Sevinc & Ikram [2025] FedCFamC2F 961 (14 July 2025)

(a) from the conclusion of school Friday (or 3.00pm if a non-school day) until before school or 9.00am on Monday and each alternate week thereafter; and

(b) from the conclusion of school on Wednesday (or 3.00pm if a non-school day) until before school or 9.00am on Thursday in the alternate week and each alternate week thereafter;

(c) such other times as agreed in writing

1. Unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, X shall spend time with the mother during school holidays as follows:

(a) In even numbered years from the conclusion of school on the last day of school term until 4:00pm on the day that is exactly the mid-point of the school holiday period; and

(b) In odd numbered years from 4:00pm on the day that is exactly the mid-point of the school holiday period until the commencement of school for the following term.

1. The parties are restrained from sending unilateral emails to X's school and must copy in the other parent to all communications with the school and are to limit the content of the emails to issues directly concerning X's progression at school.
2. The parties are further restrained from sending video or audio recordings and all other documents relating to legal proceedings to X's school.
3. The mother is restrained from allowing X to come into contact with or communicate with the maternal uncle, Mr C.

1. Noting that the parties have enrolled X to receive counselling at the B Clinic, the parties further agree that such counselling shall be confidential, and no party shall issue a subpoena to the clinic or seek a report from the clinic.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer is to provide a copy of these Orders to X's school.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer is to meet with X as soon as practicable to explain the interim Orders and provide X with a copy of the letter appearing at the end of these Reasons.

1. Order 9 to 26 of the Orders made on 26 May 2025 remain in full force and effect.

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. X is caught in the middle of his parents' bitter dispute. His parents have been blinded by their feelings of hurt and betrayal and have exposed him to the adult disputes. This burden needs to be lifted from him. Both his parents have also involved X's school to an inappropriate degree. This must stop.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer, Ms Simpson, has been proactive in this matter and has met with X several times. There is no expert report. The fact that the ICL has engaged with X despite no report is even more important. I appreciate the diligence of the ICL. X has consistently told her that he wants to remain with his father. He has also said this to the police, his general practitioner ('GP') and his counsellors.
3. The father is 52 years old. The mother is 43 years old. There is one child of the relationship, X who is nine years old. The parties met in 2004 and married in 2013. They separated on 27 Dec 2024 when the mother vacated the former matrimonial home with X.
4. The father had no face to face time with X for over six weeks post separation. On 7 February 2025 the father attended the maternal grandparent's home and after police intervention, X was placed in the father's care.
5. The mother filed her Initiating Application on 26 February 2025. Despite the distress and hurt the father felt when the mother withheld X from him, he then did the same thing. He did agree to the mother spending the day with X on 30 March 2025.
6. Orders were made on 8 April 2025 for the mother to spend time with X weekly in gradual increments until eventually resulting in every second weekend by 9 May 2025. The mother alleges the father did not comply with these orders and withheld X from her. The father denies this allegation. There was an occasion when X was ill, and the father informed the mother that X was too ill to attend.
7. Both parties allege the other perpetrated family violence and struggles with alcohol and illicit substance misuse alongside suffering from poor mental health.

(a) Application for Review filed 29 May 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Mr Sevinc filed 13 June 2025;

(c) Financial Statement filed 1 April 2025; and

(d) Outline of Case filed 13 June 2025.

(a) Initiating Application filed 26 February 2025;

(b) Affidavit of Ms Ikram filed 1 June 2025. Unhelpfully the mother's affidavit is not chronological with one paragraph for example talking about 2024 and the next talking about 2008;

(c) Financial Statement filed 26 February 2025;

(d) Outline of Case filed 16 June 2025.

1. The ICL relies on their Outline of Case filed 17 June 2025.
2. The parties spent a considerable amount of time preparing a list of tender material they sought to rely on at the review hearing which included subpoena material. These lists were each tendered and marked as exhibits at the end of the hearing.

1. There are many factual matters in dispute including who was X's primary carer during the relationship. I cannot resolve this dispute. Both parties claim the other has made serious threats against them.
2. The issues in dispute that I must determine are:

(a) Any unacceptable risk of X being in the care of the mother or the father;

(b) The living and spend time arrangements between X and his parents;

(c) Should the mother be restrained from bringing the child into contact with the maternal uncle, Mr C; and

(d) Exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home.

1. The father seeks to review the interim orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar on 26 May 2025. He seeks that X live with him and spend alternate weekends with the mother from 3.00pm Friday to 4.30pm Sunday and each alternate Wednesday evening from 3.30pm to 7.00pm. This would reinstate the previous interim orders. The father also seeks exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home regardless of the outcome of the parenting matter.
2. The mother seeks that the orders made on 26 May 2025 remain in full force and that X live with her and spend alternate weekends with the father from 3.00pm Friday until Monday 9.00am and alternate Wednesday evenings from 3.00pm to 7.00pm. By virtue of those orders the mother would have exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home. The mother's position is that the person with primary care of X should stay in the former matrimonial home.
3. The parties' investment property is now vacant so the parent without primary care of X can stay there. As the parties will now be living about a 20 to 30 minute drive from each other, there is no longer a dispute about whether X remain at his school.
4. The ICL seeks that X remain in the father's care which was the ICL's position at the previous interim hearing. The ICL's solicitor advocate stated candidly that this is a finely balanced case that could be decided in either parent's favour. At the hearing I raised the issue of a shared care arrangement to spread the risk now that the distance between the parties was no longer an issue. The ICL's solicitor advocate expressed concern about this course because of the high conflict between the parents. Unless the parents stand to critically look at their own behaviour rather than focusing on the other parent, this conflict is likely to continue regardless of the parenting arrangements. For the reasons I shall explain, I have determined that X should remain primarily in the father's care and spend increased time with the mother.

1. An Application for Review is determined as an original hearing.
2. The principles governing the Court's determination in this matter are set out in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ('the Act'). The Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: s.60CA. What it means in individual cases is informed by a number of statutory provisions.
3. The objects set out in s.60B help clarify what Part VII aims to achieve which is the best interests of the child are met which includes ensuring their safety and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section 65D of the Act gives the Court the power to make a parenting Order which is defined by s.65DA.
4. I must consider the relevant s.60CC considerations of the Act:

General considerations

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

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

(i) the child; and

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

(b) any views expressed by the child;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. This includes what arrangements promote the safety of the child and each person who has the care of the child from being exposed to or subjected to abuse, neglect or family violence, the views of the child and their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
2. The Full Court of the Family Court discussed the assessment the Court must make when considering whether or not there is an unacceptable risk in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97. Assessing unacceptable risk is a predictive exercise based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Full Court clearly stated that the assessment of risk is an entirely separate task to making findings of fact. The Court must make findings of fact based on the balance of probabilities. A risk assessment is a predictive exercise. The risk may be a possibility, probability, or a certainty.
3. This is an interim decision. The evidence has not been tested. I cannot make findings of fact about contested issues, nor can I ignore allegations of risk. Currently the greatest risk to X is the emotional and psychological harm due to both parents inappropriately including X in the dispute and the likely conflicting loyalties he feels.

1. Neither party proposes that X's time with the other parent needs to be supervised. The risks need to be assessed in this context. The parties' material is lengthy as are the amount of documents they tendered. I will not refer to all of the material and submissions in my Reasons however I have considered them all in making the orders that appear at the beginning of these Reasons.

1. The mother's case is that she was subjected to family violence including coercive control during the relationship which X was exposed to. The mother sought help from family violence services in the months before leaving the relationship. She also sought help from services provided by her employer. The father denies these allegations. The mother says that in July 2024 the father threatened to put a bullet in her head if she ever exposed his drug dealing.
2. There is an interim apprehended domestic violence order ('ADVO') in place protecting the father from the mother. X was originally listed as a protected person on the provisional ADVO but was removed when the interim ADVO was made in June 2025.
3. The police narrative on 7 February 2025 notes there is no history of ADVOs prior to separation. They refer to the father being the victim and being "naturally shocked" after the mother suddenly ended the relationship. On the same day, she reported to police that she intended to leave the relationship and that she was concerned that the father would withhold their child upon hearing the news. "Ironically" she immediately took X and withheld him from the father for over six weeks. The mother made various reports to police, claiming a history of coercive control but there is "nil evidence of this occurring". She then made historical allegations wanting an ADVO. It appears the mother's allegations are designed to get a more drastic police response. The mother told police it would be good for a family law application. The mother did not send X for his first day of school due to her concerns that the father was going to visit X at the school.
4. The narrative is quite judgmental of the mother. It is not possible to tell if this is reasonable or not. The evidence is yet to be tested. It is not clear from this narrative what has led the police officer to make these judgments. The narrative continues stating that the mother was not satisfied with the response. The police officer asked her if anything had happened since she last spoke to the police. She spoke about coercive control and showed a lot of Facebook messages between them. She has been recording verbal arguments. The mother said that five or six months earlier the father threatened to put a bullet in her head. She did not report it to the police previously and could not say why. She did not disclose it to anyone. She said she could not explain why she did not remember it and then said that she was scared and distraught when she talked to police earlier. The police did not think that the statutory threshold risk of significant harm is likely.
5. The record then refers to 7 March 2025 in error, as it should read 7 February 2025. On this day the father attended the maternal grandparent's house. He had not seen X in six weeks and he had not been at the start of school the day before. The mother started shouting at the father. X realised the father was there but the mother prevented him from running out. The father pleaded to see his son. X ran to the backyard and around the side of the house and reunited with the father. Police spoke to the parties. The mother was rambling and emotional. She consistently alleged the father was a drug user and alcoholic and was an unsafe, unfit parent. She seemed unstable and seemed more concerned about making allegations than being concerned about X's welfare. The father said he wanted what was best for X. The mother was yelling at X for him to come back which upset X further. The police urged the mother not to put X in the middle of a "custody war". X told police he missed his father and wanted to go to his normal school. Unprompted X said "_mum said if I ever go back to dad I'll never see her agai_n" and "if I tell police I want to see Dad she will put me in a boarding school". X was crying. He also said when his mother took him to Town D he wrote HELP on the condensation on the window. The police asked the mother to provide a change of clothes for X. She replied "why should I help [Mr Sevinc]". The police recorded that the mother was being vindicative and it is likely that she will make escalating allegations due to family court proceeding. This would have been a confusing and distressing incident for X.
6. X disclosed to the police that he overheard his uncle, Mr C, talking about roughing up the father with a sledgehammer. The father claimed that the mother told him that if he did not give her what she wanted she would send her brother and his friends over. The father believes Mr C is dangerous. The police took out an ADVO to protect the father from the mother and Mr C. The mother denies these allegations.
7. I am unable to make findings about family violence at this interim stage. I acknowledge that the mother has made serious allegations about coercive controlling behaviour and violence. I have some concerns about the police narrative which is characterising the mother as making false narratives which has then been repeated. Whilst I have some concerns about that, I cannot ignore the troubling descriptions of the mother's presentation that day.
8. There is nothing in the police records that indicate there being any agreement that the father would return X later that day. The mother refers to the father abducting X. That is not an accurate description.

1. The father says both parties used illicit substances during the relationship. He claims that he stopped using these substances some time before their relationship ended. He does not say when this was and whether he is referring to the period where he alleges they lived separately or separately under the same roof for about two years before the mother moved out with X.
2. The mother makes serious allegations against the father claiming that he grows cannabis plants at home. She says the father used cannabis daily during their relationship. She claims he also uses cocaine and methamphetamine. The mother admits she also used these substances although she does not state how often. She claims the father took X along whilst he was dealing drugs. She does not provide any details. These are serious allegations to make. I cannot determine these matters at an interim stage. There is nothing in the copious number of documents tendered at the interim hearing, including material from police which assists with respect to this issue.
3. The father admits to drinking alcohol throughout the relationship, sometimes to excess. He says the mother did as well. Drinking alcohol in and of itself is not the problem. It is when parties drink heavily which can compromise parenting capacity.
4. The father says he drank more in the immediate aftermath of the separation and due to his distress at X being removed from him. He says since then he has reduced his drinking.
5. The father says he is concerned about the mother's drinking. He does not say anything further about this in his material but says he wants her to undergo regular testing for drugs and alcohol.
6. Neither party seeks to disturb the orders made on 26 May 2025 with respect to drug and alcohol testing and injunctions. These ameliorate the risks the parties identify.

1. One of the mother's concerns is about the father's health. She refers to his medical condition being so severe towards the end of their relationship that he had to crawl to the bathroom at night. The father has been living with the medical condition for many years. How his medical condition impacts on his daily functioning and ability to care for X is one of the many factual matters in dispute. The father says he was diagnosed 16 years ago and last had an attack 10 years ago. He receives the disability support pension. He does part time handy man work for his brother who is a tradesperson. The father says his medical condition does not impede his ability to care for X. The father tendered various documents from his medical treaters in support of his claims.
2. One of the concerns raised is the medicinal cannabis prescribed to the father. In December 2024 the father asked his GP about medicinal cannabis for chronic back pain. He has provided evidence of his prescription and says that he uses it a couple of times a week.
3. The mother's counsel raised the issue of the father taking medicinal cannabis and submitted that it is not legal for the father to drive when taking that referring to s.111 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW). Section 111(1) states that whilst there is the presence of prescribed illicit drugs in their system a person must not drive a motor vehicle. In the definitions, prescribed illicit drugs includes "(a) delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC)". If the medicinal cannabis the husband takes contains THC it would mean that he would not be able to drive a car whilst the THC is in his system. The use of medicinal cannabis does not appear to be an ideal solution for someone who has been a regular user of cannabis. The father may need to obtain expert evidence on this topic if it remains an issue for trial.
4. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that X is at risk in the father's care due to his medical condition.

1. The father seeks an injunction restraining the mother from bringing X into contact with the maternal uncle, Mr C . The father annexes an article about Mr C being sentenced for dealing illicit drugs. The mother does not address the allegations against the maternal uncle in her material apart from saying he has been to jail before. The father applied for an ADVO against the mother and the maternal uncle. The father mentioned withdrawing this as the police took out an ADVO on his behalf.
2. The father alleges that X told him that he overheard his uncle talking to his mother about going to the father's home and roughing him up and smashing his head with a sledgehammer in January 2025. The father alleges that Mr C has access to unregistered firearms. The mother denies threatening to send Mr C over to the father's house. The mother says she is not close to Mr C. I am satisfied that it is proper and just to make this injunction on an interim basis.

1. The mother sought to rely on two recordings she has made of the father and X without their consent. She annexes transcripts of the recordings as an aid memoir. Both of these recordings are of the same phone call. One is 4 minutes and 53 seconds and the other is 15 minutes and 34 seconds. They are of the same call. One is a video showing the mother's phone. I determined that the probative value of the recordings outweighed the prejudice to the father. As there was a dispute as to whether or not the transcripts are accurate, I have not read the transcripts but have listened to the recordings.
2. In the first recording, the mother had been talking to X on the phone. X did not hang up properly. The mother could hear the father and X talking and decided to record it. They did not know they were being recorded. The recording is concerning as it does show the father inappropriately involving X in adult issues. This occurred on 21 April 2025. The father in his material admitted to inappropriately involving X in adult discussions but says he commenced the Triple P parenting course in April 2025 and at the time of filing his affidavit had attended six sessions.

1. The mother claims that she wanted X to have a dual school enrolment as her parents' home is about a 45 minute drive away from his current school. That would have caused more confusion and uncertainty for X. It is more likely that the mother wanted to enrol X at a school closer to her parents' home where she and X were living given that she did not allow the father to see X during that six-week period.
2. Both parties have inappropriately involved X's school in their dispute. The number and content of their emails is voluminous. It is also apparent that both parents have been determined to get the school on their side. The volume and tone of both parents' correspondence is of concern. When parents separate, often school is a safe and neutral place for children. X does not have siblings to share this experience with so school can be even more important to him.
3. I will not detail all the correspondence the parents have sent the school. The father first emailed the principal on 2 January 2025 and again on 23 January 2025. He complained about the mother lying and objected to any change to X's school. He complained about being stressed after overhearing the mother calling him a bad father and withholding X against his will.
4. On 17 February 2025 the mother sent an email to the principal complaining that the father yells at X every day and included a recording. She also claimed that X said things at home were so bad he thought of ending his life but has since denied saying that. She sent a further email on 24 February 2025 complaining about the father obstructing X's psychologist appointments by refusing to consent to X being taken out of school early. She goes to claim that her barrister told her to report the school to New South Wales police and wanted confirmation that the school would release X to go to his appointments.
5. The communications that both parents have sent the school has put a lot of pressure on the school and involved them inappropriately in their dispute. The school is caught in the middle and have probably had to seek legal advice because of the parents' conduct.
6. As I indicated during the hearing I will order that both parents be restrained from unilaterally emailing the school. Any email either parent send to the school must be copied into the other parent. Further, both parents are restrained from emailing the school about issues other than X's education and progress at school. They are not to refer to allegations against the other parent, send videos or documents related to the proceedings. The school needs to be a safe place where X can just focus on being a student. I will direct the ICL to provide a copy of these Orders to the school.
7. In late February 2025 the mother visited X at school. The next day the mother attended a party X was invited to. She alleges that X told her she should not be there. One of the parents rang the father claiming they did not know who X was supposed to go home with. The father messages the mother telling her police were on the way. Security guards and the father turned up. The mother left. This would have been an embarrassing and stressful incident for X occurring in front of friends and their parents.
8. There was another incident in June 2025. The mother emailed the school saying she gave permission for X to go home with another family after the school carnival. X was in the mother's care that day. The father found out about it and misrepresented the school's position in communications with the mother. The principal was in a difficult position as the school is responsible for student safety at school events. It is really unfortunate that the father escalated this. There is nothing wrong with the mother arranging a playdate after school during time X is in her care. This would have been another embarrassing and stressful incident for X.

1. X has expressed the view consistently to several people including counsellors, his GP, the police and the ICL that he wants to remain with his father.
2. X saw his GP on 19 February 2025. He told his GP he wanted to stay with his father. He was distressed about that period away from the father. The GP recorded that none of this should be weighing on X. There is no indication on the note as to whether X was seen alone or with his father.
3. The mother arranged for counselling for X. At the first session on 22 January 2025 the mother told the counsellor that she was worried that X had been heavily influenced by the father and was concerned that X did not understand that the father's behaviour is wrong. The mother said that they were in counselling because the father was being unreasonable. Interestingly when X spoke to the counsellor he says both parents were being unreasonable and that he wanted to go back to his father's. The counsellor notes X looked upset and appeared frustrated with his mother. Near the top of the entry it refers to attending X, later the mother. Whilst it is not clear it suggests that the counsellor met with X alone and then spoke to the mother.
4. At the second session on 28 January 2025 the mother referred to recently having to go to the home to collect items and noticed the father and changed the locks and the father called the police, and she left. Later that day the father and the paternal grandmother attended the mother's home, and she told X to hide in the garage. The mother said X was concerned for her safety when she went to collect items from the home. When speaking to X the counsellor notes that X was concerned about what the counsellor would tell the mother. He said that the mother was not letting him see his father and that recently his father came looking for him and his mother told him to hide in the garage. He heard his father's voice and wanted to go to the father, but he was not allowed to and he could not stop crying.
5. In the third session with the counsellor on 4 February 2025, X told the counsellor that he found out about his parents' divorce when the father rang him whilst he was at his maternal uncle's house. X told his counsellor that he thought his uncle was rude to the father when he told him to leave the kid alone and that he felt angry with his mother and was teary. X said his mother gets angry when he is on the phone to his father and there are things that he is not meant to say on the phone to his father, but he does not understand how what he is saying is wrong. This is concerning and is indicative of the mother also inappropriately exposing X to adult issues.
6. X has also been attending his school counsellor. who recommended that X receive external counselling supports which his parents are arranging. Until that counselling starts the school counsellor has continued to be a valuable support for X. On 6 March 2025 counselling records note X speaking very quickly and was talking about his mother taking him to live in Suburb F for a number of weeks and that he had not had regular contact with his father during this time. X said he missed his father and prefers to stay with him and to remain at G School.
7. On 13 March 2025 X told the school counsellor about the mother turning up at the swim carnival and talking to his best friend's mother. He was disappointed that he could not have a play date. He was concerned about what the counsellor would tell his parents.
8. The counselling notes of 15 May 2025 show X spoke positively about meeting with the ICL and about the ICL wanting to hear his perspective. He expressed worry about the court's expectations of him and spoke about the different routines in his parents' households.
9. The school counselling notes on 29 May 2025 refer to the principal asking the counsellor to speak to X after X was told about the interim outcome and that he would mostly be living with the mother. X said he would run away and wanted to speak to the ICL. The counsellor facilitated X calling the ICL later that day.
10. On 2 June 2025 the school counsellor recorded X mentioning that he thought his parents were back in court that day about living arrangements. He says he tries not to worry.
11. One of the many things the parties were in dispute about was with respect to the counselling X was to receive. My impression is that the parties are so distrustful of each other that they did not want to endorse counselling arranged by the other party. Fortunately, they have since agreed for X to receive counselling from the B Clinic and have engaged this service. They have further agreed that counselling should be non-reportable. This is important as X has expressed to the ICL that he would like to be able to talk to someone confidentially.

EXCLUSIVE OCCUPATION OF THE FORMER MATRIMONIAL HOME

1. The mother says that whoever has primary care of X should live in the former matrimonial home. The other parent can occupy the parties' Suburb H investment property which is now vacant.
2. The father seeks to have exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home regardless of the parenting orders. He says it has his exercise equipment there which he uses to help manage his medical condition.
3. Both parents say it is a rural property which requires a lot of work. Both express concerns about the other party being able to manage the property.
4. I do not need to determine this issue as I have determined that X should remain living with the father for now.

1. Both parents lack insight. They each have complained about the other's conduct but then engage in that behaviour themselves with respect to withholding X and turning up at X's school during the school day to see him. In their determination to get the school on their side I doubt either parent thought how that might negatively impact on X's experience of school.
2. There are already a series of restraints in place and orders for ongoing testing for both parents. These orders ameliorate the risks. In the absence of evidence from a court child expert I have to look to other sources of evidence. Although X is young, he has expressed clear views consistently to different people over the past several months. I think X found the weeks after separation confusing and stressful. It was more than just visiting the maternal grandparents. X did not understand why he could not see his father. He was probably worried about going to a different school.
3. It is likely that those events and his exposure to his parents' conflict has led him to feeling insecure with his mother. He may not be trusting of her and be worried that she might suddenly take him away again. It is for these reasons that I have determined that X should remain living with the father and spend some increased time with the mother but not a shared care arrangement, during school terms. This does not mean that this arrangement will be long term.
4. As I flagged with the parties during the hearing at the end of these Reasons, I have included a letter to X explaining my decision and hopefully taking some of the burden he feels from him. I will direct the ICL to give this to X.

I certify that the preceding seventy-four (74) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Harland.

Dear X,

My name is Judge Harland. Your parents have asked the court for help to work out the best living arrangements for you and I have been asked to make a decision about what happens for now. I have thought a lot about you when making this decision.

When parents decide to end their relationship, it can be really hard for everyone. There isn't just one reason parents separate, and it isn't anyone's fault. Nothing you said or did caused it. You may have a lot of big feelings about your parents' separation and you might express them in different ways. It can be a sad and confusing time, sometimes people might also feel angry. Everyone in the family might feel differently about it and that is alright.

I think the separation has been hard for you and your parents. At times your parents have put you in the middle of their disagreement which isn't fair on you. They have also involved your school. I think both your mum and dad have felt hurt and have not thought about how hard it is for you when they involve you and your school in their disagreement. Hopefully this will stop now.

I know you have talked to a lot of people and have told a lot of people you want to stay with your dad. You have talked with a few counsellors and I have read notes from them. You told your school counsellor you are worried about the expectations the court has of you. You don't need to worry about that. The court expects your mum and dad to think about how they can support you better. You should be able to focus on school and the people and things that are important to you and make you happy.

Your mum and dad and your lawyer agree that it would be good for you to talk to a counsellor who won't tell your parents or your lawyer what you talk about. This means you can talk about things you need to talk about without worrying about anything else.

I have decided that for now you should stay with your dad most of the time but spend some more time with your mum. You will still stay with mum every second weekend but will stay with mum until Monday morning so she can take you to school. You will also stay overnight with your mum every second Wednesday instead of spending only a few hours with her. During school holidays you will spend a week with each of your parents.

Court cases can take a long time which can be hard for everyone. I am glad that your lawyer has been explaining things to you and asking what you want. Her job is to tell the court what she thinks is best for you and to help your mum and dad agree on the best arrangements for you long term.

In a while you might be asked to see someone from the court so they can get to know you and what it is like to be you in your family at this time. They will also meet with your mum and dad to talk about your family and find out more about you. This will help the court decide what living arrangements will be best for you into the future.

X, I want you to know that you are not responsible for your mum and dad breaking up or what happens next for everyone. Your parents love you so much and want what is best for you.

I have made this decision, not your mum or dad. While it is important for me to know what you think about things, please know you are not responsible for the decisions being made. I hope things get easier and that you have fun swimming and doing jujitsu.

Judge Harland