Strickland & Thomas [2025] FedCFamC2F 1749 (9 December 2025)

(a) The date, duration, and changeover arrangements are agreed between the parents in writing; and

(b) An adult member of the paternal family is present for the duration of such time.

1. The father will communicate with X by the mother's Facebook Messenger app account on dates and times agreed between the parties in writing on condition that the mother is present during such communications, and in default of agreement once a fortnight on a Thursday at 7:30pm commencing 18 December 2025.
2. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and for the personal protection of X born in 2016, the father is restrained by injunction from approaching, going to, or loitering within 50m of X's school.
3. The mother will do all such things to ensure that X continues to engage with a counsellor and will comply with said counsellor's reasonable directions including as to:

(a) The frequency, length, date, and time of appointments for X; and

(b) The manner or method of treatment for X.

1. The mother has leave to provide to X's school and counsellor the following:

(a) A copy of this Order; and

(b) The Child Impact Report dated 16 August 2023; and

(c) The Addendum Child Impact Report dated 11 December 2023.

1. Pursuant to s 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the child X born in 2016 is permitted to have an Australian Travel Document, and for this purpose, the mother is authorised to apply for and maintain an Australian Passport for X in the absence of consent from the father.
2. The child X born in 2016 is permitted to be taken or sent outside the Commonwealth of Australia by the mother.
3. The mother and father will communicate and give notifications required for the purposes of these orders by email only, except in the case of an emergency when they may use SMS text messaging.
4. Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, each party must provide to the other their email address and mobile telephone number and thereafter will inform the other parent within 3 working days of any change to their email address or mobile telephone number.
5. The father is permitted to liaise with any school, doctor, or allied health facility that the child attends to obtain information about the child's health or progress and to obtain from the school or facility copies of the child's reports, newsletters, photograph order forms, and all other documents ordinarily provided to parents AND FURTHER THAT these orders act as an authority for same.

1. Pursuant to s 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a police officer may arrest without warrant if he/she holds reasonable belief that the order for personal protection in Order 6 of these Orders has been breached.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings concerning X born in 2016 ("the child"). Her parents are the applicant mother Ms Strickland ("the mother") and the respondent father Mr Thomas ("the father"). The parties' relationship ended in approximately 2017.
2. Initially the parties made parenting arrangements between themselves with the child living with the mother and spending time with the father on a more or less regular basis. In 2023, the child ceased spending time with father due to concerns held by the mother about his homelessness, alleged mental health difficulties, and alleged drug use.
3. The father does not oppose the child living with the mother, but there is significant dispute about whether the child should spend any time with the father.
4. The Court conducted a final hearing of the mother's application and the father's response on 14 November 2025 ("the hearing"). At the hearing, both parties were represented by counsel and the child was represented by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL").

1. The mother filed a Case Outline on 12 November 2025 and tendered the following documents into evidence:
   • Affidavit of the mother filed 22 October 2025 (Exhibit A1);
   • Affidavit of the father filed 1 April 2025 (Exhibit A2);
   • Extracts from documents produced under subpoena by B Medical Centre (Exhibit A3);
   • School social worker case notes in respect of the child (Exhibit A4); and
   • Notice of Risk filed 9 May 2023 (Exhibit A5).
2. The father tendered the following documents into evidence:
   • Affidavit of the father filed 8 November 2025 (Exhibit R1); and
   • Notice of Risk filed 12 January 2025 (Exhibit R2).
3. The ICL filed a Case Outline on 13 November 2025 and tendered the following documents into evidence:
   • Section s 67ZW Response from Child Safety Servies ("CSS") dated 27 June 2023 (Exhibit ICL1);
   • Section s 67ZW Response from Tasmania Police dated 16 August 2023 (Exhibit ICL2);
   • Updated s 67ZBE Response from Tasmania Police dated 5 November 2025 (Exhibit ICL3);
   • Child Impact Report dated 16 August 2023 (Exhibit ICL4); and
   • Addendum Child Impact Report dated 13 December 2023 (Exhibit ICL5).

1. By her Amended Application for Final Orders filed 22 October 2025, the mother broadly seeks orders that:

(a) The child live with her;

(b) She have sole parental responsibility and decision-making authority in respect of major long-term issues for the child; and

(c) There be injunctions restraining the father from approaching the child directly or indirectly, and from approaching the child's school.

1. By his Response filed 8 November 2025, the father seeks orders for:

(a) Equal shared parental responsibility for the child;

(b) The child to live with mother; and

(c) The child to spend alternate weekends in his care between now and July 2026, and thereafter a week-about arrangement.

1. The father also seeks specific orders relating to the child spending time with him on special occasions, permission to receive information from the child's school and health providers, and various protective orders.
2. Counsel for the ICL indicated that, broadly speaking, he supports the orders sought by the mother.

1. As the mother's case is essentially that the child ought not communicate or spend time with the father, the ultimate issue to be decided is whether that is in the child's best interests. The ultimate issue predominantly involves assessment of the nature and extent of risk, if any, posed by the father to the child and whether the risk can be managed for the sake of any benefits to the child of having a relationship with the father. Additionally, the views of the child are particularly relevant, given the expert evidence that came before the Court.

1. In addressing the issues outlined above and determining what parenting orders are in the best interests of the children, the principles of law are well established. As briefly addressed in Garrido & Garrido [2024] FedCFamC2F 634 at [21] to [23], parenting cases determined after 6 May 2024 are to be determined pursuant to amended provisions in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. I have had regard to the amended provisions of the Act that require the Court to make parenting orders that are in the child's best interests according to the non-exhaustive, non-hierarchical considerations in ss 60B, 60CA and 60CC of the Act, and the discretionary evaluation of the same.[1] Considerations of family violence remain an important consideration in the evaluation of what parenting orders should be made in a child's best interests, as do the wishes of a child.[2]
3. Further, considerations relating to whether a parent poses an unacceptable risk of physical or emotional harm due to conduct, conditions or other attributes remains important because of the need to make parenting orders that promote the safety and welfare of children.[3]
4. I consider that the assessment of risk of harm to a child remains informed by the principles established MRR & GR [2010] HCA 4, Isles & Nelissen [2021] FedCFamC1F 295 and Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97.

1. The father is aged 50 and the mother is aged 42. They were in a relationship for a short period and separated about 15 months after the child was born.
2. The mother has been the child's primary carer, although the father regularly spent time with the child until about 2021, when she began to demonstrate resistance. By 2023, the mother had ceased facilitating time between the child and the father, and she then commenced these proceedings.
3. In March 2024, the Court made interim orders for the father to spend supervised time with the child at the City C Children's Contact Service. Both parties completed intake for that service, but time did not proceed due to the child's distress when the mother attempted to leave the supervision service.
4. The child has not spent any time with the father for about two years, although there has been some communication by electronic means.
5. Neither party challenged the information contained in the CSS and Tasmania Police information sharing reports[4] and they were received into evidence unopposed. In summary, they disclose the following uncontroversial facts:

(a) Two police family violence orders were made against the father for the protection of the mother. The first was for a 12-month period between late 2015 and late 2016 at the time the parties separated. The second was for a 12-month period between early 2023 and early 2024;

(b) The basis for the 2023 police family violence order were reports by the mother that the father was sending abusive messages, had threatened to remove the child, was abusing drugs, and was squatting in abandoned housing;

(c) Between 2004 and 2022, the father was a respondent to five police family violence orders, one of which was revoked, along with one interim restraint order and other multiple restraining orders involving other parties;

(d) Between 1993 and 2022, the father had multiple court matters relating to assaults, breaches of restraint orders or family violence orders, aggravated burglary, driving while an illicit substance was present, breach of bail, possessing a controlled drug, and use of a controlled drug. Most seriously, in mid-2022 he was charged with importation of a marketable quantity of border-controlled drugs. The second information sharing report from Tasmania Police[5] indicates that in 2025 the father was eventually convicted in respect of the importation charge;

(e) The information sharing from both CSS and Tasmania Police disclose no relevant offending or family violence incidents recorded for the mother; and

(f) The CSS information sharing report[6] identifies concerns for the child based on open assessments between 2020 and 2023 relating to the child in the father's care due to alleged drug use, mental health concerns, emotional harm, homelessness, exposure to family violence, and financial difficulties.

1. The mother explained her desire to relocate to the Region D of Tasmania where she had arranged to take up employment with her current employer and recommence her relationship with Mr E, the father of her younger child F.
2. In addition, the mother stated that:

(a) There had been no physical violence by the father towards her, but there was frequent yelling and dysregulation which scared her. When asked if she was fearful that the father would assault her, the mother stated that she found him to be unpredictable and was afraid of what he could do;

(b) She did not have fears that the father would physically harm the child but was concerned about his history of being violently and randomly bashed by persons the father said were unknown. She feared that someone could attack him while the child was present;

(c) She maintained concerns for the child's safety due to the father's history of poor mental health and drug use, but agreed that her concerns would be less if the father undertook drug testing to demonstrate abstinence;

(d) The child is a good student and, although she is a little sad that she will be leaving her current primary school, she is excited to make new friends in Region D and spend more time with Mr E's daughter with whom she has a close relationship;

(e) She agreed that the father now has stable accommodation, but expressed that the area in which he lives has a reputation as a bad area, and that lots of people living there take drugs or are "dodgy";

(f) She would not have concerns if the father travelled to Region D once a month to see the child, providing this was in the presence of his mother or one of his adult daughters;

(g) She confirmed that she sought an order for sole parental responsibility and major long-term decision making. Although she would not want to inform the father of decisions she makes, she would if ordered by the Court to do so; and

(h) She would prefer to communicate with and notify the father of decisions taken about the child by email.

1. During cross-examination by Counsel for the ICL, the mother clarified that although she sought an injunction to prevent the father communicating with the child, if the child reached out to the father, she would not stop her from doing so. The mother said she was concerned about communication between the child in the father due to the length of time that had passed since they had communicated and difficulties with past communication. She explained that the father had made suicidal comments to the child, which was worrying, and there were a couple of instances where the father made derogatory comments as described in her affidavit.
2. Otherwise, the mother agreed the father and child had played games electronically and seemed to largely enjoy their interactions. She stated that if communication was to occur, it could be by the Messenger Kids app. However, she would want to be present as she had concerns about the father being unpredictable and what he may say or do.
3. The mother stated that she had become aware that the father has resumed contact with his family recently as she was in regular contact with the father's mother and his adult daughters.
4. The mother also explained that the child's resistance to spending overnight time with the father began around Father's Day in 2021, at which time the father was homeless and sometimes would not have the child in his care due to not having money to feed her. At that time the child was also refusing sleepovers with friends, but this has now changed, and she is having sleepovers with family and close friends.
5. When asked about her relationship with Mr E, the mother stated that it was a good relationship, that he owns his own home, and that she and the child would have no difficulties with housing in Region D as they would live with him.
6. Asked to explain why she was seeking an order that the child spend no time with the father, the mother stated that it was because:

(a) The father had not complied with previous court orders;

(b) Although the father claims to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), there is little information about it being treated; and

(c) She has concerns about the father's mental health, that he is erratic, and that he "just doesn't seem right".

1. The mother was also not persuaded by the father's claims that he was no longer using illicit substances, and she was worried that the child would regress, given improvements in relation to school, anxiety, and starting sleepovers again.
2. The mother conceded that she had spoken to the father's adult daughters, who have until recently been estranged from him,[7] and that they all shared safety concerns for the child in his care. She stated that she has not directly shared her views about the father with the child, but the father's adult daughters may well have shared their opinions and influenced the child as they have spent considerable time together.
3. The father's evidence when cross-examined by Counsel for the mother was as follows:

(a) He last used illicit substances in 2020, and he was charged with attempting to import and use drugs. He stated that the drugs were approximately 65 tablets of MDMA of which he had not used any because they were seized by police;

(b) His diagnosis of ADHD was obtained through G Centre, but he could not recall the name of the psychologist. He stated that he had traits of inattention, hyperactivity, and compulsion, and he believed he had a good understanding of these;

(c) He had previously been on medication for ADHD and mild post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") which was diagnosed at the same time, but he is no longer using the medication;

(d) He had been assaulted twice:

(i) The first assault occurred in 2022 when he was hit on the back of the head and stabbed, but did not see or remember who had attacked him; and

(ii) The second assault occurred in 2023 when he was drunk and got into a fight;

(e) Although he is a tradesperson by trade, he is not currently employed. He intends to return to work once the child recommences spending time with him, but also conceded that he would return to work even if the Court ordered that the child spends no time with him;

(f) He has not had psychological counselling since his mental health care plan expired. He saw Mr J for 12 months under that plan;

(g) Until January 2025, he had been taking Valium as prescribed by Dr K. He stopped taking it in January 2025 after seeing Dr H, whom he saw after Dr K retired. He said he could not recall the appointment on 1 October 2024 when Dr H refused to prescribe Valium to him;[8]

(h) He had no concerns about relapsing into illicit drug use although he had been using on-and-off since age 19. He explained that he avoids people who use drugs and has rebuilt his relationship with his family. He claims to have the support of his adult daughters and his mother, and that his relationship with them has improved over the last four months;

(i) When asked about arguing with the mother, he stated that they hardly ever argued and they stopped talking. When the Tasmania Police information sharing documents were put to him, the father stated there had only been one incident and that occurred when he was moving his belongings out of the parties' home;

(j) He maintained that he has not had contact with the child for three years as he had been "refused everything";

(k) When asked about the school counsellor's notes, the father eventually hesitatingly conceded that he said some inappropriate things to the child, adding that his "entire world collapsed" when he became homeless;

(l) Referring to the circumstances of the importing MDMA, he stated he did not consider he was having a difficult time. He then, however, contradicted this by saying that his sister had died and he was depressed, and that he read studies about MDMA curing depression. He regarded this as making one mistake and said that he had not done it before;

(m) When challenged about only making "one mistake" by reminder of the fights and convictions for drug use, he simply stated "we all make mistakes";

(n) He also denied that his former partner, with whom he was in a relationship at the time of the importation charge, was involved in the importation of drugs; and

(o) He denied that he uses his psychological and neurological conditions as an excuse for his poor conduct.

1. The father also stated that he would have no trouble travelling to Region D for visits to re-establish time with the child and he disputed suggestions that he had missed planned time with the child, saying he had never missed it. He asserted that in the future he would not send messages to the child like those he had in the past as described by the child to the school counsellor.
2. Under cross-examination by Counsel for the ICL, the father's relevant evidence was:

(a) He attempted to enrol in a course about family violence with L Centre as required by the orders made by consent on 20 March 2024, but he was not eligible to participate. No similar courses for which he was eligible were available;

(b) He engaged with the City C Contact Service to commence supervised visits, but the child did not spend time with him as she distressed and refusing;

(c) He stated that he did not attend the scheduled interview with the Single Expert because he was "sick of talking to people", and he agreed that the Court cannot properly assess the risk he might pose to the child in the absence of his involvement;

(d) He agreed that there is no report before the Court in respect of his ADHD diagnosis, and he said that he assumed the required evidence would be contained in the subpoenaed material from his general practitioner;

(e) On the occasions when he has not attended court events in these proceedings, it has been either because he was unaware of the listing or he had no transport;

(f) He agreed that he has not submitted any drug test results in these proceedings; and

(g) He agreed that had used 'microdoses' with psilocybin mushroom but did not concede that this qualifies as drug use.

1. The CCE confirmed that the child had told her "we don't really like him", referring to the father, and explained that the "we" was a reference to the father's adult daughters. The child is aware of their views because she has a close relationship with them and had spent considerable time with them.
2. She also explained that the father's adult daughters had reacted negatively when they unexpectedly saw the father, and this had influenced the child.
3. Further views were expressed by the CCE as follows:

(a) If the child had not spent time with the father since 2023, the child would need to have a positive experience when she first spends time with him;

(b) At the time of her assessment in 2023, there was no definitive indication that the child did not want to spent time with the father, but she could not say how the child was feeling now as two years have passed;

(c) She could not comment on the father's ability to care for the child in the context his diagnosis of ADHD because it presents differently in different people. However, in general a person may struggle to organise and maintain schedules, have difficulty with emotional regulation, and have difficulty recalling information;

(d) Her recommendation is that the father engage with psychological supports or individual therapy to increase his awareness of the impact of his actions on others;

(e) Having a relationship with both parents usually benefits a child by helping them to understand their identity, giving them a sense of belonging and being wanted, and supporting emotional development;

(f) If the father has addressed his challenges, there would likely be benefit for the child in spending time with him, but she could not say whether that was the case now as two years had passed since her assessment;

(g) It is unlikely that the father had forgotten telling the CCE that he had smoked a methamphetamine pipe in 2023; and

(h) If the child experienced the father as rude, that would further fracture their relationship.

1. The CCE stated that she could not speak to the risks of an order for no time or communication between the father and the child, given that she had not spoken with the child for two years. However, she said there would likely be benefit to the child if there is provision for her to communicate with the father on her terms in the future if she becomes curious about him.

1. The father made assertions that he is abstaining from use of illicit substances and, although he claimed to have undertaken drug tests as a requirement of his home detention and sentencing for the importation charge, he did not produce the results of the tests to this Court. Despite this, I accept that the home detention sentence is a strong deterrent, and the terms of his probation mean it is likely that he has been abstinent for at least a few months since he was sentenced.
2. Although the father claimed not to have been using illicit substances since 2020, I do not accept that to be true as he admitted to the CCE that he used methamphetamines the week prior to the assessment, saying it was the first time he had done so in a year and a half.[9]
3. Because of his extensive past history of drug use, referred to in the Tasmania Police information sharing reports and the Supreme Court comments on sentencing and his admissions to the CCE, I am satisfied that there is a moderate risk that he will relapse, particularly after the expiry of the home detention sentence.
4. Despite the father's minimisation of the risk of harm to himself and the child resulting from illicit drug use, there is ample evidence before the Court which satisfies me that the child may experience neglect, violence, or verbal abuse if the father were affected by illicit substances and there is a reasonable chance that he will be in the future due to his admitted use of drugs over many years.
5. The father's evidence about being diagnosed with ADHD is scant. Surprisingly, although the referral to G Centre was given by a general practitioner, Dr H, there is no report back to the referrer in the father's medical records put before the Court.
6. The traits of impulsiveness, hyperactivity, and inattention which the father said he experienced, may well be consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD. As the father said he was no longer taking medication for that condition, it is foreseeable that he will experience recurring traits, likely to make him more prone to verbal abuse and emotional dysfunction. This poses a risk of harm to the child.
7. The father also stated he had been diagnosed with mild PTSD, which is quite possible despite the absence of a medical report confirming the same due to the undisputed evidence about the two very serious assaults he has suffered.
8. Ultimately, I accept that the father experiences considerable anxiety which is not managed at all given that he has ceased using any prescribed medications and he has stopped seeing a psychologist. It appears that the father is seeking to manage his symptoms by "working on himself" and using cannabis as he admitted using it as recently as the day prior to the hearing. I am not satisfied that the father's anxiety is well or reasonably managed and, accordingly, his mental health symptoms are likely to present a risk of harm to the child, even in the absence of the homelessness which previously caused him anxiety and stress.
9. There is limited evidence of the father perpetrating family violence and the evidence before the Court indicates that the last incidents were in 2023. However, the views of the CCE in 2023 were that the father's narrative of family violence within his relationship with the mother and with other partners, is suggestive that he is not yet ready to challenge his pattern of behaviour in relationships, or perhaps that there is a degree of normalisation or entrenchment of such.
10. The CCE's views were borne out by the father's evidence under cross-examination, and I am satisfied that there is a risk that the father will lapse into past patterns of behaviour concerning his relationships due to conduct which is impulsive, aggressive, and emotionally dysfunctional, which is likely to cause varying degrees of fear to the mother and child if they spent time together or were required to frequently interact.
11. The father also misrepresented the extent of his family violence history as he claimed it related only to one incident with the mother, whereas the Tasmania Police information sharing records tell otherwise.
12. I reject the father's explanation that his manner of speaking and communication reflected him being "passionate". This evidence demonstrated further that the father had no appreciation of how people experience his physical gesturing, tone, and heightened speech, consistent with the views of the CCE.
13. Accordingly, I find that there is risk of the father perpetrating family violence by way of repeated verbal denigration and abuse or threats to the mother or child, but I consider this risk is moderate and could be reduced if the father regularly and properly engages in mental health supports.
14. Generally, I accept the evidence that the father has been rebuilding a positive relationship with his adult daughters and with the paternal grandmother as this has been corroborated by the evidence of the mother. However, these improvements are very recent, and it remains to be seen if they are lasting.

1. There is evidence from the mother that the child has stated that she does not wish to see her father because she finds him to be "scary". This evidence is somewhat distinguishable from what the child told the CCE about experiencing him as "rude".
2. Noting the resistance the child demonstrated around her mother leaving her at City C Contact Service for the purpose of supervised time with the father, her experience of the father as reported to the CCE, and the views of the CCE that the child needs an avenue to re-establish trust,[10] it is unsurprising that she has resistance to spending time with the father.
3. The evidence of the CCE and the mother satisfy me that the child has in the past been exposed to the negative views of the father's adult daughters about the father. The child may well have heard them discussing those views with the mother or the paternal grandmother. Regrettably, this has negatively influenced the child's views of the father to some degree, but her views have also been informed by her own experiences of the father which she discussed with the CCE.
4. Now that the father's relationship with the extended paternal family is improving, if this lasts, it may provide an avenue for the child's views towards the father to improve. It is premature for this to be reliably determined.

The benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents

1. There is no challenge to the contention that the mother has a meaningful and loving relationship with the child. The views of the CCE, which I accept, are demonstrative of the same.[11]
2. Counsel for the mother submitted that the need to protect the child from risk of harm outweighed the need for the child to have a relationship with the father. He emphasised that, although the CCE had identified benefit to the child resuming a relationship with the father if this could occur safely, as two years had passed, making orders for her to spend time with the father did not serve the child's best interests. In essence, an order that the child spend no time with the father is justified.
3. In support of the above contention, Counsel emphasised that while the father may be motivated to address the issues of risk, he had failed to demonstrate capacity to do so.
4. It was also submitted that the father had been less than truthful about his use of drugs and all his evidence should be treated with caution. I agree.

1. The mother freely and openly answered questions during cross-examination and presented as genuinely concerned for the safety of the child, but not unreasonably obstructive to the possibility of the child spending time with the father. I accept the evidence of the mother in full.
2. The mother remained open to the child communicating and spending time with the father in the presence of members of his family or with her listening to electronic communications, but she wanted to ensure the child was not exposed to potential harm and risk of her presently-improved function and well-being regressing.
3. The father presented as genuinely wanting to play a meaningful role in the child's life, but demonstrated limited insight in relation to how his conduct had impacted on the child in the past. For example, he did not immediately recognise the emotional harm likely from the statements or messages he had sent the child. The child described her experience of the father as "rude". Accepting the evidence of the CCE,[12] I am satisfied that the child has experienced instability with her emotional, mental, and physical health through exposure to unsafe behaviour when in the father's care or when communicating with him.
4. Counsel for the father submitted that the father's "nefarious behaviours" had dissipated and that he now has secure accommodation. Plainly he was referring to the extensive evidence upon which I have based my findings. He emphasised that it was a big step for the Court to make an order that the child spend no time with the father and invited the Court to instead make an order for monthly time in the company of a paternal family member. This was said to be in the child's best interests in circumstances where:

(a) There was no record of family violence or criminal offending for two years;

(b) There had been no physical violence towards the child or mother; and

(c) The mother's evidence was that she would have less concern for the child if the father spent time and communicated with her with another family member or the mother herself present.

1. I observed that monthly visits with the child in Region D was not the father's case, noting the orders sought in the father's Response filed 8 November 2025. Counsel conceded that was so and simply submitted that the Court could make such an order if satisfied it was in the child's best interests.
2. I accept the ultimate contention by Counsel for the mother that the father has not rebutted the persuasive evidence concerning the risks of harm to the child because of his past drug use, unmanaged mental health symptoms, and lack of insight concerning conduct amounting to family violence. That is demonstrated by the findings I have made about the existence of future potential harm to the child discussed at [39]-[52] of these reasons.
3. I am bound by authority that prevents the Court from making aspirational orders for a parent to spend time with a child in the expectation that they will address particular risks.[13]
4. Although the father claims that he has adequately addressed his mental health symptoms and use of illicit drugs, both of which likely largely contribute to his emotional dysregulation and family violence, there is scant evidence which substantiates the claim. I accept the submissions in the ICL's Case Outline at pages 12 to 14 in this regard.
5. I accept that the father has tried to address his mental health and illicit substance use more recently, but his engagement in psychological support and counselling for illicit substances is not convincing. Further, it is relatively early days and there is no evidence that the child would comfortably and safely experience resuming either communication or in-person time with the father.
6. The father vigorously asserted that he was sure he had done all the necessary work on himself, but that is plainly not the case as he has ceased prescribed medications for ADHD, has ceased consulting with a psychologist, and is not engaging meaningfully with work when in my view he has had opportunities to do so. He had an inflated or misinformed view about his achievements towards improved mental health and abstinence from illicit substances.
7. The father has also failed to demonstrate ability to fully participate in these proceedings and has not always complied with court orders, which does not bode well for his conduct being consistent and child-focussed. In particular, he did not participate in single expert assessments with Dr M or Dr N, contrary to the orders of 20 March 2024 and 15 August 2024, and provided no valid reason for failing to do so when he gave evidence. This causes the Court to lack confidence in his ability to abide by court orders about the child spending time and communicating with him, if they were made.
8. I am satisfied that the father did comply with the requirements of orders made on 20 March 2024 for him to spend supervised time at City C Contact Service, but unfortunately, due to the child's distress, time did not proceed.
9. The submissions on behalf of the ICL were largely consistent with those made on behalf of the mother. Namely, that the father's past history of drug use, offending, mental health difficulties, and family violence remain as barriers to the Court making an order for the child to spend time with the father. The CCE only recommends supervised time between the child and father, and the ICL submitted that if indefinite supervision is necessary to protect a child from risk of harm, then it is necessary to be cautious as to whether such time is in the child's best interests.[14]
10. Ultimately, Counsel for the ICL submitted there should be an order that the child spend no time with the father.
11. During the oral closing submissions, the Court invited counsel to address the distinction, if any, between a 'no time order' and an order that a child spend time with a parent according to their wishes. Counsel for the ICL and Counsel for the mother each submitted that there may be little difference depending on the circumstances, but that an order for the child to spend time with the father according to her wishes was not desirable because it raised an additional risk of the child being pressured by the father to spend time with him or of making a decision to spend time with the father where she is not sufficiently protected from any risk he may pose.
12. Based on the foregoing findings and reasons, weighing the relevant considerations, I find it is not in the child's best interests to make the orders sought by the father. However, I am not satisfied that the weight of the considerations justifies orders for no time or communication whatsoever.
13. The father has demonstrated capacity to avoid criminal offending and family violence since around 2022, he has somewhat reduced his drug use, and he has repaired his family relationships. These are positive changes. If permanent, based on the views of the CCE which I accept, it will be safe and in the child's best interests to spend time or communicate with the father providing it is on the her terms and agreed by the mother, who is fair and protective.
14. The mother was open to the father spending time with the child providing that members of the paternal family are present and open to communication between the father and the child providing she was present. She indicated willingness to allow communication by the Messenger Kids app. To the mother's credit, her evidence demonstrates her recognition of the child's relationship with the father and provides an opportunity for the child to benefit from that relationship if he continues to abstain from drug use and consistently addresses his mental health symptoms.
15. If the Court made the orders sought by the mother in her Amended Application for Final Orders filed 22 October 2025, the child would be prevented from communicating and spending time with the father permanently, including on occasions where the paternal family are present also. This would not be in the child's best interests in my view for two reasons:

(a) Given the changed relationship between the father and the paternal family and given the child's close relationship with the paternal family, spending time with the father in their presence would likely be a positive experience for the child. This is consistent with the circumstances described by the CCE for a reunification of the child and father; and

(b) It would provide the child with an opportunity to spend time with the father which is led by her in a safe environment,[15] supported by the paternal family with whom she has a strong and meaningful bond.

1. As I accept the evidence of the mother, there is benefit to the child having the option of communicating with the father if she expresses a desire to do so. Although the mother suggested the Messenger Kids app, from a practical sense she could not necessarily ensure her presence during communications between the child and the father by that means, because I understand that it is an app which could be used directly between the father and child.
2. To ensure the mother is present to act protectively if needed, the Court will make an order that electronic communications occur by the mother's Facebook Messenger app, at times agreed between the father and the mother.
3. The father asked the Court to make an order for the parties to communicate between themselves via SMS or text messages, while the mother proposed email communications. The Court has a record of each party having an email address. I consider that email communications are more suited to the exchanges needed for clear agreements to be reached about the father spending time with the child with another paternal family member present because:

(a) More detail and clarity can be included in an email than a text message;

(b) The email can be copied to the paternal family to ensure they are willing and able to facilitate time between the father and child; and

(c) Preparing and sending an email requires more effort than a text message, meaning that each party is likely to consider the way they communicate and ensure it is child-focussed and polite.

1. Accordingly, there will be an order for the parties to communicate by email.
2. The Court is satisfied that orders can be made in terms protective of the child about the father's time and communication occurring only according to an agreement reached between the parents. This will not involve possible pressure on the child, to which Counsel for the ICL and Counsel for the mother referred in their submissions.[16] The mother presented as a strong and as capable of necessary engagement with the father for the purpose of agreeing when time and communication will occur with the child, if the child wishes to spend time with the father. Further, the Court is satisfied that she will act appropriately and protectively as required for electronic communications.
3. The father sought an order for him to be able to receive information from the child's school and healthcare providers. Although the mother will have sole decision making about major or long-term issues, given the father's involvement in the child's care and life in the past and the prospect that he will spend time with the child with his family present, it is desirable that he have the information he seeks. There will be an order in the terms for which he has applied.
4. Both parties sought injunctive orders in explicit terms pursuant to s 68B of the Act. I consider that the injunctive orders sought by the mother are sufficient to guard against the risks to the child in circumstances where the father will spend no or limited time with the child in the presence of family, who I am satisfied will act protectively if required.

1. There will be orders that permit the child to communicate and spend time with the father and any agreement between the mother and father providing the mother or an adult from the paternal family is present. Otherwise, the orders sought by the mother will be made.

I certify that the preceding eighty-seven (87) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Taglieri.

[1] Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth), Schedule 1, Part 1 and Part 2; and Aldridge & Keaton [2009] FamCAFC 229; (2009) 235 FLR 450.

[4] Exhibit ICL1; Exhibit ICL2; Exhibit ICL3.

[7] Having been subject to long standing child protection orders in the past.

[9] Child Impact Report Addendum at [12].

[10] Child Impact Report Addendum at [29].

[11] Child Impact Report Addendum at [24]-[25].

[13] Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC2F 931; Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 500.

[14] Bronson & May (No 2) [2017] FCCA 2317 at [51], citing Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 and Slater & Light [2013] FamCAFC 4; Fitzpatrick & Fitzpatrick [2005] FamCA 394; (2005) FLC 93-227 at [78]- [79].

[15] Consistent with the views of the CCE in the Child Impact Report Addendum at [29].