Sobo & Sobo [2025] FedCFamC1F 217 (10 April 2025)

1. That the children live with the father from 17 April 2025.
2. That the children shall spend time and communicate with the mother at all times as agreed between the parents in writing and failing agreement:

(a) for not less than two (2) hours each fortnight at the B Contact Centre ("the Contact Centre"); and

(b) on the following special days for a period of two (2) hours:

(i) The children's birthdays;

(ii) Mother's Day; and

(iii) Christmas Day.

(a) should the Contact Centre be unable to facilitate time on the special days particularised, the time shall occur on a day as close to the prescribed Orders as can be facilitated;

(b) the costs of the Contact Centre shall be equally shared between the parents; and

(c) the time shall occur at the Contact Centre or such other place as can be accommodated by the Contact Centre.

1. That the children shall communicate with the mother by telephone or video call each Wednesday between 6.00pm and 6.30pm.
2. That the mother shall be at liberty to send cards and letters to the children and the father shall ensure that the children are provide with such cards and letters.
3. That pursuant to Order 8 hereof, the father shall be entitled to read correspondence addressed to the children to ensure correspondence is appropriate and if he, in his discretion, decides that the correspondence is inappropriate, the father shall return the correspondence to the mother and advise her of his decision.

(a) keep the other parent informed at all times of their email address and contact telephone number;

(b) keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children; and

(c) inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children's medical information to the other parent (at that parent's cost).

1. That the parents authorise, by this Order, the schools attended by the children to give each parent information about the children's educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at that parent's cost).
2. That during the time the children are with either parent, that parent shall:

(a) respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;

(b) speak of the other parent respectfully; and

(c) not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.

1. That pursuant to s 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) ("the Passports Act"), the children be issued with an Australian travel document.
2. That pursuant to s 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Passports Act and these Orders, the children be permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia using an Australian travel document.
3. That the parents do all acts and things and sign all documents, within ten (10) days of being requested to do so, necessary to make application to the Australia Passport Office (or such other department or instrumentality administering the Passports Act) to enable the children to be issued with an Australian travel document.
4. That the parents do all acts and things necessary to ensure the renewal of the passports takes place no less than six (6) months before the valid expiry date.
5. That the children's passports be held by the father.

1. That within twenty-four (24) hours of this Order being published, the Independent Children's Lawyer shall provide a copy of this Order and the Reasons for Judgment delivered 10 April 2025 to Ms C, and Ms C shall inform the Independent Children's Lawyer of a date, time and place that she is able to explain these Orders to the children.
2. That the father shall deliver the children to Ms C as directed by the Independent Children's Lawyer for the purpose of Ms C explaining these Orders to the children.
3. That for the purpose of Orders 18 and 19 hereof, the father shall be responsible for the costs of Ms C.
4. That the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sobo & Sobo has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. This parenting dispute, which is focused on the best interests of two children with additional needs now aged 15 years and 14 years, presents for determination in circumstances where the previously untested allegations of the mother (that the father is an unacceptable risk to the children), has restricted time with the father since separation over four years ago.
2. As the chronology of events sets out, these children have had an interrupted relationship with their father since separation.
3. The reasons for that occurring are contested, but the effect is the same.

1. Section 60CC provides that when determining a child's best interest certain things must be considered.

(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and

(b) if the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child - also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).

1. The general considerations contained in section 60CC(2) prescribe that, for the purposes of the best interests consideration, 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.

1. At the end of a trial which completed after two days on 26 February 2025, the ICL, represented by Mr George of Counsel, submitted a proposed minute of order which was marked for the record as Exhibit 7, and being Appendix One to these Reasons, and which effectively provided for the father to have sole decision-making responsibility; for the children to live with the father; and for there to be supervised visits between the children and the mother at a professional supervision centre indefinitely. That is, without a proposition that the time between the children and mother would, at some future time or upon some future event, move to unsupervised time.

1. In final submissions, the Counsel for the father, Ms Eviston, adopted the ICL's position.

1. Counsel for the mother, Mr Hughes; who it has to be said, on the material that he had to run the case on, could have done nothing more or said anything more to advance the position of the mother; indicated that despite all the evidence that the Court had heard, the mother's position was still as set out in her case outline document (and amended Response) filed 21 February 2025 which in short provided a number of alternatives as follows:

Should the Court order the children live with the Mother:

Decision making

1. The Mother have sole parental responsibility and sole decision-making authority concerning the major long-term issues, as defined in Section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975, in relation to the Children, [X] born [...] 2009 and [Y] born [...] 2010 ("the Children").

Living & Spending time Arrangements

1. The Children reside with the mother.
2. The Children spend supervised time with the Father for two hours each fortnight on days and at times as available at [B Contact Centre], with the father to pay the reasonable fees for the supervision on each occasion supervision.
3. Each party shall:

   1. Contact the [B Contact Centre] ("the Contact Centre") within seven days to complete an intake session;

   2. Comply with any appointments made by the Contact Centre for supervised time;

   3. Comply with all reasonable rules of the Contact Centre; and

   4. Comply with all reasonable requests or directions of the staff of the Contact Centre.

Should the Court order the children live with the Father:

Decision making

1. The Father and the Mother have shared parental responsibility and shared decision making authority concerning the major long-term issues, as defined in Section 4 of the Family Law Act 1975, in relation to the [X] born [...] 2009 and [Y] born [...] 2010 ("the Children").

2. The Mother and Father are to consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal decision-making authority as follows:

   1. They will inform the other parent of the decision to be made;
   2. They will consult with each other by providing the details of any proposal they have and the intended date the proposal is to be implemented, to the other parent in writing at least 1 month prior to the date when the proposal is to be implemented (unless the proposal relates to an acute or life-threatening illness or injury when the timeframe will be dictated by the medical needs of the child);
   3. If the other parent does not agree with the initial proposal, they are to provide details of any proposed variations in writing within seven (7) days;
   4. If the other parent responds to the initial proposal with variations, the first parent will respond to the variation in writing with seven (7) days advising whether they agree or otherwise; and
   5. The parents will make a genuine effort to come to a decision prior to the date the initial proposal is due to be implemented.

3. The Children are to remain enrolled into their current schools, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

Living & Spending time Arrangements

1. The Children reside with the Father.

2. The Children spend unsupervised time with the mother, from after school each Monday, Wednesday and Friday to 7:30pm.

3. The Children spend unsupervised time with the mother from 9:00am to 5:00pm each Sunday.

(As per the original)

1. Importantly, the mother says that the children should remain enrolled at their current schools or as otherwise agreed between the parties. In the mother's case outline, she helpfully provided details of what she proposed, "regardless of the living arrangements", in respect to telephone communication, extracurricular and school attendance, medical issues, and the normal specific issues, including restraints against consuming alcohol to excess; physically discipline the children; respecting the children's privacy and non-denigration orders.

1. The following statements of fact should be construed as findings of fact.
2. Both parties are now 44 years of age and, as earlier indicated, began cohabitation in 2005.
3. Not long after X was born in 2009, the paternal grandmother, Ms D, and the paternal aunt, Ms E, moved into a home across the road from the parents' home. The paternal grandmother and paternal aunt still live in that home, and it is well known to the children. Y was born in 2010.
4. The period post the birth of the children is not on the evidence shaped by significant conflict between the parties. For example, there is no evidence of family violence proceedings. This is not to say, of course, that the parents got on famously well. They are very different people, as these Reasons will reflect.
5. I have formed a view on all the evidence, that the parents, until separation in November 2021, did their very best to provide consistent and loving care to X and Y and because of their additional needs, it is not surprising and often to be expected that some tensions in parenting styles, and just the enormous exhaustion that can often run from looking after children with additional needs, that real difficulties erupt. This did not, on the evidence, occur until the event next described.
6. What seems to have occurred shortly before separation, however, and I find was a major catalyst for the relationship coming to an end, was that the child, X, had begun therapeutic counselling with a psychologist named Ms F.
7. Ms F had known the father at school 18 years earlier. Perhaps reflective of the father's unhappiness in the relationship, he commenced an intimate relationship with Ms F. One can well understand why the mother regarded such actions as both unprofessional and disturbing.
8. The mother caused complaints to be made to the professional body that regulates psychologists, and the evidence suggests that disciplinary steps were taken by the professional body, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Association (AHPRA) against Ms F in relation to her conduct.
9. As much as anything, this conduct by the father and Ms F brought the relationship between the parents, even if he was unhappy at the time, to an end around November 2021. The father and Ms F maintain a relationship, but do not live together.
10. Ms F did not give evidence in the hearing and this was a matter of concern to the Court and is dealt with later in these Reasons.
11. It seems that the parties tried to initially manage some agreed care arrangements, the father having moved from the family home across the road to live with his mother and sister, where he now still resides.
12. In around February 2022, it became a matter of knowledge to the father, initially after X made disclosures to the paternal grandmother and aunt, that he was engaging with unknown persons on the internet and it seems, accepted by all the parties, that he was being groomed.
13. At least by March 2022, the father was so concerned he took steps to go to the family home and collect the laptop said to be used, albeit not exclusively, by X. This caused a conflict to arise between the parties. The Court is still confused as to whether the mother regarded the grooming of X by unknown persons to be as serious as the father did. However, there is no evidence to suggest that she supported it or encouraged it in any way.
14. In early 2022, the mother commenced proceedings for a protection order in the State Court, which was granted on a temporary basis. As so often occurs, the father, who was named as the defendant, was restrained from coming into contact with the mother or the children. The father says the mother took steps to disguise her presence at the former family home by erecting tarpaulins so that she could not be observed from across the road, where the family lived.
15. Ultimately, the father consented to the family violence order in mid-2022, on a "without admission" basis. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, the parties negotiated at mediation in June 2022 for the father to spend time with X and with Y unsupervised, but during the day only.
16. Shortly after, the father reported to police that X was being groomed via the internet. The evidence suggests that ultimately the police did obtain custody of X's computer and found child exploitation material on it of such a significant and disturbing quality that they destroyed the laptop.
17. That the father was becoming frustrated with the limited amount of time that the mother was prepared to support him having with the children was manifest by the actions that occurred in late 2022, when the father took Y from her school and kept her for approximately two weeks for a holiday with his extended family. The evidence suggests that he would have also taken X at the time, but he was not able to do so.
18. It is to be remembered that apart from the domestic violence order, there were no parenting orders that restrained the father from spending time with his child and/or having a holiday with the children, but his actions, without knowledge to the mother, were in many ways inappropriate and likely to cause her distress. It did cause the mother distress.
19. Exhibit 3 are some Facebook posts at around this time which the mother admitted in cross-examination she posted on her Facebook site, things such as:

[Ms D] (the paternal grandmother) stole my daughter from inside our school grounds last Wednesday morning. This is kidnapping. She then left my daughter in the hands of her father and his girlfriend (who is my son's psychologist) and they are on the run, evading police.

1. There is no evidence that the father was evading police.
2. The mother's exasperation with the situation was also manifest in the limited Facebook posts produced to the Court with her actually impersonating other people, including the child, Y, as being the author of various Facebook posts. Those posts speak for themselves.
3. In about November 2022, the father commenced proceedings for parenting orders. Shortly thereafter, it was reported to the Department that the father had, "touched [Y]". A number of further allegations were made which are dealt with later in these reasons. All allegations made against the father were investigated by police and found to be unsubstantiated.
4. Despite all investigations by police being unsubstantiated, when the matter first came before a Senior Judicial Registrar on 24 January 2023, the Senior Judicial Registrar made an order that the children spend no time with the father. As a result, effectively, for the whole of the year 2023, the father spent no time with the children. That situation, of no time, continued until a different Senior Judicial Registrar, with the benefit of a family report, made Orders on 20 December 2023 for the children to initially spend supervised time with the father, progressing to alternate weekend time unsupervised.
5. 2023 was a busy year for the mother who was the respondent also to an application by the paternal grandmother for a protection order arising from the mother's behaviour. The mother contested that application. However, a Magistrate found grounds for the protection order to be made and the reasons of the State magistrate for so ruling are before the Court. The findings of the State Magistrate do the mother no credit.
6. After the orders in December 2023 for time between the children and father to recommence, incidents arose where X absconded from school. He did so voluntarily, and I am not in any way suggesting his behaviour was encouraged by the mother. Nonetheless, there are occasions where he went to the paternal grandmother's home (across the road from the mother's home) or caught public transport and travelled some distance (on one occasion many kilometres from Brisbane), before letting anyone know where he was. On the occasion where he travelled X rang the father asking to be collected.
7. The first unsupervised visit under the December 2023 Orders took place on 10 February 2024, following which there seems to have been further allegations made, the mother says to her, with particular clarity, resulting in her ceasing time, again.
8. On 14 April 2024, the mother brought proceedings before the Court and a recovery order for X to return to her care was made on or about 1 May 2024.
9. During all this period post-separation, as I will soon record, the mother was making significant, repeated, and ultimately, so far as the police were concerned, unfounded allegations against the father.
10. By mid-2024, the Child Protection and Investigation Unit of the Queensland Police had closed the file. As the matter progressed in Division 2, the matter was ultimately listed for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing before a Division 2 Judge who, maybe optimistically, but not in any way criticised by me, offered the parties a Judicial Settlement Conference in an attempt to resolve the matter. Before the Judicial Settlement Conference could be heard, the Division 2 Judge was informed that a further allegation of sexual abuse against the father had been made by the mother; the Judicial Settlement process was aborted, and the matter was transferred to Division 1.
11. The matter first came before me on 26 September 2024. By this stage, as the chronology reflects, the time the children had with the father was totally inconsistent.
12. I made Orders for supervised time to recommence as soon as possible, which it did on or about 29 September 2024.
13. Many of those visits under my Order of 26 September 2024 would seem to also have been interrupted, although when the visits did take place at B Contact Centre (a child and family contact centre), a record of these visits (which were marked as Exhibit 8) reflect the number of occasions. I observe that nothing in those notes raises any concern about the father's behaviour. Although I note at the trial before me, the mother, on more than one occasion, indicated that she was concerned that the Contact Centre was not properly supervising the children's time with the father. Having said that, she makes no allegation that any harm or abuse of the children took place whilst they were spending time with the father at the Contact Centre.
14. Reflective though of the mother's attitude to anyone with whom she does not agree (police; the Department; the Contact Centre), she maintained such a complaint at the hearing before me. This issue became significantly problematic after Ms C, a report writer, produced her second family report in which she made a clear recommendation that there be a change of residence. That report, dated 10 December 2024, prompted this Court to expedite the trial so that the serious allegations maintained by the mother could be tested.
15. I can indicate the trial took place over two days on 24 and 25 February 2025, and with the benefit of legal representation funded by grants to meet the requirements of s 102NA of the Act.

1. X is currently in grade 10 at W School.
2. Exhibit 1 is a copy of his National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan that was approved in August 2024. Whilst I have no other medical evidence to support the plan, I am satisfied that the plan as approved was only done so because of X's needs.
3. X appears to enjoy school, has some social skills and has some confidence that he will progress in society as he gets older.
4. He was interviewed by Ms C on two occasions. It is to be expected that X feels somewhat confused by the events that have occurred since the parents separated when he was 12 years of age in 2021. The mother has met X's therapy needs and appointments, and they are significant. She sets out in her affidavit filed 20 February 2025 at paragraph 7, the range of diagnoses that X has received, beginning with autism spectrum disorder, generalised anxiety, speech language disorder, a mobility condition, to name but a few. At paragraph 8, the mother sets out X's current treating health practitioners, which include:

(a) a child psychiatrist;

(b) a counsellor;

(c) an occupational therapist;

(d) a speech therapist;

(e) a physiotherapist;

(f) a podiatrist;

(g) a nutritionist; and

(h) a doctor who is engaged to assist X with a mobility condition, who he sees annually.

1. Y presents as a very happy and exuberant child that may in fact disguise some of her needs as set out in her NDIS plan approved in May 2024 and which is marked Exhibit 6.
2. Again, the Court had no medical evidence. However, the mother, at paragraph 11 of her affidavit, indicated Y has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, a language disorder, and she also has a mobility condition.
3. Y has the additional challenges of an intellectual disability, which is perhaps best understood by the mother's evidence, which I accept, that although she is in grade nine at V School, she has for at least the last two years been doing schoolwork at the level of grade three. Y also has, through the NDIS plan approval, a number of therapists as set out at paragraph 12, which include:

(a) G Health Services, Dr H, Paediatrician, for assistance with her ASD on a six-monthly basis;

(b) J Health Services, specifically Dr K, for assistance with a mobility condition annually;

(c) L Health Service, specifically Ms M, for occupational therapy, on a fortnightly basis;

(d) N Health Service, specifically Ms O, for physiotherapy, on a fortnightly basis;

(e) P Health Service, specifically Mr Q, for podiatry issues, as required; and

(f) R Counselling Service, specifically Ms S, for counselling and therapy, on a fortnightly basis.

1. Both children are prescribed medication at various levels as set out at paragraph 10 in relation to X and at paragraph 12 in relation to Y of the mother's affidavit.

1. All three Counsel identified that the competing proposals focusing primarily on where the children should live, is to be shaped by findings the Court makes about whether the children were at risk in the care primarily of either parent.
2. In this regard, the mother maintained her position that the father had sexually abused at least Y, and inappropriately touched X. During cross-examination, she elaborated that X is a child who does not like physical closeness or hugging. The mother further maintains that the paternal family have also engaged with the father in such behaviour at times, particularly in respect of Y.
3. The mother maintains that the father is an unacceptable risk to the children and that they are at risk of abuse by him.
4. The father's position is that the mother is an emotional and psychological risk to the children because of the unreasonable, unbalanced and extreme views she has about him and his family, and that she has shared these views with the children which puts any relationship he could have with the children very much at risk.

1. The mother would have been aware, with the benefit of legal advice, that it was important in her affidavit to set out not only the nature of allegations as were made to her, but some context for those allegations. Frankly, her affidavit at paragraphs 55 to 70 failed to do so.
2. Quite properly, however, Mr Hughes of Counsel for the mother put each allegation asserted by the mother to the father, who consistently and vehemently denied anything had occurred at all.
3. It must be said, as I will soon illustrate, that the timing of these allegations seemed, at times, perhaps coincidentally, to be when the children were about to begin increased time with the father or had just spent some (the father would say enjoyable) time with the father.
4. By way of summary, the mother's allegations against the father included:

(a) Y exhibiting sexualised behaviour, said by the mother to have been shaped by Y's exposure to observing the father and Ms F engaging affectionately;

(b) Y reporting that in January 2022 (although not reported until April 2022) that when she spent time at Region T one evening, she slept in the same bed with the father and Ms F. They did not have clothes on, and that her father's "doodle" touched her on the leg;

(c) an allegation made in December 2022, that the paternal aunt, Ms E (who is a health professional), checked Y's vagina for an infection and that she had poked the child in that region;

(d) vaguely, and without particularisation in any form, the mother at paragraph 61 said "between December 2022 and May 2023, [Y] continued to disclose information to me, that was in my view consistent with sexual abuse, physical abuse, and threatening behaviour to her." With the only particulars given at paragraph 62 being:

1. [Mr Sobo] touching her private parts and telling her "it is good and nice";
2. [Mr Sobo] telling her she should "touch other people's private parts and bum"; and
3. [Mr Sobo] telling her to "shut the fuck up".

(e) that on 1 and 2 June 2024, the children spent time with the father at his home across the road with the grandmother, and that after returning to her, Y asserted that "everyone was in the shower" with her while she was at the father's home, everyone being "dad, [Ms D] and Aunty [Ms E]", and that they were helping her to change her period underwear;

(f) as the mother's affidavit sets out, the more that the Department and police did not believe her and/or the children despite interviews pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ("s 93A") occurring - which I will refer to shortly - some of the allegations asserted by the mother became more bizarre, including:

(i) that the child had had a pencil inserted in her vagina;

(ii) that the father inserted his finger in her vagina;

(iii) that the paternal family had pushed a mobile phone into her vagina; and

(iv) that the father had been poisoning the children's milkshakes.

(g) that the mother was concerned and believed her children, particularly Y, that these events have occurred; notwithstanding that one might have thought she would be concerned about Y's capacity to articulate these issues in some way; the mother did continue to make complaints to the Department and police. A summary of some of these complaints is set out in the document being Exhibit 2, a police record that sets out a number of events from the police records, between 2022 and 2023, concluding with a preliminary outcome expressed in these terms:

Based off the preliminary investigator's completed history of false information by the complainant (mother) and the subject child, evidence indicates that the events are highly unlikely to have occurred, and as such the criminal investigation has been filed pending with nil charges to be preferred.

Police involvement is also identified in an earlier record that has been provided to the Court and marked as Exhibit 5. The mother caused the children to be involved, at the request of police (with her insistence), in s 93A interviews in late 2022 (for both children) and additionally for Y in early 2023 and early 2024.

1. I was invited by Counsel to view the s 93A interviews in chambers, which I have done.
2. In final submissions, all Counsel said that there were no maintainable disclosures or context given during the course of the interviews. That is also my impression of the interviews, but I will make these following further comments:

(a) I have viewed the following interviews:

(i) late 2022 - Y - 19 minutes;

(ii) late 2022 - X - 42 minutes;

(iii) early 2023 - Y - 42 minutes; and

(iv) early 2024 - Y - 31 minutes.

(b) X's interview revealed a fairly consistent narrative which he initially says related to conduct of the paternal grandmother laying on him in his bed, whilst he was lying on "his tummy" and, by pulling down the top of her nighty, exposing her breasts and allowing them to come into contact with him. It seems that X's recollection is that his happened around his eighth birthday - over five years before the first time he ever disclosed this to the mother shortly before his interview;

(c) When X was asked why he had not mentioned this incident earlier, he said he had only recently remembered it in the last few weeks. He also told police that when he was nine or 10 years of age, aunty Ms E had touched him on the "penis" - that is again about four years ago. This recollection was vague;

(d) Finally, X expressed concern that there has been, more recently, a discussion about whether he was "gay" - an issue X said he was unclear about, but that it was inappropriate for his father to say such things like "I don't want a gay son". This allegation is not in the mother's evidence and was not put to the father in cross-examination;

(e) During Y's initial interview, and through the three interviews the Court viewed, she presented as a talkative and polite child who seemed interested in asking questions of the police officers about their lives and their family - a strange quirk in my view. The first interview began with little introduction before Y made allegations of "inappropriate" touching by the father during her holiday with him. She spoke in a fairly unemotional way - repeating consistently the father had acted inappropriately. She said her father inspected her vagina for an infection but she had no infection. She said, confusingly, that he had punched and pinched her vagina for two hours - later to suggest that her vagina had hurt for two hours. For this interview, she did not mention Ms F being present, but she says she disclosed the father's conduct to aunty Ms E. She was asked if there was anything else that had happened and she said, "that is it". She told the interviewing police that she got along with her dad;

(f) By the second interview in early April 2023, the disclosures significantly changed - but again were said by Y to relate to events when she was on the November 2022 holiday with her father. This interview suggests Y witnessed the father and Ms F doing "inappropriate stuff"; pulling each other's pants down; kissing each other's bottom and smacked each other. She says the father became aware of her presence and told Y to "fuck off", to which Y's response was to give him "the rude finger". She then repeated that the father had touched her "inappropriately", but the details of when and where this occurred were vague. She said the father pulled her underwear down to smack her and touch her "inappropriately". She said she witnessed her father pull her aunty Ms E's pants down as well; the father smacked her seven times and the father smacked aunty Ms E's bottom three times. The child said she felt bad at the time 'because my mum was left behind" and that "mum could not find me". By this interview, Y told police there was "nothing good about dad". The child said she had told her mother and discussed the incident with her;

(g) During the last interview in early 2024, Y escalated disclosures to saying that her uncle Mr Z and aunty Ms O:

(i) had kissed and licked her vagina;

(ii) held a gun to her face;

(iii) wanted to kill "us";

(iv) put pencils in her vagina and bottom - with pencils "breaking in half" and which caused bleeding; and

(v) poked her in the kidney.

1. As to when this occurred is very unclear. Y said in one part it occurred at Mr Z's home at Town U; then she said it happened when the father "took her away".
2. Even though the mother is said to have taken Y to a doctor (presumably to investigate the damage caused by the pencils), the mother offered no medical evidence. These allegations are "bizarre" in my view.
3. Overall, the interviews, when seen in the context of the mother's likely continued discussions with the children and her fixation about the father and his extended family, do not corroborate reliably the narrative the mother maintains of the father's sexual abuse.
4. I had the benefit of seeing the mother, the father, but particularly also in respect of sexual abuse allegations, the paternal grandmother and aunt giving evidence.
5. X, who had been groomed, sadly, sexually by unknown males on the internet, had an awareness of sexualised behaviour. This should have indicated to the mother that she should treat with some caution allegations by X post-separation that the paternal grandmother had, one evening, laid on X and exposed her breasts to X. Frankly, I do not accept that that occurred at all.
6. Some of the bizarre allegations made by Y, and bizarre being the most appropriate term, should have been discounted by the mother as, sadly, statements made by the child without foundation.
7. I find, however, that the mother was so anxious to accept, after she became aware of the father's conduct with Ms F, that the father was an inappropriate person to spend time with the children, that she easily accepted (without reservation or proper parental filter) what she says were the comments made by the children to her.
8. It was said in final submissions, and I accept, that the mother's views are unshakable and will not easily be shifted.
9. I make a finding that the father, the paternal grandmother and the paternal aunt, Ms E, do not, in having contact with the children, pose any risk at all to them and certainly not an unacceptable risk of sexual harm.

1. It follows from the findings I have made in relation to sexual abuse allegations that the mother, in my view, could pose a risk to the children of emotional and psychological harm by her failure to be able to adjust or consider her entrenched views that the father and his family are a risk to the children.
2. The evidence of the mother makes it abundantly clear that she has discussed these allegations repeatedly with the children, particularly Y, in and around times the children have been interviewed by police. Whilst I am not satisfied on the evidence that she has coached the children to make these allegations, and/or that the children have not said some of these words to her, I am satisfied from all the evidence that the children now have an expectation that their mother anticipates an adverse comment to be made by them about the father, and that to some degree their expressions align with the mother's views that the father is a risk.
3. As I explain when dealing with the evidence of the family report writer, Ms C later in these Reasons, the views of the mother are so entrenched that there is a risk that the children could ever have a relationship with their father, and further, it could well compromise their capacity to have a functional relationship as they grow older with other persons.
4. At this point, I should indicate that, sadly, the mother was the only witness in her case.
5. She did not, for example, produce evidence from her sister or her mother who have been consistently, she would say, in her life since separation and are supporting her. At times, she has lived with them. There is a degree of uncertainty about the nature of their relationship with the mother and how much support they are capable of providing, or what their view of the allegations so strongly held by the mother against the father, actually are currently.
6. When questioned by the bench about any counselling the mother has been receiving, she indicated that she is having some form of counselling but that the qualification of the counsellor, and the nature of the counselling is unknown to the Court. It may have been helpful in understanding the capacity for the mother to moderate and/or compartmentalise her views if she had provided evidence from her treating therapist. She did not do so.
7. I do not say that the mother is isolated in her community, although the extent of her connections other than those who are providing medical attention to the children's needs is uncertain. However, it may have helped the Court in better understanding the support the mother has now and in the future, if more evidence had been provided in her case.
8. In final submissions, the ICL and the father say that the mother presents as an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to the children. This is a view also taken by Ms C. It is a view, sadly, I have been required on the evidence to also find.

1. Ms C had the benefit, she being a very experienced professional with many years of reporting in this jurisdiction, of being retained to prepare a family report, firstly in September 2023, and more recently in October 2024. She was the subject of cross-examination.
2. Although Ms C expressed concerns about the mother's behaviour in the 2023 report, at paragraph 186 of that report, Ms C said (for reasons which are quite apparent from the body of her report) that:

I do not support a change of residence at this stage. At present I am willing to interpret [Ms Sobo's] actions as misguided because she has struggled with emotional regulation following separation. If she were to continue this however, it may become necessary to review the care arrangement. I have no reservations about [Mr Sobo's] ability to take on primary responsibility for raising them in such circumstances.

1. In the same report, Ms C opined, when talking about the children's vulnerabilities:

...I foreshadow that [the children] are at sexual risk - but not from [Mr Sobo] or his family. They are likely to struggle with impulses and impetuous urges. They will likely have trouble distinguishing between 'love' and 'sex'. At the very least, they need one-on-one education in protective behaviours if they have not already had this.

1. That report provided a strong recommendation that the father's time with the children resumes immediately in the form of five days per fortnight and half of the school holidays, and that there be no restrictions on the children having contact with the extended family and the father's new partner (Ms F).
2. However, as indicated earlier, that report did not result in orders being made in that form. I am not in any way critical of the decision made by Senior Judicial Registrar Best in December 2023, confronted as she was with the continued allegations of risk.
3. However, the Orders did provide for time to recommence, initially supervised and then into alternate weekend time.
4. By the time Ms C saw the family again for the purpose of the second family report on 28 October 2024, during which time observations were made of the children with their mother, the father and the extended family, Ms C's ultimate recommendations had significantly changed. They are not expressed in ambivalent terms. At paragraph 127 to 130 of the second family report, Ms C says:
   1. It is my view that [Ms Sobo] has systematically abused these children emotionally over almost three years. She has been infusing their minds with heinous atrocities that [Mr Sobo] has committed. Fortunately, she has only been partially successful, however. When the children see their father and his family, their earlier happy experiences and memories are immediately reawakened, and they relate in the same spontaneous manner they always did.
   2. [Mr Sobo] and his family have never faltered in their resolve to play an active role in the children's upbringing.
   3. I am firmly of the view that the children need to live with the father fulltime.
   4. If [Ms Sobo] were to have unsupervised time, I am confident that she would continue unfettered with her leading questions and distortions. At present, I see no alternative other than her time with them being supervised.
5. Of course, a judge is not bound by the report or opinions of a family report writer. However, where the foundations for an opinion expressed by a person of experience in this area like Ms C, her recommendations can hardly be ignored.
6. In my view, there is much to support the conclusions reached by Ms C, as set out in her report and as reflected in the evidence that I heard and the cross-examination that was undertaken.
7. Ms C was the subject of cross-examination during the course of the final part of the hearing. She was aware, and I accept she took into account, the likely impact on X and Y of moving into the father's care. She expressed an empathy for their situation such that, for example, she was prepared to facilitate explaining the orders to the children if requested by the Court and the ICL to do so. To do so was something which the ICL contends for as set out in the minute of order.

1. The legislative pathway makes it clear that the Court must consider the safety of the children.
2. I have identified the two major risks.
3. The father has not had extensive experience, post separation, in caring for his children. He presented to the Court as a person desperate, willing, able and desirous of doing so. It is a little difficult to ascertain whether he understands the full responsibilities of caring primarily for two children with additional needs.
4. In that regard, apart from the issues to which I have already referred, there is no real criticism of the mother maintaining the children's medical appointments and needs, supporting their schooling, feeding, clothing, and accommodating them, at times, in difficult circumstances, because of the lack of financial support available to her.
5. With an eye to the other factors prescribed by s 60CC(2)(a), I find that:

(a) the best independent record of the views expressed by the children are those captured by Ms C. I accept X's views are more aligned with the mother's position. The development challenges faced by Y require caution to be applied to the views she expresses. I take into account that the proposal of the ICL, to the extent they are likely to cause the children, loyal to their mother, to react negatively, is an issue the father accepts will require sensible management;

(b) the earlier findings about the development, psychological and emotional needs of the children have been identified. The father is well aware of those needs and although he has been less involved in recent times, in taking the children to the range of health professionals who support the children's individual needs, I am satisfied he is both capable and willing to do what is required;

(c) in respect of parental capacity, the evidence establishes that the mother, as the almost exclusive carer, has provided for the children. I accept to some extent the father, although he will have the support of his mother and sister, is less experienced and has had a limited opportunity to demonstrate his parental capacity. My assessment of the father on all the evidence is that he will grow in the role and will develop the skills to manage the children's needs appropriately. He is likely, at times, to do it differently than the mother, but I do not find he lacks the capacity to do so. Ms C's opinion supports this finding;

(d) clearly it is far from optimal for the children to be reduced to having only one parent engaged in their life. However, the mother's entrenched views means that will be the continuing result if the children remain living with her. The children have an established relationship with the mother, and I accept have benefited from that relationship. However, the mother's inability (because of her fixed views that the father and his family are a risk to the children) to genuinely support the children's relationship with their father means the negative effects as identified by Ms C on not connecting with the father, are likely to be far reaching. If some change does not happen now, these long term effects seem inevitable. A change of residence, even with limited supervised time between the children and the mother, would give the children an opportunity to create a bond with their father which they need. It is not in their best interests that they adopt the mother's narrative of the risk the father and his extended family present, when there is no foundation for that narrative; and

(e) as already indicated, it weighs heavily in my determination that a change of the nature proposed by the ICL and the father, will create likely initial and short term anxiety and distress to the children. However, I am persuaded by the evidence as a whole, and Ms C's evidence in particular, that the long term benefits for these children from a change of residence is in their best interests.

1. In that regard, I must mention with a sense of disappointment, that during the course of this trial, which was only about parenting proceedings, I was informed that although each party had received some form of partial property settlement to help with their legal expenses in the parenting case, after the family house was sold and for many months now, over $200,000 has been held in trust from the proceeds of sale of that home (that is the home in the same street as the home occupied and owned by the paternal grandmother). There are no proceedings before the Court, and apparently no real emphasis by the parties or lawyers retained by them to help resolve that issue for these parties so that they can have access to their money when they clearly, desperately need it.
2. Hopefully, now that the parenting proceedings will be concluded by my Judgment, some attention can be given to resolving that financial/property issue so the parties can move on with their life.

1. It is important that I deal with the failure by the father to produce Ms F to give evidence.
2. Ms C had the benefit of speaking with Ms F when she prepared her first report arising from interviews which took place in November 2023. The comments made by Ms F to Ms C are shortly recorded and are set out at paragraphs 112 to 118 of the first family report. In particular, whilst acknowledging that her professional judgment in commencing a relationship with the father was flawed, she said that while she views "their relationship in an enduring manner", she also feels guilty about it. She said, "I sometimes feel responsible that he doesn't see his kids", before being recorded as saying that she accepted "That the previous events may mean that she cannot take on any role in [X] and [Y's] lives, and she will willingly absent herself whenever the children are with him".
3. The evidence of the father is that he maintains a relationship with Ms F and expects that relationship to ultimately one day result in Ms F and he living together and that she will play a role in the lives of X and Y, being a member of his household (whether that household be a separate home or an extension to the paternal grandmother's home). When asked about the source of any advice to deal with the children's transition, the father made it clear that he would rely heavily upon the advice of Ms F, as a psychologist.
4. Confronting the obvious submission by Counsel for the mother that an adverse inference under the principles of Jones & Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 should be made, Ms Eviston of Counsel, for the father, pointed to the father's evidence that the reason Ms F was not involved as a witness in these proceedings was because of the actions taken by the mother to bring Ms F's conduct to the attention of relevant regulatory authorities, and Ms F's fear of being involved in the trial process.
5. Frankly, that was not good enough.
6. Ms F should have been called and should have deposed to how she had reflected not so much on the mistake she made leading to the investigation by AHPRA (because clearly it was a mistake), but on the fact that she wishes to be a member of the father's household, which will, if the children live with him, inevitably mean she will play a role in the parenting of these children into the future.
7. It is not necessary in the circumstances to make the inference that Ms F would not have given evidence which would assist the father in his case. However, in my view, the father's failure to produce Ms F was a forensic and tactical decision that was an error and has weakened the father's case.
8. I accept that if the children live with the father, and spend time with the mother, supervised as the father proposes (as does the ICL), these children will have a transition that will be very difficult for them. But as the family report writer Ms C indicated, she believes they will ultimately cope, and that the pain will be short-term rather than long-term.
9. Whether he has advice from Ms For otherwise, the father will always have the support of his mother who presented very impressively both to me and Ms C as did the paternal aunt, Ms E. They, like the father, have been stunned by the mother's constant allegations and persistent assertion that he is a risk to the children and that they are a risk to the children.
10. At some level it seemed to me that the father's response in the witness box was almost consumed by a need to seek revenge for what the mother had done to him.
11. It would have been helpful if the father could have produced evidence from his counsellor, for he says he has one (or has had one in the past), to help me better understand how he will move forward if the children live with him. I say that because I am left with some small residual concern that if the children live with the father, he may find it difficult to restrain his emotions in such a way as not to make derogatory and damaging remarks about the mother.
12. I have much less concern that the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt would fall into that behaviour.

1. The submissions of the ICL supported by the father contend for the orders to which I have earlier referred. During the course of final submissions, I raised an alternate proposal for consideration. I did so as I have had cause in the course of the trial to reflect on whether there was a possibility that the mother (despite having been given a chance to show a change of attitude after the first family report) would ultimately change her attitude and become a more cooperative parent with the father if they lived with him.
2. In that regard, I raised as an option for submission that an order be made on a final basis for the children to live with the father; for him to have, as I think is the only practical result, sole decision-making, but that the children's time with the mother be the subject of an interim order, supervised at first but with a hope that there was a chance of expanding that time safely for the children.
3. Not surprisingly, Counsel for the mother, perhaps anticipating that there may be a prospect of these children being placed in the full-time care of the father, did not disagree with the alternate proposal raised by the Court. However, Counsel for the father and particularly the ICL in his usual respectful submission, indicated that such an order would prolong the uncertainty for these children without any real prospect of the Court having confidence that the mother on the current evidence would change.
4. There is a long line of authority that compels courts to consider whether it is appropriate for long-term supervision to occur. It restricts the capacity of children to develop a relationship in many ways with the parent they are seeing in the supervised context. With children of this age, who have had a long and established relationship with their mother, their transition to living with the father and spending limited time with the mother will be difficult.
5. X, in just over two years, will be an adult with full adult independence. Y is likely to be a vulnerable child for her life and will require support and guidance. Her mother, if she was able to be less fixated on the father's alleged atrocities, was in a position to offer that to the child. She has not demonstrated, however, when, if ever, her change in attitude and focus would occur.
6. While s 65DAAA of the Act provides a basis by which, where there is a material change of circumstances, the Court can revisit orders, and that is open ultimately in every parenting case where final orders are made, I can think of no other way to set a "sunset clause" in this case, which would not have the effect of disruption of the children's right for their new-found stability in the primary care of the father.
7. I do, however, form a view, although again, it may be said to be more optimistic than realistic, that when this father engages as a full-time parent as he has desired and fought for, for so long, he may get a better understanding of the other aspects of the mother's positive parenting of these two children, an aspect which both parties seem to acknowledge up until separation, such that if the children start expressing a desire to spend more time with the mother, he can find it in his heart and in his conscience to investigate in an appropriate way through mediation or otherwise, how that may be achieved.

1. The final issue which the Court is required to decide, is the schooling of Y. The mother is employed in education and has been working at V School for many years. She is currently on leave but due to return to that school in 2025. It emerged from the evidence of the mother that she strongly believes that V School is the campus that the child should attend, rather than the campus of W School (where X attends), which is in the same region.
2. I did not have the benefit of any evidence about how the child is progressing; whether W School can offer the same support and curriculum Y is receiving at the V School, and whether teachers in either of the institutions had a view about what was in Y's best interests. I accept that two subpoenae were issued by the ICL, that were not responded to and where compulsion to respond was not urged upon the school.
3. What is not in the child's best interests, in my view, based on the orders I make about the limited supervised time the children will spend with the mother, is for the mother to return to the school that the child attends so that she can maintain almost daily time and influence over the child. The father would feel uncomfortable about that occurring, because from his perspective, perhaps not unreasonably, the school has received a narrative about him from the mother (which may or may not be correct, but the evidence is persuasive in that respect). His answer to that complex issue is to move Y from V School to W School.
4. Confronted with this dilemma, Counsel for the mother in the final throes of submissions indicated the mother had given him instructions that she would not return to the school.
5. I cannot make such an order and would be reluctant to do so. She has worked at that school for many years. She requires an income like most people of her age would. She has skills for employment, and I would not be satisfied in any event that I had a power to make an enforceable order in that regard.
6. Although offered only through her lawyers, I am prepared to accept that at least one of the factors leading to the mother's proposal through her lawyer not to return to the school to her usual employment, is consistent with her strong view that it is in the best interests of Y that she remain at V School.
7. In the final analysis, I make no specific order in relation to Y's schooling.
8. That is because, under my orders, the father has sole decision-making responsibility, and if after reading these Reasons, discussing the issue with the child's current school teachers and seeing what actions the mother actually takes, he decides to move school, then that will, it is to be hoped, be a decision he makes in the best interests of the child.
9. For the reasons which I have expressed, the orders contended for by ICL will be made.
10. The ICL will be discharged with the thanks of the Court.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and twenty-four (124) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.

APPENDIX ONE

MINUTE OF ORDER PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT CHILDRENS LAWYER

(1) That all previous parenting Orders be discharged.

Decision Making

(2) That the Father have Sole Decision-Making Responsibility for the major long-term issues of the children X born 2009 and Y born 2010.

(3) The Father is to be solely responsible for managing the children's NDIS packages and the Mother shall forthwith do all acts and things necessary to facilitate the transfer of such funding packages to the Father as the manager.

Live and Spend Time With

(4) That the children live with the Father.

(5) The children shall spend time with and communicate with the Mother at all times as agreed between the Mother and the Father in writing and failing agreement,

(a) For not less than two (2) hours each fortnight at the B Contact Centre ; and

(b) On the following special days for a period of two (2) hours:

(i) The children's birthdays;

(ii) Mother's Day; and

(iii) Christmas Day.

(6) That should the contact centre be unable to facilitate time on the special days, the time shall occur on a day as close as can be facilitated.

(7) The costs of the contact centre shall be equally shared between the parents.

(8) Time shall occur at the Contact Centre or such other place as can be accommodated by the centre.

(9) That the children shall communicate with the Mother by telephone or videocall each Wednesday between 6:00pm-6:30pm.

(10) That the Mother be at liberty to send cards and letters to the children and the Father shall ensure that the children are provide with such cards and letters. The Father shall be entitled to read such correspondence to ensure correspondence is appropriate for the children. If he, in his discretion, decides that the correspondence is inappropriate, the Father shall return the correspondence to the Mother and advise her of his decision.

Exchange of Information

(11) The Mother and Father shall:

(a) keep the other parent informed at all times of their email address and contact telephone number;

(b) keep the other parent informed of the names and addresses of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat the children and authorise those practitioners to provide the other parent with information that they are lawfully able to provide about the children;

(c) inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical condition, significant health issue or illness suffered by the children. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the children's medical information to the other parent (at that parent's cost).

(12) That the parents authorise, by this Order, the schools attended by the children to give each parent information about the children's educational progress and other school related activities and supply them with copies of school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the children (at that parent's cost).

(13) That during the time the children are with either parent, that parent shall:

(a) respect the privacy of the other parent and not question the children about the personal life of the other parent;

(b) speak of the other parent respectfully;

(d) not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.

Passports

(14) That pursuant to section 11 (1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 it is hereby ordered that the children be issued with an Australian travel document.

(15) That pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 and these Orders, the children be permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia using an Australian travel document.

(16) That the parents do all acts and things and sign all documents, within ten (I0) days of being requested to do so, necessary to make application to the Australia Passport Office (or such other department or instrumentality administering the Australian Passports Act 2005) to enable the children to be issued with an Australian travel document.

(17) That the parents do all acts and things necessary to ensure the renewal of the passports takes place no less than six months before the valid expiry date.

(18) The children's passport is to be held by the Father.

Explanation of orders

(19) Within 24 hours of these order being published, the Independent Children's Lawyer shall provide a copy of the orders to Ms C. Ms C shall inform the Independent Children's Lawyer of a date, time and place that she is able to explain these orders to the children.

(20) The Father shall deliver the children to Ms C as directed by the Independent Children's Lawyer for the purpose of her explaining the orders to the children. The Father shall be responsible for the costs of Ms C.