Schiller & Waterman (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2F 15 (13 January 2026)

1. Orders are made in Chambers this day following receipt of an email from the Father (marked 'C1 - 12 January 2026' and placed on the court file) regarding his application in a proceeding filed 11 January 2026.
2. If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.

1. Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the court and then to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.

1. Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.
2. If s102NA applies and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.

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. I last dealt with the matter of Schiller and Waterman on 11 December 2025. The key dispute dealt with at that hearing was the issue of which school the parents' two children should attend. I dealt with the matter that day and delivered an ex tempore judgment, Schiller & Waterman (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1869.
2. On Monday 12 January 2026, Mr Schiller, although represented pursuant to a section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 order by solicitors, filed himself an application in a case seeking, inter alia:
   • That the application in a proceeding be listed for urgent hearing at the earliest available date, including in the absence of the parties if deemed appropriate by the Court;
   • Further determination of the schooling issue prior to the commencement of the 2026 school year, and that the children attend the school that the Father had sought the children attend at the December interim hearing;
   • Restrictions on further interview and assessment of the children, including by the Independent Children's Lawyer ('ICL'), without leave of the Court or in specific circumstance, and a specific orders as to the General Practitioner upon whom the children shall attend;
   • That the trial listed to commence on 9 February 2026 be adjourned to a later date or transferred to Division 1 of this Court; and
   • And that the Father be granted leave to file an amended and consolidated application for final orders.
3. One of the tragedies in the matter of Schiller and Waterman is that the manner of the parents conducting the litigation has managed to thwart the Court's determination to have a final hearing so as to be able to make factual findings about the matters that seriously agitate the parents of the two children concerned.
4. The matter has been beset by many and frequent applications over the protracted period of the litigation.
5. One of the allegations made by the mother of the children, Ms Waterman, is that Mr Schiller has made so many applications and responses in proceedings that mean that he is oppressing Ms Waterman in a coercive and controlling manner.
6. Mr Schiller makes many allegations against Ms Waterman and the family report writer is concerned that Ms Waterman may have been controlling or manipulative in aspects of her parenting of the children, including the manner of enrolling the children at their current school.
7. In all of the circumstances, I am not satisfied that a further interim hearing would assist the best interests of these children or be in the interests of justice and I have determined to deal with the matters in chambers. That is because on an interim hearing, there are real limitations upon the extent to which a court can make factual findings of disputed facts. See Goode & Goode [2006] FLC 93-286; (2007) 36 Fam LR 422; [2006] FamCA 1346, SS & AH [2010] FamCAFC 13, Eaby & Speelman (2015) FLC 93-654; [2015] FamCAFC 104.
8. Further, the final hearing has long been listed (yet again), on 9 February 2026.
9. In all of those circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to consolidate Mr Schiller's application in a case with the matters to be determined at final hearing.
10. Further, I was not satisfied that either the interests of justice or the best interests of the children would be promoted by yet another interim hearing on the eve of yet another final hearing listing. For those reasons I have determined the application in Chambers without hearing further from the parties. However, I am satisfied that I should permit Mr Schiller and Ms Waterman[1] to file an amended application/response setting out any different orders that they seek provided that is done no less than one week before the first day of the final hearing.
11. The solicitors for Ms Waterman have requested a procedural direction relating to an outline of case, and I am satisfied that request should be accommodated, and I will so order.
12. I note that the Court has received an email that purports to have come from the second respondent, Mr Schiller's mother, Ms Dagade, who represents herself. There is no address for service filed by the second respondent. But I am satisfied that the email purporting to have come from her is likely (but not certain) to have done so. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to regard that email as the address for service for the second respondent, and I will so order.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge O'Shannessy.

[1] The order as recorded needed to be corrected under the slip rule to permit both parents to do so as intended rather than only Mr Schiller.