for the purpose of that child being interviewed in the absence of any notice to or consent from at least one of her parents.
13. I am persuaded due to the information provided by the Department in their report dated 21 November 2025, that they were sufficiently satisfied with the arrangements for the care of the children such that, in October 2025, the Department proceeded to close the file in relation to the family with no substantiations recorded for the children.
14. The Department's report notes the following:

The family were referred for a Family Group Conference (FGC) which occurred in July 2025, and despite some challenges, the family were able to create family agreements that the department were reassured with regarding the children's ongoing safety. The family agreement incorporated actions regarding how the family would work together to manage the children's complex behaviours in a safe and appropriate way, and ongoing engagement with supports. The children were engaged with NDIS and therapeutic supports to assist with their disabilities and complex behaviours.

The department assessed that the parents had engaged positively and proactively with the department surrounding the child protection concerns. The family expressed a willingness to engage with services and programs recommended by the department for them to implement alternative and appropriate strategies to manage the children's behaviour. In addition, the mother was reported to demonstrate significant advocacy in ensuring the children received the appropriate health care and support required.

Furthermore, the department and other professionals involve with the children regularly checked in, where the children expressed positive views regarding the home environment and the parents' behaviours towards them. All the children were observed to have consistently seek out the mother and [Mr N] for comfort and connection. Subsequently, the department proceeded to case closure in October 2025, with no substantiations recorded for the children.[17]

1. I propose to make orders for a Child Impact Report to occur at the earliest opportunity. Given the allegations in this matter, I consider that the appointment of an Independent Children's Lawyer is in X's best interests, as the matter falls within the list of criteria set out in the decision of Re K [1994] FamCA 21; (1994) FLC 92-461.
2. The Court was not addressed in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the mother's orders sought nor paragraphs 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the father's orders sought nor paragraphs 8, 9 and 23 of the paternal grandmother's orders sought. Accordingly, I decline to make orders as sought by each of them.
3. The interim proceedings shall be dismissed. X should be permitted to settle back into a routine. There are a number of interventions which may assist the parties or the Independent Children's Lawyer in moving the matter forward at the conclusion of the interim applications.
4. For all of the above Reasons, the Court makes the Orders set out at the commencement of this Judgment.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twelve (112) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Dickson.

[1] The co-located information provided by the Department for Child Protection dated 21 November 2025 refers to "the father" for entries dated 9 and 11 November 2025. It is agreed that "the father" is Mr N and not the father of X, Mr Martell.

[2] See the affidavit of Mrs Martell filed 14 November 2025 at paragraph 3.

[3] See the affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025 at paragraph 30.

[4] These notifications are sourced from the South Australia Police and Department for Child Protection co-located material dated 24 November 2025 and 21 November 2025 respectively.

[5] See the affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025 at paragraph 42.

[6] See the affidavit of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025 at "Annexure C."

[7] See the South Australia Police Information Summary Report dated 24 November 2025 at page 4.

[8] See the affidavit of Ms Randolf filed 20 October 2025 at "Annexure B."

[9] See the Department for Child Protection Information Summary Report dated 21 November 2025.

[10] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.

[11] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 65AA.

[12] Deiter & Deiter [2011] FamCAFC 82, [61].

[13] Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092, [85].

[14] Napier & Hepburn [2006] FamCA 1316; (2006) FLC 93-303.

[15] Danchev & Murgia [2025] FedCFamC1F 190.

[16] See the affidavit of Mr Martell filed 17 November 2025 at paragraph 18.

[17] The report from Department for Child Protection dated 21 November 2025 at the paragraph commencing "Furthermore, the department and other professionals" incorrectly refers to Mr N. It is agreed this passage should refer to Mr L. Further, that the references for the entries for 9 November 2025 and 11 November 2025 refer to Mr N and are not intended to refer to either Mr Martell or Mr L.