Tevye & Kirill [2026] FedCFamC1F 4 (12 January 2026)

1. The father shall have sole decision-making for all long-term decisions for the child, X born in 2013 ("the child").
2. The father shall notify the mother of any decisions made about major long-term issues for the child via AppClose email within seven days of a decision being made.
3. The child shall live with the father.
4. For a consecutive period of 10 weeks following the date of these orders, the child shall spend no time and have no communication with the mother.
5. Upon the expiry of a consecutive period of 10 weeks as referred to in Order 6, the child shall spend supervised time with the mother under the supervision of OO Contact Centre, or another agreed professional supervision service ("the Supervision Service"):

(a) The time to be supervised by the Supervision Service will occur as is agreed between the parties and failing agreement for a minimum period of four hours each fortnight.

(b) It is to take place in a public venue agreed by the parents and the Supervision Service.

(c) The mother shall arrange the visit with the supervising agency and pay for the visit not less than three weeks before the scheduled visit and advise the father that this has been done. If this is not done, the child shall not be required to spend time with the mother.

(d) The mother shall meet the cost of the supervision.

(e) The parties are to contact the agreed supervision service for the purposes of completing any intake.

(f) Each party shall meet the costs of their individual intake.

1. Pursuant to s 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), unless expressly provided for in these orders the mother shall be and is hereby restrained from contacting or approaching or attempting to contact or approach the child by any means whatsoever including through any third party and the mother is restrained from attending or being within 100m of the ordinary place of residence of the father and the child and attending or being within 100m of any school or activities that the child may attend.
2. The father shall notify the mother if the child is seriously ill or is to be admitted into hospital and provide the mother with details of the injury or illness and the treating practitioners.
3. For the purposes of any communication between the parties, they are to communicate via Appclose and to limit their communication to issues relating to the child.
4. The school that the child attends is authorised to provide the father and the mother with copies of school reports, school photos and any other information parents ordinarily receive.
5. The father shall continue to engage with Ms M and ensure the child attends therapy with Ms M on at least a monthly basis for at least 12 months or longer if recommended by Ms M.
6. For the purposes of the therapy the child engages in, the father has leave to provide the therapist, together with any school counsellor, a copy of this Judgment and the Single Expert Report.
7. For the purposes of any therapy the mother engages in, the mother have leave to provide the therapist, a copy of this Judgment and the Single Expert Report.
8. The parties are each restrained by injunction from saying derogatory things about the other parent or members of the other parent's family to the child or in the presence of the child or allowing anyone else to do so.
9. The parties are each restrained by injunction from discussing these proceedings with or in the presence of the child or showing to the child any document connected with these proceedings.
10. For the purposes of s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the father be at liberty to take or send the child from Australia to a place outside Australia, PROVIDED THAT, unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, such international travel does not interfere with the mother's time with the child pursuant to these Orders.
11. The father is permitted to apply for an Australian Passport or any renewal for the child and for the purpose of this order:

(a) The father has sole parental responsibility as to the issue of passports under s 11(a) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).

(b) the child is permitted to have an Australian Passport for the purpose of s 11(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth); and

(c) The child is permitted to travel internationally for the purpose of s 11(b)(ii) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).

(d) for the purpose of this Order, the father have leave to provide a copy of these Orders to any representative or agent of the Australian Passport Office and/ or the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

1. The father shall retain possession of the child's Australian Passport at all times and for the purposes of this order, the mother is directed to provide to the father within seven days of these orders, the child's passport.
2. In the event that either party fails or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument required by or to give full force and effect to these Orders, a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Court be appointed to execute the deed, document or instrument in the name and on behalf of the defaulting party and to do all acts and things necessary to give full validity and operation to the deed, document or instrument.
3. The parties shall share equally the payment of the costs of the Independent Children's Lawyer as agreed or assessed.

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 Tevye & Kirill has been approved pursuant to s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. Before the Court are proceedings pursuant to Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") in relation to X born in 2013 ("the child"). The parents separated when the child was approximately two years old. The single expert during her cross-examination described the child in the following way:

She is anxious, she is confused, and she has been traumatised by the experience that she has had for almost her entire childhood as well.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.23 line 30)

1. The experience to which the single expert was referring is the hostility and conflict created by the parents.
2. The child identifies as non-binary. To the extent possible, these reasons will refer to the child as 'the child' and where appropriate by the pronouns 'they/them' except where it otherwise records what is stated in a document or where to do so would distort the meaning or context.
3. At the commencement of the hearing, the mother broadly sought orders for the child to live with her, sole decision-making responsibility, and for the child to spend supervised time with the father for a minimum of four hours each alternate Sunday until the child turns 14 and from that date in accordance with the child's wishes. Towards the end of the mother's cross‑examination when pressed about what orders she thought were in the child's best interests, she said the child's safety really meant that there should be no time with the father.
4. However, by the time of submissions, while she persisted with an order the child live with her and she have sole decision-making responsibility, she sought orders for the child to spend time with the father by agreement and in the absence of agreement for a period of three hours on each of the father's birthday, the child's birthday, Father's Day and Christmas Day. All such time was to occur unsupervised. No evidence was called by the mother to explain the change in her case from supervised time to unsupervised time. The mother's orders are more precisely set out in Exhibit 110.
5. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL") for his part broadly sought orders for the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility and for the child to spend unsupervised time with the father on the first Sunday of each month and on Father's Day between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm. The orders sought by the ICL are more precisely set out in Exhibit 109.
6. The father for his part sought orders for sole decision-making responsibility, for the child to live with him, and for the child to spend no time with the mother for a period of six months and thereafter on a supervised basis for a minimum of two hours each fortnight. The father's orders by the time of submissions were largely the same as those sought by him at the commencement of the hearing. The orders as sought by the father were more precisely set out in Exhibit 111.
7. The parties' orders were informed in part from their respective contentions that the proposals of the other parent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.

1. The mother was born in 1966 and is aged 59 years. The father was born in 1971 and was aged 54 years at the time of the hearing.
2. The parties commenced cohabitation in 2003 and married in 2006. The parties lived in Country QQ, the United States of America, and then Australia from 2009. There was a period of separation between April 2012 and January 2013, with the parties separating on a final basis in 2015 and a Divorce Order issuing in 2016.
3. There is one child of the relationship aged 12 at the time of the hearing and in Year 6 at school. The child was conceived by IVF while the parties were briefly separated with the father as sperm donor and a third-party donor egg.
4. The mother contends the father perpetrated family violence during the relationship. She says the pattern of behaviours was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader dynamic of coercive control. Her allegations of family violence were denied by the father.
5. Between separation and January 2016, the father spent time with the child on an intermittent basis which he says was restricted by the mother. The mother says that during this time she was fearful of the father and was concerned about the emotional impact that it was having on the child. She says that in consultation with the child's daycare, visits with the father were reduced to once a week in the afternoon and then progressed to twice a week in the afternoon.
6. Following the father spending time with the child in January 2016, the mother alleged the child reported behaviours and made various disclosures which the mother reported to healthcare professionals and police. She says:
   1. Later that evening, while sitting on their potty, [X] said "Daddy gave me a bath". I wondered about the necessity of [Mr Kirill] giving [X] a bath, as their clothes were not dirty or stained and their underwear not soiled ([X] was toilet trained by then). [X] leaned forward, opening their mouth wide and tried to kiss me on the lips with an open mouth. Stunned by their actions, I recoiled back and they said "No mummy you do it like this". [X] opened their mouth wide again and tilting their head slightly and once again leaning in towards my lips.
   2. By that time, [X] had only kissed me of their own accord approximately twice since birth and never opened mouth, just a small kiss on the cheek. Our usual mode of showing affection to one another is to hug and cuddle. [X] had not regularly witnessed any physical affection between [Mr Kirill] and me, nor, as far as I was aware, had they observed romantic affection between other adults, either in person or on television. I was unaware of [Mr Kirill's] relationship status at the time, but given the brief nature of [X's] visits with him during the week after daycare or on Saturday mornings, I did not expect that [X] would have seen him kissing anyone during those times.
   3. Concerned about [X's] disclosure and their actions, I decided to take [X] to the GP early the next morning, [...] January, The GP referred us to the hospital for proper investigation.
   4. I took [X] to [RR Hospital], where [X] was examined by a doctor on the paediatric ward who also discussed their case with the sexual abuse unit at [SS Hospital]. A report was made to FACS by the attending paediatrician. I was advised by the paediatrician to keep [X] in my care, for them not to have visits with their father and if [X] did anything else concerning to ask them "Who showed you how to do that?" or "Where did you learn that?" without identifying or asking about any other person.
   5. The following evening, [...] January, I gave [X] their first bath after their Friday visit with [Mr Kirill]. When [X] sat down in the bath the first thing they did was open their legs and with two fingers, one on each side of their vulva, open their vagina up wide and then with one finger start rubbing their clitoris. I asked [X] "Where did you learn that?" [X] stopped, closed their legs and then said I need some water.
   6. I gave [X] one of their water play toy scoops and then they spread their legs and scooped some water into the cup and poured it directly over their clitoris. I said, "what are you doing honey?" [X] then said, "I need to fill my vagina up with water" and [X] then stuck their finger into their vagina. I said, "bub where did you learn that?", following the advice given to me by the paediatrician the previous day. [X] did not respond and was quiet.

...

1. On 15 May 2016, [X] was in the bath playing with bath toys. [X] looked up at me and said, "Can I tell you about daddy touching my vagina?". I responded, "Of course you can, you can tell mummy anything". [X] then went quiet and hung their head. I did not want to push the conversation any further, so I took [X] out of the bath, gave them a cuddle and put them to bed.

1. In early 2016, a notification was made to the Family and Community Services (as it was then known) hotline by the mother. The mother also contacted police to report the child's statements. The child is not seen or spoken to by police on this occasion and the mother says that she was told to keep the child in her care and not send them to daycare for at least a week.
2. On 1 February 2016, the father commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia (as it was then known). On the same day, the mother's solicitors sent a letter to the father's solicitors to the effect that his time with the child needed to be suspended due to disclosures of concern and pending investigations.
3. In mid-February 2016, the child was interviewed by the Joint Investigation Response Team ("JIRT"). The father was also interviewed by JIRT. In March 2016, the father was informed that "sexual harm is not substantiated and there will be no on-going casework/investigations from [Suburb KK] JIRT" (Exhibit 9). The letter says:

The investigation is over and I have assessed that based on the available information/evidence I cannot confirm that [X] was sexually abused.

To my knowledge there have been no disclosures of sexual assault from [X].

(Exhibit 9)

1. The letter also says, in terms of supervised time, the following:

I may have suggested supervised contact to [Ms Tevye] and you, ONLY because this was the only option available that would allow contact between [X] and yourself, given [Ms Tevye] would not allow contact without it being supervised. I saw this as an interim measure until the matter could be resolved through the family court. I only suggested this so that [X] could see you, not because there are on-going concerns from [Suburb KK] JIRT.

(Exhibit 9)

1. Interim orders were made on 20 April 2016 which provided for the father to spend supervised time with the child.
2. On 27 February 2017, Dr UU, the single expert in the 2016 proceedings, released her report which included recommendations that no further supervised visits were necessary. The report said:

Although [Ms Tevye] continued to believe JIRT referred to a "moderate risk" of abuse after their assessment, the senior child protection caseworker at FaCS wrote to [Mr Kirill] in [March 2016] that supervised contact had been suggested "as an interim measure until the matter could be resolved through the family court... so that [X] could see you, not because there are on-going concerns from [Suburb KK] JIRT" (email dated [...] March 2016).

It is possible to hypothesis that [X] had become shamed by her mother's negative focus on her self-stimulation ([in early 2016], after [Ms Tevye] question her about her masturbation, she "hung her head"), her two medical reviews, JIRT questioning and then finally a DVD (which she was enjoying) raised the issue of "touches".

...

On balance, I cannot conclude it is likely a sexual act of abuse has been perpetrated on [X] but clearly this remains an issue for the Court to determine. The questions remain whether supervised contact is more detrimental than no contact and is there an unacceptable risk if contact is not supervised.

...

To protect both [X] and [Mr Kirill] from further allegations he is a risk of harm to his daughter, it would be a wise precaution by [Mr Kirill] to spend time with [X] while [Ms VV] is nearby (ie not formally supervising them) until [X] is around eight years old.

(Exhibit 4)

1. On 1 March 2018, the 2016 proceedings were finalised by the parties attending mediation resulting in a settlement and the making of final parenting and property orders which provided for the child to live with the mother and for the father's time with the child to progress to five nights per fortnight by 2020 as well as school holiday time. The orders provide for the child to receive an assessment as to a possible sensory processing disorder.
2. The mother's affidavit contends that thereafter there was an ongoing pattern of aggressive, hostile and threatening behaviour by the father involving threats of contravention proceedings and the filing of such applications involving matters such as the appropriateness of changeover location, FaceTime calls that allegedly did not go through, the mother failing to provide her address to the father, a change in childcare arrangements for the child and delayed commencement of overnight time.
3. In July 2018, the child started attending therapy with Ms M. The child attended sessions with Ms M until January 2020 on a fortnightly and then monthly basis. The mother says that these sessions ceased when the child told the mother they were too frightened to speak to Ms M, as the father had told the child he would find out what they were saying in therapy.
4. In January 2019, a contravention application was threatened by the father about a cruise consent form that had not been provided in original form from the mother to the father. Further conflict between the parties arose during the COVID-19 period when the father raises issues about whose care the child should be in on a school day.
5. Beginning in 2021, the mother contended that the father made comments about the child's physical appearance amounting to 'body-shaming' which caused the child distress and reportedly restricted the child's food intake. The father denied such behaviour and says that the child's reports to the mother are inconsistent with the relationship he then shared with the child.
6. In January 2024, the mother contended that after the child spends one week with the father, the child returned to the mother's care with numerous sores on their legs, arms, chest and face. She says that there are numerous subsequent reports from the child that they are compulsively picking at their skin when stressed. She says:
   1. Following an overnight stay with [Mr Kirill], on Wednesday 7 February 2024, [X] returned from school and said "My dad saw me picking my legs. and he started yelling at me, saying 'Stop, why are you doing that?' in a loud angry voice." [X] expressed that this reaction increased their stress levels, saying, "Mum, I am picking because I am stressed and that made me even more stressed."
   2. [X] further described that later in the evening, while sitting on the couch, [X] was unconsciously picking at their skin when [Mr Kirill], seated next to [X], slapped [X's] leg hard enough that it hurt while again shouting "Stop!" [X] said that they felt scared and moved away from him. Later that night, [X] was still upset and asked me, "Why did my dad hit me?".
   3. On 9 February 2024, [X] made a further disclosure regarding a prior incident involving physical harm. [X] said to me: "After my dad hit me, I went to school and asked my friends if they thought it was okay for a parent to hit a kid because I felt upset about it and they said no way. I knew what my dad had done was bad and my friends thought so too."
   4. On 11 February 2024, following a short FaceTime call with [Mr Kirill], [X] approached me visibly distressed and showed me a bleeding mark on their leg. I asked how [X] had been feeling when it happened. [X] explained that during the call, [Mr Kirill] asked them, "Are you still picking?" [X] reported feeling hurt and mocked when he continued, stating that he had a "solution" and would "wrap [X] up like a mummy" to prevent the behaviour, adding, "Mum, it's not funny, he was making fun of me and I didn't like that."
   5. On 15 February 2024 at 7.34pm [X] called me from the bathroom, they just had a shower before bed. [X] said, "Mum I just picked at my arm and it is bleeding now". I replied "That's ok hon, do you want a bandaid on it?" [X] went on to say "I was thinking about how my dad hit me and I was thinking, what if he does it again?" I asked "Would you like to talk about how you are feeling?" To which [X] said "I'm feeling worried it's going to happen again this weekend".
   6. On 19 February 2024, I picked up [X] from school following their weekend with [Mr Kirill]. While driving home, [X] disclosed an incident that occurred that morning during the car ride to school. [X] said to me: "Mum, this morning I was sitting in the front seat of the car next to my dad on the way to school, and I guess I was picking at my leg. He grabbed my hand tight and first made my hand hit my leg and said, 'Pick, pick, pick,' and then he used my hand to slap my face a few times and said, 'Hit, hit, hit.' And it hurt and frightened me."
   7. [X] appeared visibly distressed when recounting this. I was concerned about [X's] emotional response and the seriousness of the physical interaction described.
7. In June 2024, the child commenced sessions with Ms WW through Victims Services without the father's knowledge or consent. In August 2024, Ms WW provisionally diagnosed the child with an adjustment disorder, acute anxiety with psychotic features and extreme stress. These sessions ceased in December 2024. The father says of Ms WW:

(c) I have now seen the Certificate provided by [Ms WW] in relation to the consultation she apparently had with [X] where [X] has allegedly disclosed physical assault, verbal abuse, gaslighting, parental alienation that I have done to her . I deny all of these assertions. I have never hit [X]; I have never verbally abused [X]. I have never engaged in gaslighting, parental alienation, stonewalling or neglect. I believe these are the words of the Applicant, who has been able to find a therapist to support her assertions.

1. On 14 July 2024, the mother reported to the father the child had locked themself in their room and would not be attending changeover for the start of the school holiday period. The mother contended that she held concerns for the child's safety and says that as the father refused to participate in discussions regarding appropriate sleeping arrangements for the child, she withheld the child.
2. On 15 July 2024, the mother sent a letter to the father stating that the father's time with the child would cease because of a decline in the child's mental health. The letter lists numerous health professionals the mother says advised her to cease time. At no time prior to sending the letter did the mother raise any of the stated concerns with the father. He says:
   1. During all the time that [X] has spent in my care since she was 5 years of age, she has never raised any concerns, never shown any fear, never told me that she felt uncomfortable with me and never once requested to go back to the Applicant.
3. On 13 August 2024, the mother commenced these proceedings.
4. At an interim hearing on 11 September 2024, it was agreed by consent that the mother, the father, and the child would attend family therapy with the mother to nominate three family therapists. The father selected Ms R at Suburb YY. The father says:

1. On [...] October 2024, I attended a third session with [Ms R]. During this session, [Ms R] informed me that:

(a) "I have now seen [Ms Tevye] for one session. I have to tell you that I am not getting much traction with [Ms Tevye] and she does not want to engage in family therapy. I am a bit confused about why [Ms Tevye] has agreed to Family Therapy because she is not bothering or wanting to attend sessions" > > (b) "[Mr Kirill]. Can you clarify whether I am expected to work on family reconciliation or to just write an assessment for the Court? I love working with families and I am hoping to help your family and work through your issues to help you move forward" l responded "Well, the orders are clear that we are to engage in family therapy. You only write a letter to the Court if there is no attendance or you form the view that you can't assist us".

5. On 4 November 2024, the mother received an email from Ms R stating that the next step in the process proposed by the Court would involve an appointment where the father, mother, and the child would attend but not necessarily together. The mother says that when she advised the child that Ms R want to see her again, the child became extremely distressed, was crying and was screaming. The mother says:
   1. It took me an hour to calm [X], after which [X] presented as flat and withdrawn, and stated that they wanted to hurt themself again. I remained with [X] until they fell asleep to ensure their safety. The following morning, [X] remained in a distressed state. While I briefly left the room to use the bathroom, [X] self-harmed, making four gash marks on their ankle. Concerned about [X's] ability to cope at school, I contacted their teacher to ask for support. As the teacher was absent that day, [X] was instead seen by the school counsellor, [Ms PP], who conducted a suicide risk assessment and developed coping strategies with [X]. I was infom1ed that a report was made, given that self-harming had occurred on school grounds.
   2. During the school day, I received an email from [X] via their school account that read, "I did some on my arm in the school bathroom. I'm really sorry.''
   3. When I collected [X] from school, I observed additional gash marks on their arm and near their wrist. [X] said, "Mum I am so sorry, I tried not to do it but when I went to the toilet I thought about seeing him again and l couldn't stop.

...

89l. On 11 November 2024, I received an email from [Ms R] stating that she had decided not to proceed with a family therapy session. [Ms R] instead requested to see [X] alone on [...] November 2024 to further explore their relationship and experiences with [Mr Kirill]. [X] attended that session, and ceased self-harming after [X] was reassured that they would not be required to attend a session with [Mr Kirill] present.

1. The father says that he believes that the mother simply agreed to attend family therapy as a ruse to further delay the process and his ability to spend any time with the child. He says:

1. On [...] November 2024, I attended a fifth session with my fiancée [Ms ZZ] with [Ms R]. During this session, [Ms R] told me:

(a) "I saw [X] a second time, on Thursday last but it was like meeting a different child than the one I initially saw. [X] was very different, much more reserved and using words that an eleven-year-old just would not use. After I finished the session with [X], I emailed [Ms Tevye] to see if she had said anything to [X] in between sessions, because it seems to me that [X] had been coached. [Ms Tevye] has now accused me of not listening properly to [X] during our first session".

1. Ms R, in the letter attached to her affidavit, said the following:

I have consulted with [Mr Kirill] (at 5 x consultations), [Ms Tevye] (on 1 x 90 minute consultation) and [X] (on 2 x 60 minute consultations). I have read much of the previous file notes and court filings and consulted with previous mental health professionals who have been consulted by this family currently and in past years.

I have formed the view that [Mr Kirill] is fully motivated to find a resolution to the estrangement from his daughter, [X], and is keen to resolve any misunderstandings that may exist. I have formed the view that he is unable to make sense of [X's] seemingly sudden refusal to continue her access times with him.

I have formed the view that [Ms Tevye] is not interested or motivated to attend family therapy sessions nor to encourage the relationship between the daughter, [X], and her father.

There is no evidence to suggest that [X] is willing to engage in a family therapy session with her father nor to resolve any unresolved issues with her father. It is unclear how much her view is influenced by her individual thought and experiences or how much it is influenced by her mother's wishes, feelings and anxieties or by others. Some of her opinions and expressions are unusually sophisticated for an 11 year old. I have not formed a strong opinion regarding this observation but it is of concern if [X] is being influenced by others opinions.

Rather than disengaging from the therapeutic process, I have formed the view that there was not a willingness to engage at the outset. Consequently, no family therapy sessions have been attempted.

1. On 6 December 2024, interim parenting orders discharged the 2018 final parenting orders. Orders are also made ending the child's therapy with Ms WW and for the child to attend upon a clinical psychologist for the ongoing management of their mental health, with the orders providing a process by which the parties were to agree upon such psychologist.
2. The child is then engaged with another treater, Ms XX. The mother says:
   1. [In] December 2024, I had an appointment with [X's] GP [Dr AB] to obtain recommendations from the GP for a clinical psychologist. He provided me with a list of names and different psychology practices from which I made initial enquires regarding availability - those names being [Ms AC], [Ms AD] and [Ms XX].
   2. [In] January 2025 I had a parent only session with [Ms XX] as she wanted some initial information, I informed [Ms XX] that [Mr Kirill] was aware of [X] seeing her as he had been notified by his lawyer, his contact information was on file with the practice and [Ms XX] should speak with him if he reaches out and makes an appointment.
   3. On [...] January 2025 [X] had an initial session with [Ms XX] alone. After the session [X] said "[Ms XX] asked me if it was ok if she spoke with my dad if he contacts her and I said yes but I don't to speak with him."

...

1. [In] February 2025, I was informed by the [AE Mental Health Services] manager that [X's] sessions with [Ms XX] would have to cease, because [Mr Kirill] had contacted the clinic and stated that he did not consent to [X] being treated by [Ms XX], on the basis that "he wasn't informed [X] was seeing [Ms XX]", notwithstanding the correspondence sent to [Mr Kirill's] solicitor on 14 and 23 January 2025.
2. The practice manager, [Ms AF], advised that [Ms XX] would call [Mr Kirill] and try to convince him of the need for [X] to continue to have psychological support.
3. On 18 February 2025 the practice manager called me again to say that [Ms XX] had been unsuccessful and [Mr Kirill] was still refusing to consent. [Ms XX] would give [X] a call to let [X] know so I left it to [Ms XX] to explain the situation.
4. On 21 February 2025 [Ms XX] called [X] to let [X] know that she could no longer see them due to [Mr Kirill] not consenting. [Ms XX] had notified [Mr Kirill] that she would be making this call. After [X] spoke with [Ms XX], [X] was upset and said "My dad isn't letting me talk to anyone because he doesn't want me to rat him out".

1. The father says that he holds concerns as to the number of clinicians the child has seen and their competence. He says:
   1. Since 2024, possibly late 2023, the Applicant has again taken [X] to see numerous health professionals without my knowledge or consent, including:
      • [Ms U], Provisional Psychologist, [AT Mental Health Services]
      • [Ms WW], Psychotherapist, Family and Child Consultant and Victims Services provider, [Suburb AG] - 19 sessions 2024
      • [Ms AH] from CYMHS (Child and Youth Mental Health Service), [Suburb AJ]
      • [Ms AK], Child Support, Women and Children First, Community Domestic Violence service, [Suburb AL]
      • [Ms AM], Domestic Violence Counsellor, Lifeline [Region AN] (2024)
      • [Ms AO], Trauma Therapist, registered clinical counsellor, [Suburb AJ] (2024)
      • [Ms AP], Trauma Therapist with Victims Services, [Suburb AJ] (2024)
      • [Ms AQ], the Early Response Service Coordinator from [EE Health Service] (2024)
      • [Ms AR] - [AV Family Services] [Suburb AJ], Counsellor/ Art Therapist, [Suburb AJ]
      • [Dr AB] - GP, [AW Health Services], saw [X] for concerns ringing in the ears.
      • [Ms AS], Senior Clinical Psychologist, [Region AN] Child and Youth.
      • [Ms XX] - Clinical Psychologist, [AE Mental Health Services], [Suburb YY] (4 sessions, Jan - February 2025).

248. [X] has also been interviewed again by the Police and DCJ in July 2024.

1. In accordance with the interim parenting orders made 6 December 2024, time with the father was to be supervised by a professional supervision service. Commencing March 2025, the child refuses to get into the supervisor's car to go to a supervised visit. In May 2025, the child enters the supervisor's car but is too distressed to be driven to the location of the visit.
2. From June 2025, the child attends the supervised visits and engages with the father through head gestures, answering direct questions with brief answers, and occasional smiles and laughs.
3. The child does not attend supervised time for the day immediately preceding the commencement of the hearing and the weekend in the middle of the hearing.

1. Parenting proceedings are governed by Pt VII of the Act. In making a parenting order, s 60CA of the Act requires the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. In determining what is in the child's best interests, s 60CC(1) of the Act provides the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC(2) of the Act. The matters to be considered are as follows:

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

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

(i) the child; and

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

(b) any views expressed by the child;

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

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

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

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

1. In addressing the matters in s 60CC(2A) of the Act, the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child together with any family violence order that applies in relation to the child or a member of the child's family.
2. Section 60CG of the Act requires the Court, when making a parenting order, to ensure the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with an existing family violence order.
3. The mother seeks a factual finding that the father perpetrated family violence. Family violence in light of the statutory considerations is a matter relevant to the making of a parenting order. Each of the parties contend the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the event the Court made orders as sought by the other party.
4. The answer to a question of future risk can be informed by anterior factual findings including findings of family violence. In that respect, the Full Court in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092 observed as follows:
   1. Long ago, in parenting proceedings characterised by one parent's allegation that the other had sexually abused their child, the High Court of Australia ("the High Court") emphasised the distinction between two very different things: on the one hand, proving alleged sexual abuse according to the civil standard of proof and, on the other, establishing the risk of the feared sexual abuse occurring in the future: (M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69).
   2. In respect of the first issue, the High Court said (at 76):

In considering an allegation of sexual abuse, the court should not make a positive finding that the allegation is true unless the court is so satisfied according to the civil standard of proof, with due regard to the factors mentioned in Briginshaw v. Briginshaw.

(Footnote omitted)

...

1. In relation to the second question pertaining to risk, the High Court said (at 77-78):

... [T]he court must determine whether on the evidence there is a risk of sexual abuse occurring if custody or access be granted and assess the magnitude of that risk. ... [T]he test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.

...

1. M v M put beyond doubt the proposition that courts exercising jurisdiction under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") must protect children from credible risks of harm due to sexual abuse. Such risks, like all prospective events, are capable of classification in only one of three mutually exclusive categories: possibilities, probabilities, or certainties. Once it is accepted courts should (and do) react to dangers in the form of risks of harm which may merely be possibilities, it is an oxymoron to expect such possibilities to then be forensically proven on the balance of probabilities according to the civil standard of proof. By definition, possibilities are not, and could never be, probabilities. Risks of harm are not susceptible of scientific demonstration or proof (CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 at [151]), but are instead postulated from known historical facts and present circumstances.

1. In relation to the question of unacceptable risk, Tree J succinctly summarised in Chiles & Petrenko [2024] FedCFamC1A 112; (2024) FLC 94-197 the risk assessment in the following terms:
   1. ...It bears repeating that the usual course in undertaking the assessment is to identify the contended risk event, gauge the likelihood of it occurring, and then consider the magnitude of harm which might ensue if the risk event does occur. One then considers whether in the light of those matters the risk of harm is acceptable or not.
   2. The purpose of ameliorative conditions is to mitigate a risk of harm from unacceptable to acceptable, such that when the risk analysis is repeated with the ameliorative condition in place, the relevant risk is assessed as acceptable.
2. The issue of risk and whether it is unacceptable will be addressed below.

1. The single expert prepared a report dated 28 April 2025 which became Exhibit 80 ("the Report"). For the purposes of her cross-examination, on the second-last day of the hearing the single expert read further documents provided by the parties and spoke with the child's therapist, Ms M.
2. There was no challenge to the expertise or experience of the single expert. I found her report and oral evidence insightful, logical, and well-reasoned. I accept her evidence.
3. The single expert recorded the mother raising multiple concerns for the child in the care of the father including the child's expressed fear and resistance in speaking to the father or seeing him again. The single expert reported the mother felt she had no choice but to act given the child was expressing suicidal ideation and self-harming. The single expert recorded the mother believed the father had not acted in the child's best interests and did not support their therapy engagement. She denied she had acted unilaterally. She reported to the single expert her belief that the cause of the child's suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviour was "exposure to family violence by her father, his coercive controlling behaviour, being given the silent treatment, body shaming, being put down, and being with a parent who has emotion dysregulation, have all contributed" (Report, paragraph 24).
4. The single expert recorded the father describing the child as having "two personalities" (Report, paragraph 50). He reported that the child "has a dual life to cope with her surroundings and is aware of the tension between her parents" and "that away from the conflict she thrives in her environment (Report, paragraph 50). He said that all that changed a year ago when she started to engage in "self-picking and scratching" (Report, paragraph 50).
5. The single expert recorded:
   1. [Mr Kirill] denies sexually abusing, physically abusing, or threatening to harm [X]. He denies that he is a risk of harm to [X]. He believes that [Ms Tevye] is a risk of harm to [X] and he is concerned about [X] in her mother's care such that the litigation is ongoingly focused on him and that [X] is a collateral damage in this conflict.
6. In relation to the mother's allegations against him, the single expert recorded the father in the following terms:
   1. [Mr Kirill] denies current symptoms consistent with a pervasive mood disorder. He denies any history of perceptual disturbances. He has a history of panic attacks which he experienced in the context of him leaving his employment in bad circumstances (this occurred before [X] was born). He does not describe himself as a generally anxious person, however, [Ms Tevye] reportedly puts him through a lot of anxiety and he is vigilant as to what she may do next. He denies he has a problem with his anger; in fact, he feels that he is the opposite, particularly when he has been accused of using the silent treatment, with [Mr Kirill] questioning that he cannot be angry and silent at the same time. He agrees that he used silence as a defence mechanism as a young child, which he learnt from his mother as to how to manage conflict. He said that he has learnt that this strategy is not acceptable and he needs to communicate and accept that all emotions are acceptable. He said that he has never given [X] the silent treatment. When asked how he is coping, he believes he is managing well although experiences some stress and anxiety; he has the support of [Ms ZZ], colleagues, [cultural] groups, his psychologist and long term friends.
7. The father's partner was interviewed by the single expert. The single expert recorded:
   1. [Ms ZZ] described [Mr Kirill] as her best friend, spiritually and emotionally connected, loving, kind, compassionate, sensitive, and intelligent. She denies that she has seen [Mr Kirill] angry or raise his voice. She denies that she was coerced or told what to say in her interview or that she has seen any Court affidavit. She does not believe that she would allow someone to instruct her on what to say.

...

1. [Ms ZZ] described [X's] relationship with her father as loving and affectionate. She can relate to [X's] guardedness when she arrives at her father's house, coming from a separated home herself. She recalled that [X] loves hearing bedtime stories about her family in [Country QQ]. She said that [Mr Kirill's] focus is always on [X] and he is the father that every child should have...
2. [Ms ZZ] described her relationship with [X] as great. They engage in activities such as crocheting and have taken trips together. She has concerns about [X's] emotional wellbeing as [X] has seen many professionals as part of this process. She noticed a change in [X] in January 2024 where [X] seemed a little bit more anxious and guarded and picking at her skin. She noted that [X] was a talented public speaker but she became anxious. She was unsure as to why this became the case and she questioned whether it was changes related to puberty. She is not aware of [Mr Kirill] responding inappropriately to [X's] skin picking.

1. The single expert interviewed the child. She recorded that the child was aware that they would be seeing the father that day and reported in the following terms:
   1. [X] reported that she was there to see me to talk about her feelings. She explained that she was feeling nervous as she did not want to be forced to see her father because "he scares me".

...

1. [X] described her father as "like a gambling slot machine" as he is "unpredictable" and could be in a bad mood, silent, or gets "mad" at her. For example, when she is picked up from school, he will greet her and ask her about her day in a "nice" manner and then he will stop talking as soon as they get into the car. When she is in trouble with her father, he would talk to her in a "harsh tone" or not talk to her at all. Her favourite thing about her father is that he is "nicer" to her when they are in public. When asked what the worst thing that her father has done to her, she said that she used to pick at her skin and he would comment on it. She said that she was "covered in scabs" and that he hit her leg and in a hard voice said, "stop it". She said that this happened again whilst in his care where she was picking on her leg and he grabbed her hand and said, "pick, pick, pick" and used her hand (with an open palm) to hit her face and said, "hit, hit, hit". He told her that if she did that again that "I'm going to hit you". She said that she felt scared when this occurred.

2. [X] reported that her father sometimes calls her mother "cray", "a liar", that "she's not my real Mum", and refers to her as "[Ms Tevye]" rather than "Mum".

...

1. [X] reported that she does not want to have any contact with her father - whether it be face to face, phone calls, or text messages. This is because she feels tense around him and does not want to be around him. She reported that she does not miss her father and when asked how she would feel if her father stopped pursuing contact, she said "I'd be great with that, thanks". She said that her father frightens her and makes her "want to hurt myself". When asked to consider if the Court decided for her live with her father, [X] said "I don't know what I'd do, I'd be really upset".
2. When asked how she would feel if she were to live with her father, she said, "no, no" and that there was nothing that her father could do to improve their relationship, even though her mother encourages her to get to know her father.
3. Regarding her mental health, [X] reported that her mood depends on her environment, most of the time she is quiet or at other times she has energy. She feels sad when she sees others, or herself gets hurt, and when she feels that no one is listening to her. She would scratch her skin with her fingers on her upper thighs or left arm and used to pick at her skin since she was 11 years old when her father started showing up at her school. This self-harming behaviour stopped and then started again when [Ms R] (Court appointed family therapist) said that she had to have a joint session with her father. When asked what triggered her to scratch herself, [X] said it did not help with distress and that "in the moment" she wanted to hurt herself. When asked where she got the idea to pick her skin, she said that she had picking marks on her body that were small and then it would make it bigger. She denied that she has friends who self-harm. [X] said that she had suicidal thoughts where she did not want to be alive anymore - when her father used to come to her school and that has since stopped. She denied ever having any suicidal plans or intent to kill herself.

1. The single expert spoke to Ms M, the child's psychologist, and reported as follows:
   1. [Ms M] used a non-directive approach to therapy with [X] to give her space to talk about her feelings, however [Ms M] believed that [Ms Tevye] had given [X] an agenda and there was a constant need for [Ms Tevye] to direct the narrative of therapy. She recalled that "everything was an issue", including who owned the school uniform, and so her work included working with the parents on how this impacted on [X]. At times [Ms M] saw [Mr Kirill] and addressed issues such as how to talk about [Ms Tevye], needing to say hello at changeover, and how that impacted [X].

...

1. [Ms M] opined that it was a complex situation where there was strong enmeshment, noting that she used the word enmeshment with [Ms Tevye], to consider how [Ms Tevye's] feelings were impacting [X] and her ability to see things in a less traumatic way. She advised [Ms Tevye] to seek her own individual support.
2. [Mr Kirill] contacted [Ms M] again in 2024 because [X] was not spending time with him, however [Ms Tevye] clarified that [X] was seeing [Ms WW] through victim's services and that [Ms M] was not needed. She said that [Mr Kirill] was "in the dark" about who [X] was seeing and as far as she was aware there was nothing preventing him from having some information from [X's] psychologist. She noted that his influence in [X's] life was diminishing over time. [Ms M] said that she did not have any clinical reason to involve [Mr Kirill] more than he was and only did so if she needed his perspective or to address the need for him to be more cordial with [Ms Tevye] for [X's] sake. She opined that [Mr Kirill] was difficult in that he did not want to hear her feedback; however, he was not obstructive or unworkable.
3. [Ms M] said that [Ms Tevye] was of the view that [X] is traumatised by what has happened with her father and that [Ms M] or [Ms U] could not see the trauma that [X] was experiencing. This view was concerning to [Ms M] as she did not perceive there were any actual risk of harm issues. [Ms M] saw her role as being to reduce [X's] anxiety and support [X] with her misinterpreting of her father's behaviour.
4. [Ms M] reported that [Ms Tevye's] narrative was that she experienced psychological and physical harm within her marriage, claiming she experienced isolation and silent treatment. She noted that [Ms Tevye] made allegations of sexual harm when she first met with [Ms Tevye]. [Ms Tevye] presented [Mr Kirill] as an "evil narcissist" and expressed that she suffered for years and now [X] is subjected to it. She opined that [Ms Tevye] could not entertain alternate possibilities to his behaviour, for example, if her father forgot to pack a snack, it was framed as covert and damaging behaviour, rather than an oversight. This was then interpreted as abusive behaviour by [Ms Tevye] which then [X] took on board - causing [X] distress.
5. [Ms M's] overall impression was that the main issue was the parental conflict and the impact of this on [X]. She opined that [X] presented with significant anxiety and many fears, and with a deterioration in her mental health over time. [Ms M] would be willing and able to see [X] in the future if needed.

1. The single expert also spoke to Ms U, a psychologist who saw the child for eight sessions between July and September 2022. The single expert recorded in relation to Ms U, the following:
   1. [Ms U] said that [X] engaged well in therapy and it was easy to talk to her. She opined that, given that [X] was seven years old, that the themes that [X] was discussing were like her mothers in terms of details and vocabulary, such as her father not giving her enough food and her father "guilt tripping" her. When explored with [X], it was not that [X's] food intake was restricted, it was how [X] was feeling when a comment was made about food from her father being healthy or not, which [X] perceived that her father was not wanting to give her food. She said that [X] expressed that she did not want to see her father multiple times as he was not being a "good Dad" because she did not feel that she could open to him. When asked about her impression of [Mr Kirill] as narrated by [X], she opined it was more in line with a parent that had a lack of awareness of what was going on for [X] (rather than abusive behaviour).
   2. Focus of therapy was on working on [X's] self-esteem, helping her focus on her strengths, and working on communication, as she had trouble talking about how she was feeling at her father's place. She said that [Ms Tevye] withdrew [X] from counselling and it was against [Ms U's] recommendation as [X] was still experiencing anxiety. She believes that [Ms Tevye] was not receiving the feedback that she was hoping for in that [Ms U] would not "confirm all her worries". [Ms U's] impression was that it was clear that [X] was experiencing anxiety but that there was no indication that [X] was at risk of harm or unsafe in her father's care.
2. The single expert also spoke to the child's school counsellor. She recorded as follows:
   1. [Ms PP] observed that [X] experienced hypervigilance about her father acting cold and cruel, but not overtly physically aggressive, and that [X's] level of distress was high, given examples she provided - such as [X] was not allowed to eat until 2pm - which were small examples of being controlling and unsupported and ignored.

...

1. [Ms PP] said that [Ms Tevye] advised her that [X] had a new therapist and so she had an online meeting with her. [Ms PP] felt that the new therapist "came in quite strong". Simultaneously, [Ms PP] was not reassured by her phone conversation with DCJ who had no concerns about the matter. The school's position was that they would try to stay "neutral" and focussing on supporting [X] and making school a safe place for her. By August 2024, [Ms PP] said that [X] was not attending school because her father may show up, prompting [Ms PP] to report her concerns to DCJ under the banner of educational neglect.
2. In November 2024, [X] and her mother presented to school with information that [X] self-harmed and [X] gave vague information about how it happened. [X] and her mother were both teary that someone in Court said that [X] would need to see her father and [X] felt that person had not listened to her. It appeared to [Ms PP] that [X] would engage in self-harming behaviour when she could not cope with her distress about the idea of seeing her father.
3. [Ms PP] noted that [X's] teacher reported that [X] is managing quite well in class, has her fidget toys to use in class if needed, and she can reach out to [Ms PP] if needed. [Ms PP] said that socially [X] was experiencing some friction with friends as [X] felt that they did not understand her, for example, that her friends were worried about things that did not matter.
4. The school received updated Court Orders, which sounded positive to [Ms PP]. Given this, the deputy principal reached out to [Mr Kirill] to ask for his consent for [X] to see the school counsellor. The school had not contacted [Mr Kirill] prior to this, as they were advised by [EE Health Service] that if the situation was as [X] and her mother reported, then it would increase risk to them. [Ms PP] has not met [Mr Kirill]. The teachers have spoken to [Mr Kirill] who appeared to be quite distressed about not having contact with [X]. [Ms PP] opined that [X's] "distress is real" however noted that she does not know the origin of the distress or whether [Mr Kirill] is a risk to [X].
5. [Ms PP] described [Ms Tevye] as responsive and a strong advocate for [X]. She understands that some staff felt that [Ms Tevye] was "pushy" and her communication strong at times. She noted had [Ms Tevye] had a lot of grievances about [Mr Kirill] and would share them openly to her.

1. The single expert also spoke to the school principal and a teacher at the child's school. They reported to her as follows:
   1. The school is not aware of [X's] identification as non-binary, however [Ms AX] said that the school can accommodate this if needed. [Ms AX] has had conversations with both parents and they both show a strong interest in [X's] education. She noted one incident where [Ms Tevye] and [X] approached her wanting her to make a mandatory notification, which she told them she could not do, so the following day [X] came and "made a disclosure".
2. The single expert also spoke to Ms WW who saw the child from June 2024 until orders were made suspending her engagement with the child on 6 December 2024. In relation to Ms WW, the single expert recorded as follows:
   1. [Ms WW] was first contacted by [AV Family Services] in May 2024 to refer [X] as [Ms WW] is a victim's service counsellor. [Ms Tevye] subsequently contacted [Ms WW] and who started seeing [X] in June 2024 with her final session in December 2024 (20 sessions). Therapy ceased due to Court orders made on 6 December 2024, with [Ms WW] noting that there was a pattern of [Mr Kirill] ceasing [X's] psychological support even though it is needed. [Ms WW] opined that [X] has symptoms consistent with PTSD and acute anxiety and dissociation.
   2. [Ms WW] described [X] as extremely bright, if not gifted, with a high vocabulary for her age. She is also quite flamboyant, creative, highly empathetic, and highly emotionally intelligent for her age.
   3. [Ms WW] described [X] as "clock watching" in the classroom in anticipation of her father's pending arrival and so a safety plan was devised with the school to have access to an alternate passageway to exit the school.
   4. [Ms WW] focussed on play therapy, sand therapy, and child directed approach to sessions with [X]. She said that [X] was adamant about her treatment of her father in his presence, in that she was isolated, ignored, denigrated, physically struck, being made to exercise and run kilometres, and being "an object" to her father in terms of what she wore or ate, or when she ate, and having to wait for his approval. She said that [X] identifies as non-binary and same sex attracted and [X] is terrified that her father would find out. She also experiences anxiety, visual hallucinations of dark figures at her father's home and at her mother's home but they were somehow different. [Ms WW] treated her self-harming and chronic suicidal ideation with success and they subsided in September 2024 at the time she had no contact with her father. She said that the mere voice of her father phone calling [X] caused her to barricade the door, put her hands on her ears, and shake. [X] was completely terrified that her father would take her from school, separate her from her mother, or take her to [Country QQ]. [Ms WW] reported that [X] was adamant she did not want contact with him making comments such as "I don't know if he cares", "I feel like an object" and "he doesn't know who I am".
   5. [Ms WW] reported that in around September/October 2024 that [X] was aware that her mother had Court and noticed a change in [X's] behaviour and that she was worried that [X] would need to see her father, that he would stop therapy, or get her mother in trouble. She spoke to [X] about the Court and what that looks like and showed her videos from Legal Aid. [Ms WW] could see [X's] anxiety increasing, she was co sleeping, and attached to her mother. [Ms WW] spoke to [X] on the day her mother was in Court to reassure her and not to worry. She noticed [X] relax somewhat after Court was over, until [X] was asked to meet with the Court appointed therapist, [Ms R]. This saw [X's] self-harm reemerge, as [Ms R] reportedly was "dismissive" and "condescending" towards [X]. [Ms WW] said that she was "disgusted" by [Ms R] after having communication with her, as [Ms R] "twisted" her words, and took issue at her attitude when she was corrected - for example, [Ms R] said that [X] has a stepmother, however [Ms WW] said that [X] does not have a stepmother and that her father has a girlfriend. [Ms WW] could tell that [Ms R] was not experienced in trauma informed care and was focussed on how [Mr Kirill] was being alienated.
   6. [Ms WW] noted that there is a current HCCC complaint against her made by [Mr Kirill] which she will be responding to - ultimately, she does not have concerns about her conduct or ethics in this matter. She finished by saying that [X] "is an amazing little girl" and "I hope her voice can be heard by you".
3. Ms XX was a clinical psychologist who saw the child on four occasions in early 2025 and the mother on two occasions. The single expert reports:
   1. ...[Ms XX] found it difficult to give an impression on [X's] presentation, with her calling to clarify her position. It appears that [Ms XX] did not believe that [X] presented with depression, however [Ms Tevye] observed behaviours in [X] which may be indicative of trauma or neurodivergence, which [Ms XX] did not have the opportunity to assess these, given therapy ceased.
   2. [Ms XX] reported that therapy ceased because [X's] father said that he was not aware of [X] seeing her for therapy and he was not informed prior. He did not provide written consent for [X] to see her and was not happy that he was not included, and he was concerned about the number of psychologists that [X] has seen. [Ms XX] reported that [Ms Tevye] was of the view that [Mr Kirill] was informed of the referral.
   3. [Ms XX] said that the issue of parental consent was miscommunication. She said that [Ms Tevye] provided the details of [Mr Kirill] at intake and that he was aware of the referral and that she was following Court orders. [Ms XX] had also spoken to [X] about contact with [Mr Kirill], however [X] did not want that. She respected [X's] decision however advised [X] that if her father contacted her then she would need to speak to him. [Ms XX] said [Mr Kirill] did not contact her until after the single expert report assessment (as I had advised [Mr Kirill] that [Ms Tevye] reported [Ms XX] was [X's] current psychologist, which he appeared unaware of, and [Ms Tevye] denied he was unaware). [Ms XX] spoke to [Mr Kirill] who wanted to know how many sessions she had, how parents are involved in the practice, expressed a concern about how he was involved/excluded in the past, how [Ms XX] questions [X], and [Ms XX]'s ongoing plan for [X]. He did not give consent for her to see [X]. [Ms XX] hopes that [X] can engage with a psychologist with experience in family law proceedings.
4. The single expert contacted the father's psychologist, Ms AY. She recorded in relation to the father as follows:
   1. [Ms AY] opined that [Mr Kirill] has always presented as very calm, keen to learn, non-challenging of a female therapist, and curious. She said he was never angry, and would tend to experience grief, sadness, and disappointment, and a sense of injustice. [Ms AY] said that she did not understand why it has been five years and this matter has re-emerged again, which she found sad. She questioned whether there had been an incident recently that impacted on [X]. I advised [Ms AY] that there has been an allegation of physical abuse. She was aware that there was an incident in the car where [X] was picking on her skin whilst [Mr Kirill] was driving and he brushed her hand off her leg and told her not to do that.
5. She also contacted the mother's counsellor, Ms AZ, who reported as follows:
   1. [Ms Tevye] was referred to [Ms AZ] in [June 2023] with the presenting concerns being the ongoing impact of the domestic violence relationship and managing custody of her child. They have had monthly appointments via zoom, with [Ms Tevye's] engagement varied - at times [Ms Tevye] has been on edge, frustrated, and feeling like the legal system has let her down and she has been traumatised by it as she feels she has been dismissed.
   2. Focus of therapy has been on supporting [Ms Tevye] in supporting [X] because how [Ms Tevye] copes impacts [X]. When asked about the nature of the relationship between [Ms Tevye] and [Mr Kirill] as narrated by [Ms Tevye], [Ms AZ] said that they have not gone into specific details and that [Ms Tevye] has alluded to what she has lived with, for example, "I've had 20 years of....I know what he's like... I know what he's capable of".
   3. [Ms AZ] opined that [Ms Tevye] has been stuck between not forcing [X] to spend time with her father (as there have been times where [X] has locked herself in a room and said she is not going to her father) and not wanting to get into trouble by the Court.
   4. [Ms AZ] said she made a mandatory notification in [February 2024] based on an alleged event where [X] had been with her father and [X] was picking on her skin, and [Mr Kirill] was giving [X] a hard time about it, he slapped her on her thigh, grabbed her hand and made her hit her own face with her own hand. [Ms AZ] said she did not hear back about any investigation that ensued after her notification.
   5. [Ms AZ] pleaded that [X] gets taken into consideration as there have been many times where the system has asked [Ms Tevye] and [X] to do things that are traumatising and retraumatising for them, such as, engaging in family therapy.
6. Under a heading, "Terms of Reference" the single expert opined as follows:
   1. This matter is characterised by longstanding litigation, high parental conflict, and significantly entrenched opposing views held by each parent. When first assessed by [Dr UU] in December 2016, [X] presented as a well-adjusted toddler with a good relationship with both parents, emotionally regulated, and as able to transition between her parents. She is now a highly anxious and traumatised pre-adolescent who has struggled to transition between her parents and is rejecting her relationship with her father. I hold significant concerns regarding [X's] mental health, and her prognosis for future wellbeing is poor if the current circumstances persist. [X] has been exposed to this conflict for almost her entire life, both prior to and following the separation, and it has had a clear and cumulative impact on her psychological wellbeing.
7. Under the heading, "Matters set out in s 60CC, 61DA and 65DAAA" the single expert said as follows:
   1. [Ms Tevye] refers to herself as being the victim of coercive control, which [Mr Kirill] denies and counter alleges she was, and is controlling. It is apparent that the parental relationship was marked with unhappiness, conflict, and stress, particularly in the context of the long term infertility. [Mr Kirill] agrees that he withdrew in the relationship, which appears to support [Ms Tevye's] allegation about the silent treatment she endured. If [Mr Kirill] engaged in silent treatment behaviour during the marriage in a persistent manner, this would likely have contributed to significant emotional disconnection within the relationship and could be experienced as dismissive. If repeated or used as a form of punishment, it can be psychologically harmful, distressing and confusing, particularly if used to withdraw affection and this may reflect an unhealthy communication pattern within [Mr Kirill]. I am unable to substantiate either way either parents' narrative or whether [X] has been exposed to [Mr Kirill]'s behaviour as [Ms Tevye] alleges, however at present, there is no independent evidence substantiating the alleged behaviour as harmful or abusive toward [X] and professionals involved with the family, including from those with a systemic perspective, have noted that [X's] reaction to her father appears disproportionate to any reported events. It is noted that [Mr Kirill]'s former partner, who was interviewed by [Dr UU] in 2016, and at the time was supportive of [Mr Kirill], has now written an affidavit supporting [Ms Tevye's] account of him alleging similar behave in their relationship and her being coerced by [Mr Kirill] to support him in 2016. It is difficult to give credence as to which account of hers is accurate. It is also noted that the DCJ assessment has not culminated in a substantiation of any allegations.
   2. [Mr Kirill] presented as calm, cooperative, and at times despondent during the assessment. He expressed a desire to restore his relationship with his daughter and conveyed frustration and being upset at the current level of estrangement. He denied the allegations made against him by [Ms Tevye] and believes that she has led a concerted effort to remove him from [X's] life. If the father's account is to be accepted, then [X's] rejection of her father may not be based on substantiated harm but rather influenced by enmeshment with her mother, loyalty binds, and her father's lack of attunement. This view would be consistent with [X's] emotional response toward her father as have been noted by professionals to be disproportionate to the reported events, raising concerns about the influence of [X's] expressed views.
   3. [Ms Tevye] presented as caring and attentive and fiercely protective and concerned about [X's] safety in her father's care. If [Ms Tevye's] account is to be adopted, then she and [X] have been exposed to ongoing psychological torment by [Mr Kirill] that has left them both feeling fearful of him.
8. Under the heading, "The impact upon the child and her relationship with the mother if the court makes orders as sought by the father" she opined as follows:
   1. Placing [X] in the primary care of her father would mean a significant change in her current circumstances and would need to be managed with sensitivity and professional support. There would need to be confidence that [Mr Kirill] will see the importance of this and be supporting of [X] receiving support and that he would be responsive to therapeutic feedback about his conduct. He has expressed that [X] needs support however he has been concerned about the number of clinicians [X] has seen and their competence.
   2. Given [X's] current alignment with her mother and rejection of her father, such a transition would likely be met with resistance and distress in the short term. However, if her rejection of her father is more reflective of a coping mechanism rather than a risk of harm, [X] may benefit in the long term from being removed from the enmeshed environment that could be impacting her wellbeing as this is psychologically harmful to her. Whilst this transition may initially cause distress, it may offer [X] a more balanced home environment particularly if the current primary environment is reinforcing dependency, anxiety, and rejection of her father without evidence of harm. This option will need to be considered in light of [Mr Kirill]'s capacity to work closely with a psychologist and to be an emotionally competent parent, as in this instance, [X] has a sensitive and anxious temperament, and caution would need to be had as there is a risk that [X's] mental health could deteriorate further.
   3. If [X] were to be placed in the primary care of her father, this would be distressing for [X]. The impact on her relationship with her mother would be significant and how [Ms Tevye] responds to the change in primary care would be important, as there would be concern that [Ms Tevye] may undermine the transition and [X] may experience increased distress and difficulty in adjusting. If [Ms Tevye] were to undermine the transition, then a significant period of supervised time with [Ms Tevye] (such as 12 months) would be required to ensure [Ms Tevye] does not continue to undermine the transition. If [Ms Tevye] were not able to commit to supervised time without undermining [Mr Kirill], then a period of no contact with [Ms Tevye] and [X] may be necessary to allow [X] to settle in her father's care, before supervised time recommences, with a progression to unsupervised time when the Court is satisfied that [Ms Tevye] is compliant with orders.
9. In relation to the impact upon the child if the Court made orders as sought by the mother, the single expert opined as follows:
   1. If [X] were to have no contact, or only minimal written communication with her father, the long-term impact on her relationship with her father is likely to be significant. While this option would appear to reduce [X's] immediate distress and exposure to overt conflict, it risks reinforcing [X's] current beliefs, particularly if those beliefs have developed in the context of loyalty binds or enmeshment and in the absence of substantiated risk. In this scenario, no contact in the absence of substantiated risk may cause long term harm to [X's] psychological wellbeing, her identity formation, and understanding of her family relationships, and risks permanently severing her relationship with her father and her paternal family

In the absence of any meaningful relationship or ongoing contact, [X] is likely to grow up believing that her father is abusive or harmful and without the opportunity to test or challenge that narrative, which can further entrench a distorted view of her family history.

1. Ultimately, it appears that [Ms Tevye] does not support [X's] meaningful relationship with her father and could not outline any significant role that her father should or could have in the future. There is also a concern that it appears that the parental relationship was over before [X's] conception and that [Ms Tevye] wanted to have a child and saw [Mr Kirill] as a means to achieve her goal. This matter is further complicated by the fact that [X] has an existing relationship with her egg donor, but no relationship with her biological father, whereby there is a situation where her maternal biological origins are known and supported yet her paternal biological heritage is denied or negatively framed.

1. The single expert was cross-examined by all counsel. Prior to giving her evidence, the single expert spoke with Ms M, the agreed therapist for the child. Ms M told the single expert that the mother had been compliant with getting the child to the therapy sessions, however, she did so through 'gritted teeth'. Ms M reported that the child was doing well with their mental health and was not engaged in self-harming behaviour but there was no deep engagement in therapy. Ms M reported that the child consistently reported they did not want to have a relationship with the father.
2. Later in her cross-examination, the single expert agreed that the observations that the mother was bringing the child to therapy through 'gritted teeth' was unsurprising and that it was apparent that the mother did not support the therapy.
3. In response to questions from counsel for the ICL, the single expert confirmed that the child's mental health had been impacted by the conflict and was exhibiting generalised anxiety. She opined that where a family is in significant conflict it is often difficult for a child to cope with transitions so the way to manage that is to split off from one parent. She opined it was difficult for the child to have a free relationship with both parents which has been the case since X was a young child, and it was no surprise that the child's current functioning was as it is.
4. The single expert said the child's views had been influenced by the mother and that both Ms M and Ms U noted the child had a relationship that was not independent and said that it would be difficult for the child to express an alternate view or consider alternate perspectives of the father, different to those of the mother.
5. In relation to a change of residence, she said that it would be very difficult and distressing for the child to be separated from the mother. She said that transition to high school was a very difficult time for children and that it is possible that a transition at that time may lead to a deterioration in the child's mental health and that any change if it was to occur, should occur before high school started but not at the same time.
6. In relation to the father, she said that he was not obstructive in relation to engagement with therapy and that he has a reflective capacity. She expressed a concern that there was a risk that the child may self-place, given the child is strong-willed, but it may be the case that after a period of adjustment the child may settle in the father's care. The single expert was cross-examined by the ICL as to the period of time in which the child should have no contact with the mother and was of the view that six months was too long a period of time and that one of the risks on the father's proposal was that the child would go back to the mother's household where there was no support for the relationship.
7. The single expert observed from her reading of the contact notes, there was a plan between the mother and the child. She says that the mother does not want the child to have a relationship with the father and the child is very much aware of that. The single expert said the consequence of the mother's approach is the child will grow up to:
   1. ...believe that her father is this person that is abusive and is not a good person to be around and so in that context I think it will ... have an impact on her ability to form relationships in the future and her ability to consider alternate perspectives and to reality-test relationships moving forward, I think, will be really important risk for her. She will then have trouble with relationships and managing them and having positive relationships with others.
8. The single expert reiterated that she did not see how the child could go between both households and have a relationship with the father while remaining living with the mother.
9. The single expert agreed one possibility may be for a form of identity contact if the child remained living in the mother's care. She said that was not a meaningful relationship but will provide the possibility for the child in the future to be able to contact their father.
10. In answer to questions from the ICL's counsel, the expert opined that if there was to be a change to the father's care, it would be important for the father to be at home during the initial period to ensure the child attended school, comes home and stay in the home environment. There is a risk the child will run away, and the father would need to maintain a steady, sensitive, empathic approach and have some routine so that the child continues to go to school. He would need to be a stable figure.
11. The single expert said that the father's reaction to the child's skin picking was not sensitive, and he could have managed it differently, but the child's response had been disproportionate.
12. In answer to questions from the counsel for the mother, she observed that Dr UU had opined that the father had a reflective capacity and that he had demonstrated that reflective capacity with the single expert but had not always done so. She agreed that a risk for the child in the father's care was not having the capacity to talk to someone about "big emotions".
13. In relation to skin picking, the single expert described it as a form of managing the child's distress and a coping mechanism. In relation to the question of suicidal ideation, she did not believe the child has ever had any plans or intent to do so but has had some passive suicidal thoughts. She agreed that a possible risk in placing the child with the father was a return to skin picking and suicidal ideation, she agreed that there was a significant risk of a deterioration in the child's mental health and also a risk in circumstances where the child was not engaging with the father and his partner and therefore they may not recognise any significant change. In her cross-examination, she was asked questions about the father's conduct in removing his consent to the child's engagement with Ms XX and the school counsellor and agreed that his conduct in doing so was not child-focussed and that it would have been beneficial for the father to have taken a step back and pause for a moment and consider how he could manage the situation without withdrawing his consent.
14. In cross-examination by counsel for the father, the single expert agreed that Ms WW was not qualified to see the child. She agreed that if the mother was engaging with treaters for the child on the basis they had been sexually assaulted by the father and on the basis that they had domestic violence trauma directly from the father, that it would not be supportive of a relationship with the father and nor would it be a reflection of the child's reality at the times the child saw Dr UU to which she answered, "Yes" (Transcript 24 November 2025, p.31 line 44). She also agreed that continued therapy for the child that they were unsafe in the father's care would send that message to the child.
15. In relation to the mother's conduct in taking the child to various treaters with the narrative that the child was unsafe in the father's care and at risk of harm, the single expert said:

My concern would be that the mother would continue to take [X] to different therapists, or shop for therapists, that support her view, and do not engage in any reality testing with the mother or with the child. Also, it also imposes this sense of fear in [X], and anxiety, that she is in danger, and that could generalise to a world view for her, that the world is a scary place, that men are scary, for example, and that is detrimental for a child who is already experiencing some difficulties with her mental health already.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.38 lines 40-46)

1. In relation to short-term versus long-term risks, the single expert answered questions posed by counsel for the father in the following way:

...I am just going to frame it this way, and you can agree or disagree with me. But in some ways, what his Honour has got to decide is these short-term challenges for [X] involved with a move, versus the long-term challenges for [X] if she doesn't move. Is that a fair way to look at it? Yes.

And when you're balancing those items, what I hear your evidence saying, this morning, is you don't think it's too late to give that transition a go. That's a fair comment - summary? Yes.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.40 lines 13-20)

1. In relation to time between the child and the mother in the event the child was placed in the father's care, the single expert was asked whether the mother could practically support the orders moving forward, to which she answered:

I don't - I don't think it is the practical. I think it is the - the messages that she is sending to [X] which are the issue, and they are not necessarily verbal messages, but you know, whether it is overt or covert, the message is that her father is a dangerous person, and, "You need to be cautious", and those messages I think what are important for the mother, and I don't know whether she can do that. I don't know if she can do that.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.41 lines 25-30)

1. The single expert said there needed to be about a three-month period of no time with the mother to enable a reset if the child was to be placed in the father's care and that time thereafter with the mother would need to occur initially on a supervised basis and that only time would tell if unsupervised time could be possible. In relation to the child's engagement with various therapists, the single expert opined that whilst the child had been given the opportunity to engage with multiple therapists, the child has not been given the opportunity to have the independence to be able to do so because if the therapists narrative does not accord with the mother's view, then the mother ends therapy. The single expert was asked questions about the supervision report arising from a visit in August 2025 which recorded as follows:

I asked why they continued attending if they did not enjoy them. And [X] explained to them there are ongoing legal proceedings that their mother is involved in, and she is preparing a lot of documentation. So evidence - so attending these visits ensures there is sufficient evidence.

Do you recall reading that?---Yes, I do.

And to your mind, is that not a blatant example of [X] understanding her own position as to be someone on the mother's team who is collecting evidence? ---It is a blatant example of intentionally involving the child for the purpose of gaining leverage.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.50 lines 1-12)

1. She was also asked some questions about another supervision report of 17 November 2025 and said:

Well, the timing of that is interesting in that, you know, does she feel that she doesn't need to attend any more because the evidence is already presented to the court. Therefore, we have completed the task. That would be a concern given that the litigation is still ongoing and that has already commenced that disengagement from the court orders.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.62 lines 34-38)

1. In relation to whether it was too late, the expert opined as follows:

And it's not a case where the court can just say, this is all too hard, is it?---No, it's not.

Because it's not too late for [X], is it? ---It's not too late. Her concerns for her mental health and wellbeing in the future, I think, are very important and it's not too late for that to change.

And to your mind, the way - I beg your pardon - to your mind the balance of risk for [X] lies in favour of changing her residence, even though that might create a short term problems for her? ---We do need to balance those risks, don't we, that - and I have noted that in my report that the risks are in the short term, she will experience distress in her father's care. But then she may then settled. However, if she remains in her mother's care, the status quo will remain. And then where does that leave her as a functional adolescent and adult moving forward with peers, with relationships, is my concern.

(Transcript 24 November 2025, p.63 lines 5-19)

1. Each of the parties and the ICL filed an Outline of Case document identifying the affidavits on which they intended to rely. Each of the mother, father, and the father's partner were cross-examined as was the single expert. The father was granted leave to rely on the affidavit of Ms R, the court-ordered therapist, and its annexures.
2. I have read all the material relied upon including the exhibits. Whilst the evidence raised a series of issues, I am not required to address every fact or submission made (Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; [2003] 200 ALR 447).
3. Each of the parties sought various factual findings.
4. In the case of the mother, she sought findings set out in Exhibit 112 which records as follows:
   1. By engaging in "silent treatment" in his relationship with the Mother, as accepted by the Father in cross-examination, the Father engaged in psychological abuse of the Mother.
   2. By engaging in psychological abuse of the Mother, the Father perpetrated family violence on the Mother.
   3. The Father's conduct and correspondence with the Mother following the making of the 01 03 2018 Orders was aggressive and hostile.
   4. Such aggressive and hostile communication and conduct caused or contributed to a continuation of the conflict between the parties after the making of the 0l 03 2018 Orders.
   5. The matters stated at 1 - 4 above caused or contributed to a reluctance of the part of the Mother to communicate with the Father about parenting issues for [X].
   6. As admitted by the Father in cross-examination, the Mother's actions in pausing the commencement of overnight time for [X] upon the Mother learning of the existence of the Father's flatmate were reasonable and protective of [X], not part of a campaign intended at alienating the Father from [X's] life.
   7. Despite any finding as to the outcome of such actions, in seeking and arranging therapeutic support for [X], the Mother was motivated by concerns for [X's] mental health and wellbeing, not part of a campaign intended at alienating the Father from [X's] life.
   8. The Father's conduct in withdrawing his consent to [X] attending upon the school counsellor in December 2024 and in obstructing the arranging of mental health support for [X] following the making of the 06 12 2024 Orders was not child-focused and not in [X's] best interests.
   9. Despite any finding as to the cause or causes of such symptoms, [X] has engaged in skin-picking and other acts of self-harm and has expressed suicidal ideation when contemplating the possibility of the Court making the orders sought by the Father, for [X] to live with the Father.
   10. In the event that the Court makes the orders sought by the Father, there is a risk of significant deterioration in [X's] mental health.
   11. In light of the admissions by each of the Father and [Ms ZZ] in cross-examination that [X] does not discuss "big emotions" with either of them, there is a significant risk that [X] will not make the Father or [Ms ZZ] aware of any deterioration in their mental health should the Court make the orders sought by the Father.
   12. The Father has no realistic plan to manage the transition of [X] into living in his fulltime care.
   13. In making the orders sought by the Father, there is a risk that [X] will endeavour to self-place back with the Mother and/ or otherwise run away, such that conflict and litigation between the parties is highly likely to recur.
   14. In light of 9 - 13 above, there is an unacceptable risk to [X's] mental and/ or physical health in making the orders sought by the Father.

...

1. [X's] relationship with the Father and knowledge of the paternal family can be maintained through the orders the Mother seeks for the Father to have identity contact in the form of unsupervised time on or around special occasions, and letters, card and gifts.
2. The parents have no demonstrated capacity to hold joint major long-term decisionmaking responsibility, such that an order ought to be made for the parent with whom [X] is to primarily live to hold sole major long-term decision-making responsibility, save that the parents ought to hold joint decision-making responsibility in relation to [X's] name.

1. The father sought factual findings set out in Exhibit 113, which has been consequentially renumbered but the text of which records as follows:
   1. [X's] mental health has significantly declined in the care of the mother
   2. At the time of trial, [X] presents as a highly anxious and traumatised pre-adolescent
   3. [X] is aligned and enmeshed with the mother
   4. [X] is not capable of comprehending the long term consequences of a loss of relationship with the father
   5. [X]' current expressed wishes not to spend time with her father should be given little weight
   6. The father does not pose an unacceptable risk to [X]
   7. The father has not engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour towards the mother or the child
   8. The father and [X] have previously enjoyed a healthy and attached relationship post separation
   9. The father has capacity to support [X] living with him, including the capacity to support [X's] psychological needs

10. The father has the capacity to support [X's] relationship with the mother

1. The mother has engaged in a pattern of conduct designed to undermine the relationship between the father and [X]
2. The mother has no desire or capacity to support or promote [X's] relationship with the father
3. The mother has repeatedly breached Court Orders
4. The mother has failed to engage in Court Ordered family therapy
5. The mother has engaged in controlling conduct towards [X] and the Father
6. The mother has failed to appropriately engage with psychological support services for [X]
7. The mother's conduct has caused [X] significant emotional and psychological harm and represents an unacceptable risk

1. The factual findings sought by each party can be broadly summarised as giving rise to the following issues for consideration which will be addressed in these reasons:

(1) Whether the father perpetrated family violence upon the mother; whether the father post-separation engaged in conduct that was aggressive and hostile; whether such aggressive and hostile conduct caused or contributed to the conflict post the 2018 orders; whether the family violence and the aggressive and hostile conduct caused or contributed to the mother's reluctance to communicate with the father about parenting issues (mother's Factual Findings 1-5; father's Factual Finding 7)

(2) The mother's parenting capacity (mother's Factual Finding 6-7; father's Factual Findings 1-3 and 11-16)

(3) The father's parenting capacity (mother's Factual Finding 8; father's Factual Finding 8-10)

(4) Issues of unacceptable risk (mother's Factual Finding 9-14; father's Factual Finding 6, 8 and 17)

(5) The child's views (father's Factual Finding 4 and 5)

(6) What orders are in the child's best interests (mother's Factual Finding 16 and 17)

1. A substantial part of the mother's affidavit (which ran to 1,122 paragraphs) was her assertion that the father was a perpetrator of family violence both during the relationship and after separation. Examples in her affidavit included the following:
   1. Over time, I came to realise that such actions were not casual or incidental. They were part of what I experienced to be as a pattern of emotional abuse and coercive control, which undermined my self-worth, created in me a sense of insecurity and inadequacy, reinforced my dependence on [Mr Kirill's] approval, and kept me competing for his attention. I experienced [Mr Kirill's] actions as a calculated power play, which destabilised me emotionally, eroded my confidence, and kept me feeling disempowered and isolated within the relationship.

...

1. I came to experience my relationship with [Mr Kirill] as one of domestic violence and coercive control, which I say has persisted since our separation.

...

1. Throughout our relationship, [Mr Kirill] consistently demonstrated a volatile and unpredictable temperament. At any given moment, a harmless comment or benign interaction could escalate into disproportionate anger. Once triggered, there was no effective way for me to de-escalate the situation; neither calm reasoning nor emotional appeals had any impact. This created an ongoing sense of instability and fear for me living in the household. I felt like 1 was constantly "walking on eggshells", not knowing what might set [Mr Kirill] off or when.
2. These episodes were followed by prolonged periods of silence, during which [Mr Kirill] refused to speak to me for weeks, not even saying hello or goodbye, and blocking all communication by turning off his phone. He would either lock himself in a spare bedroom or avoid coming home.
3. The intensity of [Mr Kirill's] anger was so overwhelming that it permeated the entire environment. His silence was accompanied by contemptuous and disdainful looks, leaving me feeling emotionally isolated and psychologically punished. I found such behaviour to be profoundly destabilising,
4. Although [Mr Kirill] did not strike me directly, he used intimidation and psychological manipulation and later threats to keep me in fear. At times, I found myself wishing that he would express his anger in another form such as physical aggression because the emotional toll of the silent treatment for weeks on end was so intense, it felt more painful and dehumanising than a swift act of violence.
5. I lived in a constant state of hypervigilance, never knowing when the next outburst and withdrawal would occur, or how long it would last. The persistent unpredictability and emotional withholding significantly eroded my sense of wellbeing and security. When [Mr Kirill] eventually resumed communication, I felt a combination of relief at the temporary return to normalcy, deep caution, and emotional exhaustion from enduring the cycle of abuse.
6. These patterns were not isolated incidents, but part of a broader dynamic of coercive control that left me feeling emotionally unsafe in my own home, where my psychological safety was dependent on [Mr Kirill's] mood, which created a profound power imbalance in our relationship.

1. Under a heading, "Gaslighting and emotional manipulation" she recorded the following:
   1. The last statement - "I'm not hurting you. I'm not even laying a finger on you" - was said with what I observed to be a smugness in [Mr Kirill's] tone of voice and facial expression, which conveyed to me [Mr Kirill's] belief in his cleverness in being able to inflict harm on me without physical violence. To me, that encapsulated [Mr Kirill's] pattern of psychological and emotional abuse, where harm was inflicted through control, manipulation and emotional cruelty.
2. Under a heading, "Verbal abuse and taunting" she stated:
   1. [Mr Kirill] also subjected me to a persistent pattern of daily denigration, repeated derogatory taunts and belittling, often disguised as humour, living with him felt akin to living with a schoolyard bully, chipping away at my self-esteem. I received a constant daily stream of mockery, criticism or put-downs over my physical appearance (even the shape of my nose), my abilities and life choices. When I showed signs of hurt or discomfort, [Mr Kirill] then ridiculed me and gaslit me for being "too sensitive".

...

1. The daily stream of mocking and put-downs eroded my self-esteem. As I lost my sense of self [Mr Kirill] grew more powerful in our relationship dynamic.

1. Other headings with various asserted examples included but were not limited to "financial abuse", "[Mr Kirill's] control" and "[Mr Kirill's] abuse of me during our attempts to conceive a child".
2. The single expert recorded the mother reporting amongst other matters that the father during the relationship isolated her from others, made derogatory comments about her to her friends and others, criticised her career choices, flirted with other women, was controlling, was volatile and rageful, that it was not safe to say things to him, that he engaged in gaslighting her and projected these behaviours onto the child, that he emotionally manipulated the child and was financially abusive to the mother.
3. In her cross-examination, the mother agreed she had reported to various health professionals that she had been told the father had a gun, had threatened to kill her, and threatened to abduct the child. She reported to the police that she had been told that the father would seek to "frame" her boyfriend for sexual abuse of the child and she agreed in cross-examination she believed the child had been "a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of the father" (Transcript 18 November 2025, p.16 line 13).
4. The mother also asserted the child had been exposed to family violence. The single expert recorded the mother reporting the following:
   1. When asked what her thoughts were on what was causing [X's] suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviour, [Ms Tevye] reported that [X's] exposure to family violence by her father, his coercive controlling behaviour, being given the silent treatment, body shaming, being put down, and being with a parent who has emotion dysregulation, have all contributed. [Ms Tevye's] recollection is that [X] started to pick her skin in October 2023 when she experienced a worry feeling when present with her father, and suicidal thoughts such as "If I wasn't born..." or "what if I fell off [the balcony], all this bad stuff would not be happening". [Ms Tevye] said that there were two incidences where [Mr Kirill] allegedly hit and threatened [X] in response to her skin picking, specifically he hit her leg and said "stop" in a loud voice, and the second occasion he grabbed her hand and said, "pick, pick, pick" and used her hand to hit her face and said, "hit, hit, hit". He also said to her that if her skin picking continued "I'm going to hit you". [Ms Tevye] recalled that the self-harming behaviour settled at the end of July 2024...
5. The child reported, to their treaters and to the single expert, behaviour by the father that included the father hitting or pushing their hand away when picking their skin on one occasion, had used their hand to hit their face, had yelled at them, had scared them, that he practised 'silent treatment' on them and restricted their access to food. Ms WW reported that the child was terrified of the father, that they felt isolated, ignored and denigrated in the care of the father.
6. The Mother's Outline of Case document recorded:
   1. The Mother's evidence is that she and [X] experienced pervasive psychological abuse and coercive & controlling behaviour by the Father, which has continued post-separation - directed towards both the Mother, in the context of the parties' attempts to co-parent, and towards [X] during their time and communication with the Father.
   2. Further, [X] reported to both the Mother and the single expert to have been physically abused by the Father.
7. The mother's counsel submitted as follows:

MS RUSITI: Yes. I mean, I assert that the father's engaging in silent treatment of the mother during the relationship was a form of psychological abuse, and was coercive and controlling. And was, therefore, family violence. I accept that the evidence does not go - in terms of the timeframe, does not go beyond that timeframe.

(Transcript 25 November 2025, p.36 lines 34-48)

1. The mother's counsel conceded that the evidence did not support a finding of coercive or controlling conduct once the relationship ended. In that respect, the parties separated in May 2015.
2. Why the mother's affidavit addressed the above matters and others at such extraordinary length and in such extraordinary detail was unexplained particularly where, with the exception of some questions as to the father's engagement with a psychologist in the context of "silent treatment" and some questions directed to correspondence, none of the matters were addressed in cross-examination by the mother's counsel nor was there a testing of his denials.
3. Remarkably and despite the content of the Outline of Case document, her affidavit, or what she reported to the single expert, the police or the numerous health professionals the mother attended upon, no factual finding was sought nor was a submission made that the father had exposed the child to silent treatment or that the child was at risk of physical or sexual harm or the victim of family or domestic violence. Nor did the allegations of family violence form any part of the submissions as to unacceptable risk. One might speculate that such a submission was not advanced as it was irreconcilable with the unchallenged expert evidence.
4. The father's affidavit addressed the mother's assertions that he engaged in silent treatment as a form of psychological abuse as follows:
   1. The Applicant has previously asserted that I would regularly give her the "silent" treatment and that this was a form of abuse towards her or that I was prone to fits of anger. I deny these assertions. I am an introverted person and do not like confrontation. I do not recall occasions where I shouted during our relationship. I experienced anxiety and panic attacks, especially during stressful life events such as moving countries and changes of work, but with the help of ongoing therapy, I have developed strategies to assist me during these moments.
   2. I deny that I subjected the Applicant to "silent treatment."

...

1. The Applicant continues to assert that she is fearful of me. At no time has there been any ADVO issued against me. I have never engaged in any form of intimidation, harassment, threats, nor ever assaulted the Applicant.

1. The father in his affidavit denied being angry with the child and denied giving them the silent treatment. The father during cross-examination denied he had used the child's hand to hit their face or had pushed or hit their hand away when they were picking their skin saying he "moved her hand away" (transcript 21 November 2025, p.43 line 42).
2. In the context of coercive or controlling conduct, Aldridge and Carew JJ observed in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249; (2024) FLC 94-230 ("Pickford & Pickford") as follows:

1. When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, a trial judge will undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

(a) identify the behaviour about which complaint is made; > > (b) identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator; > > (c) identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient); > > (d) make all relevant factual findings; and > > (e) explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

3. No part of the submissions advanced on behalf of the mother chose to address any aspect of the task to be undertaken in accordance with the above requirements. The Court was simply asked to conclude that it was so because the mother said so and her counsel so submitted. Their Honour's paragraph cannot be read as requiring a court to embark on such a journey unaided by submission as to the relevant conduct, its impact and why it constitutes family violence where the party urging such a finding fails to do so. It might glibly be observed that where the party does not do that which is required of them, they cannot be later heard to complain if the Court adopts the same approach.
4. An allegation of family violence is just like any other allegation of fact. The person asserting, in this case the mother, bears the onus of proof (Pickford & Pickford at [79]). Section 140(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) requires the Court to find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities. This can be informed by 'an actual persuasion of the fact'; inconsistencies may be resolved by evidence that is more probable than not or evidence that is consistent with incontrovertible facts or compelling inferences; by the adducing of compelling evidence casting doubt on the denial, by adducing evidence of an admission, by the tender of documents casting doubt upon or inconsistent with the denial, through cross-examination or by an acceptance of one parties' evidence in preference to that of another based on some or all of the above in weighting the whole of the evidence.
5. The sole area of cross-examination on this issue was some questions about the father's engagement with a psychologist in 2012 and the tender of the clinical notes of the psychologist (Exhibit 95). I am not persuaded that the clinical notes demonstrate the falsity or implausibility of the father's case, give rise to an inconsistency or incontrovertible fact, nor the drawing of a compelling inference. If it were, there should have been a submission demonstrative of the assertion.
6. In the clinical notes is an email from the mother to the psychologist dated 28 March 2012. It records in part the following:

My husband reacts to issues in his life by shutting down, not talking & isolating. This can go on for weeks at a time. Not only does this not allow hm to work through an issue effectively but to be honest it is very toxic to our marriage. It is not only the grief that comes from infertility that causes him to react this way, any issues we have between us. It has been a behaviour he has used since his childhood so unfortunately is pretty entrenched.

(Exhibit 95)

1. Behaviour that might be toxic to a marriage does not establish that it meets the definition of family violence.
2. Exhibit 95 refers to a session on 25 May 2012 which records the father reporting, "long period of silences when feeling misunderstood". He admitted saying it to the psychologist, but he was not asked what the entry might mean in the context of the mother. It was put to him that a reference to "silent mode" was what the mother described, and he said not necessarily so. He was asked whether one of the things he discussed with the psychologist was "shutting down and not communicating in work and personal relationships" and he responded that it was part of the treatment. There was no cross-examination of when this occurred or that it was done to the mother to warrant some admission consistent with the mother's case.
3. The notes of the same session record under the heading, "Goals/Preferred Outcome" the following:

Work on personal issues, take responsibility myself, look at avoidance strategies (addictions, infidelity, work, moving, constant change) particularly in regard[s] to intimate relationships, afraid of becoming like his dad).

(Exhibit 95)

1. The next in time note addressing their relationship is one dated 13 September 2012 which records, "[Mr Kirill] Recognises he's very reactive in relationships, gets in the way, as he doesn't talk about it, trying to change that pattern discuss things as they happen eg. Of doing this with [Ms Tevye] in week-end", while the last session dated 20 September 2012 records "Relationship is better with [Ms Tevye] - common goal, she's more accepting of their situation now, less arguing - [Mr Kirill] discussing issues before they escalate, listening non-judgmentally to each other".
2. At its highest, the notes and the mother's email refer to a problem which the mother described as toxic to their relationship. As much may be true. But not all behaviours or conduct, even ones that may be described as unpleasant, boorish or insensitive can be pathologized as family violence let alone constitute conduct that had the consequence of coercing or controlling one's partner. I do not accept it has been established that the "silent treatment" was perpetrated in a persistent manner or used as a form of punishment.
3. As the Full Court observed in Stokey & Dye (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 239:
   1. ...No court is compelled to accept as correct the unchallenged or uncontradicted evidence of a witness (GLJ v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32; (2023) 280 CLR 442 at [60] and [71]; HML v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334 at [130]; Louth v Diprose [1992] HCA 61; (1992) 175 CLR 621 at 624-625 and 635-636; Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553 at 587-588).
4. To accept the mother's case in the face of the denial requires an acceptance of her evidence. I found the mother to be an unimpressive and unreliable witness for the following reasons:

(a) She agreed in cross-examination that she has mislead health professionals and the police by representing that the father had a mental illness when she knew that Dr UU had made no such diagnosis. She agreed she had misrepresented to the child's school the Court orders made in 2018 by suggesting that the fathers time was supervised when it was not and where the requirement for someone to be initially present was to protect the child and the father from allegations made by the mother.

(b) Her evidence as to her belief as to whether the child had been sexually abused by the father changed over the course of her oral evidence such that I accept the father's submission that her evidence on that issue was tainted by untruths. In that respect on the first day of her cross-examination she said she had never held the view that the child was at risk of sexual abuse in the father's care. This was inconsistent with police records which recorded that in January 2016 the mother took the child to RR Hospital as she was concerned that the child had been sexually assaulted by the father (Exhibit 5, page 75). This was also inconsistent with representations she made to BA Mental Health Services where the mother reported to the centre that one of her concerns was sexual abuse of the child by the father and is irreconcilable with the counselling notes with Ms AS which record the mother not understanding how FACS/JIRT could have made a decision that the sexual assault allegations were inconclusive (Exhibit 16).

(c) Despite saying on the first day of cross-examination that she had never held the view that the child was at risk of sexual abuse in the care of the father, on the second day of her cross-examination she said that she genuinely thinks the child is a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of the father.

(d) The mother's statement in cross examination and actions in taking the child to the hospital in January 2016 and informing the police that she did that because she was concerned the child had been sexually assaulted by the father is contrary to her solicitors letter a month later which records "our client wishes make it clear she did not allege that your client had in fact done anything..." (Exhibit 8).

(e) The mother was asked about a report to the police in June 2018 by her and the father's former partner, Ms AU. The mother initially said she dropped Ms AU at the police station, but that Ms AU went in by herself. The mother later admitted that she had not just dropped Ms AU of but had also walked into the police station. The story then changed to her not driving her there but merely meeting her there but later agreed she had dropped her at the police station. I found the mother's responses in relation to the visits to the police by her and Ms AU as unconvincing and dissembling.

(f) The mother was cross-examined about a cruise the father took with the child in January 2019. The mother agreed that she had told her counsellor after the child returned from a cruise that she had concerns that the child slept in the same bed as the father on the cruise despite the child telling her there was a bunk bed. I am satisfied that the mother reported this to her counsellor for the purposes of generating a mandatory disclosure notwithstanding having been told that it had not happened.

(g) She was also asked questions about an allegation that a friend of the father's had told her that the father had been talking about killing the mother and abducting the child. She reported this to her counsellor. The mother denied that she made this report to her counsellor to generate a child protection report. I do not accept the mother's denial. The mother initially said that she genuinely thought that the father had made a threat to take her life. She was then asked the following question:

I am going to suggest, [Ms Tevye], that if you had any genuine concern that the father was going to abduct [X] or kill you, you would have expressed that concern to the police at the time. Do you agree or disagree with that? ---Yes, I agree.

(Transcript 18 November 2025, p.32 lines 32 - 34)

I am satisfied that the mother never genuinely believed the allegation the father was going to kill her and/or abduct the child and that it was reported, despite her denial, for the sole purpose of generating a child protection report.

(h) It was put to the mother several times that her reasons for not returning to see Ms M was because she had a problem with Ms M. The mother denied the proposition and said it was the child who had the problem with Ms M. She was then shown an entry in the notes of Ms WW recording the mother's complaints about Ms M and only after further questioning admitting that it was because she had a problem with Ms M's ethics as well as the child's views of Ms M.

1. A witness gives an oath or affirmation to tell the whole truth, not part of the truth. A witness who tells part of the truth is as untruthful as one who tells a complete untruth. Taking all the evidence into account including the absence of any probative cross-examination, the father's denials, my findings that the mother was an unconvincing and unreliable witness and whose evidence I find was in parts untruthful, means I am not persuaded that the mother has discharged the burden of proof. It was the mother's case to prove, and I am not persuaded she has done so to the requisite standard. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the father engaged in psychological abuse of the mother or that he perpetrated family violence on the mother.
2. Nor do I accept the submission that post-separation the father engaged in a pattern of aggressive, hostile and threatening behaviour. In submissions, the mother's counsel was asked to identify the evidence to underpin the submission. The evidence was said to be found in Exhibits 89-92. Exhibits 89 and 90 are emails sent on 6 March 2018 while Exhibit 91 and 92 are emails sent by the father on 1 April 2020. I do not accept that several emails on one day in 2018 and other emails two years later constitutes a pattern of aggressive, hostile or threatening behaviour. Nor do I accept that other correspondence not referred to in submissions establishes that he engaged in a pattern of aggressive, hostile and threatening behaviour.
3. The father agreed in hindsight there were things he said that should not have been said. On at least two occasions he conceded that an assertion of contravention had no basis. It was not however established that at the time of making the assertion he knew it had no foundation. The bringing of an application for contravention or even the foreshadowing of it is neither improper or contrary to the Act or Rules of Court. It becomes improper when it is done for an improper purpose. I am not persuaded that the mother has established that it was done for an improper purpose.
4. In the context of the child's asserted fears and the mother's repeated assertion she has been subjected to family violence there is a disconnect between the child's relationship with the father as reported by the father and his partner up until about mid-2024 and that reported by the child to the single expert, the mother, and the child's treaters.
5. The father gave detailed evidence in his affidavit at paragraphs 38, 39, 178-187, 189-210 of the nature of his relationship with the child and his experience of them in his home. He reports that until July 2024 the child was:
   1. ...a gregarious, happy, bright, fun-loving and chatty little girl. She was intelligent, curious about the world, loved animals, and enjoyed imaginative play and stories. She had a creative flair, enjoyed playing outside, and was naturally social and outgoing with friends.
6. He did not observe them locking themself in their room. He says that he and his partner in 2024 started looking for a home to live in and that the child was excited about it, "especially those with interesting rooms for her, big back yards to play in, and if they had a pool" (affidavit, paragraph 83). He says of the child:
   1. During this time, I considered [X] to be a well-adjusted child who was thriving socially and academically, despite the ongoing conflict between her parents. I was not aware of the extent to which the Applicant had begun what I now understand to be "expert shopping" with [X], raising new allegations and involving her with a range of practitioners. It was during this period, in late 2023, that I first noticed [X] beginning to engage in skin-picking behaviour.
7. In cross-examination by the ICL, he described the child between 2018 and 2024 in the following terms:

In the period between 2018 and 2024, how would you describe [X] when she was with you? ---Very happy, content, precocious, fun-loving, into pranks, big humour, love to watch movies, that kind of child. Who's also very good academically in school, wants to do public speaking, be in drama. That's how she was.

(Transcript 21 November 2025, p.72 lines 1-5)

1. His partner was asked questions about her observation of the father's relationship with the child. She said she had never seen him yell at them nor had she seen the child afraid of him. She described a relationship where the child would come into their bedroom in the morning and "snuggle with her dad on her dad's side of the bed" and she said she saw the child reach "for her dad's hand and hold onto it" when they went on walks.
2. The father and his partner were not challenged on their evidence about the nature of his relationship with the child up to that point in time. I accept the father and his partner's account of his relationship with the child. I accept the observations of the single expert that the child's reactions to the father are disproportionate to the reported events (Report, paragraph 159). I am satisfied that as reported by health professional who took a more objective view such as Ms M and Ms U that the child's themes were like the mothers in detail and vocabulary.
3. I do not accept the mother's repeated assertions to numerous health professionals and others including the police that the child has been the victim of family violence perpetrated by the father. In that respect, I note Ms M reporting to the single expert the mother's view that the child was being traumatised while Ms M and Ms U did not perceive there were any actual risk of harm issues in the father's care.
4. I am not persuaded that the father engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour towards the child, or that he sexually or physically assaulted the child, or that the child has been the victim of family and domestic violence perpetrated by the father. I accept the opinion of the single expert expressed in paragraph 160 of her report that the child's rejection of the father is influenced by enmeshment with the mother, loyalty binds, and the father's lack of attunement.
5. The parties reached an agreement in 2018 by way of final consent orders that followed the allegations of sexual assault in 2016, and the report prepared by Dr UU in 2017 (Exhibit 4).
6. The mother contends in her factual findings that the father's method of communicating caused or contributed to interparty conflict post the making of the orders and caused a reluctance on the mother's part to communicate with the father about parenting issues. I am not persuaded that the totality of that characterisation is borne out by the evidence. The interparty conflict was well established prior to the making of the 2018 orders. In that respect, the single expert reports and I accept the child has been exposed to conflict for almost their entire life.
7. Dr UU observed as follows:

There can be little doubt that [X] has been well aware of her parents' ongoing discord and negative feelings for each other. As a toddler, her mother's attitude to her father would have influence her reported "wariness of" him, while of course any negative personal experiences with him would have had a similar effect.

However, their marked difficulties continue post separation, which would have been distressing for her. Her increasingly agitated behaviours at handovers in December 2015 could have arisen from the parental hostility to each other at these times, as well as from her very limited time with her father and the need to separate from him.

The couple relationship clearly became noxious to both of [X's] parents, with each blaming the other for the lack of support, kindness and understanding they experienced during their marriage. They have alleged the other has lied and perpetrated abusive behaviours and they remain severely fearful and/or intimidated by the other.

(Exhibit 4)

1. Dr UU under the heading, "Living Arrangements" stated:

In my opinion, the advantages to [X] of establishing a secure relationship with her father through regular, safe, nurturing time with him outweigh the significant disadvantages of markedly limiting or ceasing their time together.

To protect both [X] and [Mr Kirill] from further allegations he is a risk of harm to his daughter, it would be a wise precaution by [Mr Kirill] to spend time with [X] while [Ms VV] is nearby (ie not formally supervising them) until [X] is around eight years old.

1. I find the mother sought to misrepresent that last paragraph to various health professionals and others presenting the father as the risk when it was clear that Dr UU was concerned that the risk lay with her. I am satisfied that both parties contributed to the conflict but in different ways. I do not accept that the mother was reluctant to raise issues with the father but rather was intent on controlling the narrative. In that respect, I accept the observations of Ms M who saw the parties from June 2018. The single expert recorded her views as follows:
   1. ...It was not until June 2018 that agreement was made between the parents for [Ms M] to see [X], whom she saw on an ad hoc basis. [Ms M] reported that there was significant parental conflict from the outset in which [X] was caught in the middle of the psychological aggression - with [Ms Tevye] having her own trauma that affected how she parented and [Mr Kirill] would refer to [Ms Tevye] as "the mother" and could not refer to [Ms Tevye] by name.
   2. [Ms M] used a non-directive approach to therapy with [X] to give her space to talk about her feelings, however [Ms M] believed that [Ms Tevye] had given [X] an agenda and there was a constant need for [Ms Tevye] to direct the narrative of therapy. She recalled that "everything was an issue", including who owned the school uniform, and so her work included working with the parents on how this impacted on [X]. At times [Ms M] saw [Mr Kirill] and addressed issues such as how to talk about [Ms Tevye], needing to say hello at changeover, and how that impacted [X].
2. The mother continued with such a narrative and controlling conduct thereafter.
3. The mother contends that the father's proposals would expose the child to an unacceptable risk. As identified earlier, the mother does not submit that any aspect of family violence informs the submission of unacceptable risk. Until July 2024, the child was reporting to the mother and others suicidal ideation, was picking at their skin and harming themself. The single expert described the skin picking as a way by which the child managed their distress and was a coping mechanism. I accept that opinion. In relation to the suicidal ideation, the single expert opined that she did not believe the child ever had a plan or intent to carry out it but had some passive suicidal thoughts.
4. The evidence reveals that the child's suicidal ideation, the skin picking and self-harming subsided following the suspension of time in July 2024, albeit the mother's evidence is that there was a resurgence in November 2024, but it has not occurred in 2025 despite time resuming albeit in a very different configuration. There is clearly a risk that there may be a return to this behaviour if the child were placed in the father's care. Likewise, the single expert opined that there was a risk of a deterioration in the child's mental health by being placed in the father's care in circumstances where the report from Ms M indicates that the child's mental health is currently stable. Notwithstanding the alleged trauma that seems to be surrounding the child's relationship with the father, the child is and always has done well at school. The reasons for the disconnect are not entirely or adequately explained.
5. The evidence reveals the child has not engaged with the father or Ms ZZ in discussing what is described by various health professionals as their "big emotions". The expert agreed that there was a risk in the placement of the child in the father's care that there may be no-one with whom they could discuss these "big emotions" particularly in circumstances where they did not seem to be engaging in any meaningful way in therapy with Ms M or would on the father's case have a restricted relationship with the mother. A further risk is that if there is a deterioration in the child's mental health and where they are not discussing their feelings or emotions with the father or his partner, there is a risk it goes unnoticed and untreated. That said, the child has in the past engaged with the school counsellor and it seems assumed by all parties there will be available at their chosen high school a school counsellor.
6. Another risk of placement in the father's care identified by the mother's counsel is the child self-places either by running away and returning to the mother or running away from the father to some other location. There is evidence this is something that the child has referred to in the past. The single expert agreed that the child would be very angry with the father and his partner and may remain angry and rejecting of them for a significant period.
7. I accept that the above raise a risk of harm based on the father's proposals. It is impossible to quantify with any precision the likelihood of harm occurring but accept that it exists as a possibility. If any of the possibilities were to occur, then the magnitude of harm is high such that it would, in the absence of any ameliorating factors, be unacceptable.
8. I am however satisfied that there are ameliorating factors that move the risk from unacceptable to acceptable. In that respect, while the child is not engaging with Ms M, it is a regime that is in place and is supported by the father as opposed to how the mother responds to it. I accept the evidence of the father and his partner that there was until July 2024 a closeness in the relationship between the father and the child. Whilst the father has in the past erred in relation to his parenting responsibilities and acted on occasions inappropriately, on balance I am satisfied that the father does have the capacity to reflect and consider the interests of the child and is supportive of the child maintaining a relationship with the mother. I am satisfied that he and his partner are cognisant of the risks moving forward in relation to the proposals that they seek. I am satisfied that these ameliorating factors are such as to render the risk that does exist acceptable.
9. The father contends the child is at an unacceptable risk in the care of the mother. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes as identified by the single expert at paragraph 169 of her report that the mother does not support a meaningful relationship between the child and the father. I am satisfied that the mother has undermined any attempt at ongoing therapy as made clear in the evidence of Ms R. The report by Ms M to the single expert makes it clear that the mother brings the child to therapy through 'gritted teeth'. I am satisfied from the supervision reports that the mother has engaged the child in the litigation process and has used the child for her own purposes in the litigation.
10. The single expert opines that the loss of a meaningful relationship with a biological parent can cause the child long-term distress, identity confusion and interpersonal difficulties. In the mother's home, the child has an unbalanced view of the world which involves a complete rejection of the father. In that respect, I accept the evidence of the single expert that the rejection of the father reflects a coping mechanism rather than a response to a risk of harm.
11. In the primary care of the mother, the child is, as opined by the single expert, in an enmeshed environment that is psychologically harmful to her. The risks for the child moving forward are, as identified by the single expert, significant. They include reinforcing the child's current distorted belief structure that the father poses a risk of harm to them and which may, as opined by the single expert at paragraph 168, cause long-term harm to their psychological well-being, their identity formation and their understanding of family relationships and risks permanently severing their relationship with the father and the extended paternal family. In the absence of a meaningful relationship, the expert opines that the child will grow up believing the father is abusive and harmful and without an opportunity to test or challenge the narrative would further entrench a distorted view of their family history.
12. I am satisfied that the above risks of harm are present and are continuing to occur and the magnitude of harm to the child is high. The mother presents no ameliorating circumstance that will reduce the risk of harm. Reducing the father's time with the child is not an ameliorating circumstance but rather an exacerbating one. I am satisfied that leaving this child in the care of the mother is to expose the child to a continuing risk of harm which constitutes an unacceptable risk.
13. I address below such of the factors pursuant to s 60CC of the Act as are relevant to my determination and which have not otherwise been considered.

**s 60CC(2)(a) - what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

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

1. This has been addressed extensively above. I am satisfied that on balance the arrangement that promotes the safety of the child is one where they are in the father's primary care.

s 60CC(2)(b) - any views expressed by the child

1. The ICL submitted the Court should give significant weight to the child's views. I find that submission difficult to comprehend in circumstances where the child says they are afraid of the father and does not want to spend time with him but the ICL invites in submissions to conclude that there are no safety issues in relation to the child spending unsupervised time with the father and proposes orders contrary to the child's views for time on the first Sunday of each month unsupervised between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
2. In relation to the question of the child's views, the single expert reported as follows:
   1. The parental relationship has been marked by entrenched hostility, to which [X] has been repeatedly exposed. Both parents describe highly distressing handover experiences - [Ms Tevye] reporting [X] clinging to her, and [Mr Kirill] likening the changeovers to "prisoner exchanges." These accounts suggest an environment of emotional turmoil that has had a substantial impact on [X's] psychological development. [X's] presentation appears indicative of a history of maladaptive coping strategies to deal with the significant generalised anxiety and distress she is feeling in the context of the parental conflict, which she is acutely aware of, and has ultimately affected her relationships and views about her parents. There is no evidence to suggest a psychotic disorder or an eating disorder; and a diagnosis such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) may be considered if her mental health and environmental factors settle, and only then to be considered if broader patterns across settings are evident, as it would currently not be an accurate assessment given the history of trauma that [X] has experienced.
   2. [X] has stated that she no longer wants to have a relationship or contact with her father. She cites feeling fearful of her father in light of her experience of him being cruel and misattuned of her needs. [Mr Kirill] denies the allegations that he gave [X] the "silent treatment," restricted her diet, or physically assaulted her. Health professionals who have approached the case from a more systemic perspective have noted that [X's] emotional responses to her father appear disproportionate to the events described and they have not identified risk of harm from the father. [X] was also interviewed by DCJ and it appears that no substantiation of harm has been noted.
   3. I have spoken with [X's] school and several health professionals who have been involved with the family since the consent orders were made in 2018. Each therapist's brief has been different, all have raised concerns regarding [X's] emotional wellbeing, however their opinions differ as to the underlying factors contributing to her presentation. The nature of [X's] relationship with her mother and whether [X] has the capacity to independently engage in therapy in the manner that she has with therapists has been questioned. There are concerns noted by [Ms M], who saw the whole family, about an enmeshed relationship between [X] and her mother, as well as concerns raised by [Ms PP] and [Ms U] about [X] finding it difficult to form independent thoughts or express feelings that may differ from her mother, misinterpreting her father's behaviour, or disproportionately alarmed to minor parenting issues. Another area of concern raised has been [X's] use of language and whether certain expressions are developmentally appropriate or not. In my view, gifted children or children without siblings can exhibit mature language use, however, the use of terms such as "guilt tripping" at the age of seven is not typical for a child of that age and suggests external influence through conversations beyond her developmental level. Given the above, it is difficult to place significant weight on the views of those practitioners who have not considered the systemic and complex dynamics of this matter.

...

1. At 11 years of age, [X's] cognitive development is still characterised by concrete thinking. In the context of parental conflict, this can lead to oversimplified judgments such as one parent can be "all bad" and the other can be "all good" and she does not have a nuanced understanding of her family dynamics. Understandably, [X] is a young child whose distress is significant and she does not have the capacity to manage such turmoil - and she should not have to. [X] does not yet possess the maturity to comprehend the long-term implications of her expressed views as she relies on trusted adults (such as parents, teachers, and therapists) to help her challenge and consider alternative perspectives.

These above mentioned concerns raise the need for caution before attributing significant weight to her expressed wishes, particularly if there is no substantiated risk of harm in a parent's care.

1. I accept the single expert's opinion as to the weight to be given to the child's expressed views. As referred to earlier, I am satisfied that there is not a risk of harm to the child arising from the father's conduct and/or behaviour towards the child. I find that the child's stage of development "is still characterised by concrete thinking" and that the child does "not have a nuanced understanding of her family dynamics" nor does the child have "the maturity to comprehend the long-term implications of her expressed views" (Report, paragraph 157).
2. Ms M told the single expert that the mother has given the child a narrative and there was a need for the mother to direct the therapy. I accept that evidence. I also find that there is a strong enmeshment and the mother's views and feelings influence and impact negatively on the child and impede their ability to have an independent view of the father and that it would be difficult for the child to express a view or consider an alternative view of the father different to that held by the mother. For these reasons, while I recognise the child holds these views, I do not attribute significant weight to them.

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

1. The single expert describes the child as anxious, confused and traumatised. I accept that evidence. The single expert holds significant concerns for the child's mental health and the prognosis for their future wellbeing is poor if the current circumstances continue (Report, paragraph 152). The single expert describes the conflict the child has been exposed to, both before and after separation, as having had a "clear and cumulative impact on her psychological wellbeing" (Report, paragraph 152).
2. It is apparent from the evidence that a continuation of the current regime of time is inconsistent with the child's best interests. Consequently, I am satisfied that the child's psychological and emotional needs require a change in the way they have been parented to date. The child's developmental, psychological and emotional needs would ideally be met by having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents actively engaged in their life. The sad melancholic fact is the parents are incapable of co-parenting and consequently the outcome for this child is that they will have a relationship with one parent and a significantly lesser relationship with the other parent.

s 60CC(2)(d) - the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs

1. Each of the parents seek an order for sole decision-making responsibility. Neither parent nor the ICL proposes that there would be a continuation of shared decision-making responsibility.
2. The parents have no ability to co-parent. Thus, it inevitably follows that the parent who has primary care of the child will have sole decision-making responsibility.
3. Each of the parents are compromised in their capacity to provide for the child's needs. Each have contributed to the conflict that has led to them having a child who is traumatised.
4. I find the mother sees no value in the child having a relationship with the father and has actively undermined the child/father relationship. I do not accept the submission that the father's pattern of interacting with the mother caused or created in the mother a reluctance to communicate with the father about parenting issues as addressed earlier.
5. I have no doubt that the mother deeply loves her child. The single expert described her as a caring, attentive, and fiercely protective parent. I have no doubt that the mother provides for the child's practical needs. However, she is completely blinded when it comes to considering any benefit to the child in having a relationship with the father or any need on her part to encourage it.
6. The expert describes Ms M reporting the mother, whilst compliant with attending therapy sessions, brought the child through 'gritted teeth'. The single expert expressed that as an unsurprising conclusion. The evidence of Ms R, the court-ordered therapist, was that the mother, "is not interested or motivated to attend family therapy sessions nor to encourage the relationship between the daughter X and her father" (annexure to Ms R's affidavit filed 28 October 2025, p.7). I accept that evidence. To that end, the mother has failed to engage in the therapy the court ordered.
7. I accept the opinion of the single expert where she observed the mother does not support a meaningful relationship between the child and the father and could not outline any significant role that the father could or should have in the future.
8. I am satisfied that at least from the end of 2023 if not earlier the mother was focussed on gathering evidence for the purposes of suspending time between the child and the father which culminated in her letter to the father dated 15 July 2024 (Exhibit 59). To that end, the mother arranged for the child to see therapists without the father's knowledge and in breach of her parental responsibility obligations. The numerous attendances upon therapists and the encouraging of mandatory reports were done with the aim of ending the relationship. With the knowledge of what the child was reporting to her and the child's declining mental health, including reports of alleged suicidal ideation, the mother failed to contact the father. I reject entirely any notion that her failure to do so was protective or because of a fear of his reaction. I find that to be an artifice confected to justify her behaviour. Her conduct in not informing the father exposed the child to a continuing risk of harm of which he was entirely unaware and done entirely to suit her own ends.
9. The continuing narrative the child is exposed to in the mother's household is that the father is abusive and a risk of harm is destructive of and incompatible with the child's psychological and emotional needs. The risk of harm is not borne out by the evidence. I accept the single expert's evidence that the mother has imposed on the child a view that they are in danger which could have the effect of creating for the child a view that the world is a scary place and men are scary. I accept her opinion that this is detrimental for a child who already suffers some mental health difficulties. I also accept the evidence that this narrative of the father as abusive will impact on the child's ability to form, manage and have positive relationships with others. If the child is to have any chance to grow and develop into a functioning adult able to form trusting relationships, the narrative needs to change.
10. There is no evidence that the mother has any capacity to change this narrative. Indeed, the evidence is that when the narrative is questioned, the mother disengages from the therapy as she did with Ms M and Ms U.
11. The mother has engaged the child in evidence gathering for the purposes of the final hearing. The single expert described the extract in the supervision report where the supervisor reported the child saying they attended the supervised visits to ensure there was sufficient evidence as a "blatant example of intentionally involving the child for the purpose of gaining leverage" (Transcript 24 November 2025, p. 50, line 11-12). This conclusion accords with my own.
12. For the reasons referred to above and the evidence of the single expert, I am satisfied that the mother's capacity to provide for the child's psychological and emotional needs is so significantly compromised that she is unable to meet them.
13. That said, the father is no paragon of parenthood. The father has clearly contributed to the conflict and hostility that exists in the parental relationship. His correspondence with the mother written either by himself or sent on his instructions has been at times vitriolic. He disparaged the mother to Ms M and conceded in the witness box that things could have been done better or done another way. It should be to his great shame that he did not adopt such a view at the time of sending the correspondence.
14. The father has also at times acted insensitively and been unattuned to the child's needs. His conduct in ending the child's engagement with Ms XX and the school counsellor was thoughtless and lacked child focus. That said, I am satisfied that he generally has the capacity for reflective parenting, is not myopically focussed on excluding the mother from the child's life and has a greater insight to the importance and significance of the child having a relationship with both parents. I am also satisfied that he has an appreciation of the difficulties facing the child if his orders were made. He did not seek to minimise or downplay the difficulties the child will face. I am satisfied by a combination of the evidence in his affidavit and answers in cross-examination that he does have a realistic plan to manage the transition into his primary care.
15. I am satisfied that as between the father and the mother, the father has the greater capacity to provide for the child's needs.

s 60CC(2)(e) - the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child where it is safe to do so

1. There is no benefit to the child of a continuation of the existing regime. It has been productive of trauma and anguish for the child and must end.
2. Each of the parties and the ICL by the orders they seek see a benefit to the child of having some sort of relationship with the other parent axiomatically they would not seek such an order if they did not, unless of course they are disingenuous.
3. I am satisfied that it is to the benefit of the child to have a relationship with both of their parents and their extended family. The issue is having recognised that benefit what orders can be made to give effect to that benefit.
4. Whist the mother and ICL seek orders for the child to spend unsupervised time with the father, I have no confidence it would occur. The mother has provided no evidence for why unsupervised albeit limited time is in the child's best interest when a week earlier she sought supervised time and in evidence suggested that the child's safety required no time. It is apparent from Exhibit 81 that the mother is incapable of having the child attend on supervised visits. It would be naive to suddenly assume in those circumstances an order for unsupervised time would occur. One consequence of the orders of the mother and ICL could be applications for contravention and the perpetuation of conflict.
5. The mother and ICL also propose an order that the father be permitted to communicate with the child by sending gifts and letters. Assuming the gifts and letters were given to the child, the real concern is the message that would be conveyed. In that respect, I note the evidence of the single expert that the message the mother sends either overt or covertly is that the father is a dangerous person. I am not satisfied that messages or gifts as contemplated by the orders of the ICL and the mother enable the child to maintain a relationship with the father. It could quite possibly just reinforce the mother's narrative. In that respect, I note what Ms M reported to the single expert of the ways the mother interpreted the father's conduct where she says as follows:
   1. ...She opined that [Ms Tevye] could not entertain alternate possibilities to his behaviour, for example, if her father forgot to pack a snack, it was framed as covert and damaging behaviour, rather than an oversight. This was then interpreted as abusive behaviour by [Ms Tevye] which then [X] took on board - causing [X] distress.
6. It is entirely possible that the gifts and letters would be construed and presented to the child as a continuation of the mother's narrative of abuse.
7. I am satisfied that placing the child in the care of the father would ensure that the child maintains a relationship with both parents. I am satisfied the father would comply with an order to ensure the child maintained a relationship with the mother; it was not suggested to him that he would not. The transition for the mother from a supervised regime to an unsupervised regime would, as opined by the single expert, very much depend upon how the mother responds and conducts herself. However, I recognise placing the child in the care of the father will mean that the child's relationship with the mother will be significantly different including in all probability the relationship with the maternal grandmother and will be distressing to the child.

s 60CC(2)(f) - anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the case

1. There is no other matter not otherwise addressed that is relevant to the circumstances of this child.

1. In her Report, the single expert recorded the following:
   1. At the centre of this matter is whether the parents pose a risk of harm to [X], and if so, if and how that risk may be ameliorated to allow [X] to have the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents. It is however noted that it is very unlikely that the parents have the capacity to coparent given the longstanding history of this matter. To promote the safety and wellbeing of [X], her parenting arrangements should minimise her exposure to parental conflict by having changeovers at school or by a third party. [X] is in a critical stage of her development as she approaches adolescence and she should be placed in the primary care of the parent who is most likely to provide emotional stability, disengage from the conflict and refrain from exposing [X] to the conflict, promote her relationship with the other parent, and support her mental health needs by working collaboratively with health professionals to prevent any further psychological harm to [X].
2. By the time of her cross-examination, she agreed that the parties effectively presented the Court with a binary outcome; that is, live with the mother and supervised time with the father or live with the father and supervised time with the mother. Albeit I note the mother's orders changed by the time of submissions to move to less time but unsupervised.
3. I asked the single expert which of the two proposals presented the least risk for the child, which she answered as follows:

So the risk can be, I think, compartmentalised into various factors, though, because the risk in the current situation is that [X] won't have a relationship with the father. The mother has not encouraged that relationship. That is unlikely to change. Therefore, the attitude that the mother has about the father or as - as - general about men, if I can put it that way, is that that will then be imposed on [X] as well. That will then impact on their relationships and ability to form peer relationships and intimate relationships moving forward. The risk in the other situation is a little bit different - is that in the short term, yes, [X] will experience distress. It's unlikely that it won't be the case. But I think, in those circumstances, she - she probably won't - I mean, she - well, she - she won't be able to have a relationship with her mother, and that will be - she will be very angry about that. There will be a very angry response from [X], and I think that she may hold resentment about that. Yes, that might change over time, but we do not know. That is an unknown - how [X] will respond to that change in residency. And that is always a risk in these kind of matters when there's a change, about will the child settle or will the child deteriorate. [X] has, if I can put it, special needs because of the mental health of this child. So it requires the parent that has primary care of [X] to be able to engage with services that is going to support those mental health needs.

Well, if I look at the history---? ---Yes.

---and the - notwithstanding there has been an order for equal shared parental responsibility - that has been ignored, then the evidence is that the mother has not been able to - the mother thinks she has been dealing with it, but in reality she hasn't? ---I agree, and I think the engagement with services has been more about evidence-gathering for - for report purposes, and in this time, [X] has not been able to get the help that they need, which is a concern that that hasn't happened. You know, on the other hand, the father is not against therapy for the child, but he wants the child to engage appropriately with - with a service provider, and the service provider to then also engage with [X] and the family appropriately as well.

So that when I look at it, there's the long-term risks of not having a relationship at all with her father against short-term distress? ---Yes.

Possibly long-term resentment ---?---Yes.

---against her father for making her disengage from her mother, but she at least has the opportunity of a relationship with both parents? Yes.

Does it come down to simple as that, almost? ---Yes.

(Transcript 24 November 2025 p.70 line 19 - p.71 line 12)

1. I accept the evidence of the single expert.
2. The mother's counsel's submissions explaining the change from supervised to unsupervised time are absent an evidential foundation and consequentially carry no weight. I am not satisfied that the change in the mother's position represents any real change to the potential outcomes for the child. The mother sees no benefit in the relationship and has not been able to comply with supervised time. In those circumstances, it is disingenuous of her to propose unsupervised time.
3. The parties have no capacity to co-parent. Consistent with the single expert's opinion, the child needs to be placed with a parent who will:

(1) provide emotional stability;

(2) disengage from the conflict;

(3) refrain from exposing the child to the conflict;

(4) promote a relationship with the other parent; and

(5) support the child's mental health needs by working collaboratively with health professionals.

1. The ICL submits that the Court should make orders that the child live with the mother, that the mother have sole parental responsibility, but that orders should be made for the child to spend unsupervised time with the father between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm on the first Sunday of each month. The mother's final position adopted many of the orders proposed by the ICL and said time should also be unsupervised but occur on only four occasions a year for three hours.
2. The proposals of the mother and the ICL do not meet what the single expert opines the child needs. Their respective proposals do not lead to disengagement from the conflict; indeed, they are highly likely to lead to more conflict and litigation with potential applications for contravention when, given the history of noncompliance with orders for supervised time, unsupervised time does not occur. They place the child in the primary care of a parent who has no interest in promoting a relationship with the other parent. They do not address the long-term psychological risks for the child, and they place the child with a primary carer who will only support engaging with health professionals who agree with her view of the father as the perpetrator of family violence and an abuser. The proposal is the antithesis of what is in the child's best interest in exposing the child to an unacceptable risk of long-term harm.
3. The proposal of the father is one that on balance meets the requirements identified by the single expert. His proposal is more likely to lead to a disengagement from the conflict. It places the child in the primary care of a parent who is interested in promoting a relationship with the other parent. It addresses the long-term psychological risks for the child and places the child with a primary carer who will support engaging with health professionals to meet the child's mental health needs.
4. I accept the evidence of the single expert that it is not too late for the child. The single expert in her oral evidence opined as follows:

And to your mind, the way - I beg your pardon - to your mind the balance of risk for [X] lies in favour of changing her residence, even though that might create a short term problems for her? --- We do need to balance those risks, don't we, that - and I have noted that in my report that the risks are in the short term, she will experience distress in her father's care. But then she may then settled. However, if she remains in her mother's care, the status quo will remain. And then where does that leave her as a functional adolescent and adult moving forward with peers, with relationships, is my concern.

(Transcript 24 November 2025 p.63 lines 12-19)

1. I accept it will be distressing and stressful for the child and involve a significant change, but I have the confidence that the father will be able to deal with the change sensitively. Given the findings as to family violence and abuse, I accept the evidence of the single evidence that the child's rejection of the father is reflective of a coping mechanism. It will have the benefit of removing the child from an enmeshed environment that is psychologically harmful. I am satisfied that it is the only proposal that is in the child's best interests.
2. The single expert recommended that the mother's time will need to be supervised, and I accept that recommendation. The single expert said the following:

And it would only be after a period of supervision where the mother has essentially demonstrated that she can operate in a world when [X] lives with her dad?---Yes.

That then supervision might be lifted and something far more natural - - -?---Yes.

- - - might be able to happen?---Yes.

...

So does that mean that on the father's proposal - or, no, let's put it another way. Does that mean that if the court determined that she should live with her father, that time with her mother needs to be supervised?---That was the father's proposal, and I think that - - -

No, no, no, I'm asking - - -?---Sorry.

- - - you - - -?---Yes, it does

- - - does that mean - - -?---Yes.

- - - does that - is that the necessary consequence - - -?---Yes.

- - - of a change of residence - is that the mother's time should be supervised?---Yes.

And I presume, given that [X] has lived through this for the last decade or more, that it would be supervised indefinitely?---That would be - that would be necessary.

(Transcript 24 November 2025 p.42 lines 26-31; p.69 line 40 - p.70 line 9)

1. Given the expert evidence is that the mother's time will need to be supervised indefinitely, I propose to make such an order conscious as I am that such an order is not one usually made. However, the circumstances and the expert evidence demand it.
2. While I propose to adopt most of the father's orders, I am not satisfied that all the orders are appropriate. A period of six months before seeing the mother does not accord with the single expert's recommendation and is too long. The single expert proposed three months but I consider the child will miss the mother enormously so I will provide for a period of 10 weeks which enables the child to at least settle in the father's home but is not too long before resuming time with the mother.
3. The father proposed that the mother's time be limited to a minimum of two hours per fortnight on a supervised basis. The mother made no submissions about what the time should be if the Court made orders for the child to live with the father. I am not satisfied that two hours is sufficient for the child to spend with the mother and will provide a minimum of four hours. That provides an opportunity for the child to spend quality time with her mother without compromising the ability of a supervisor to ensure that no untoward statements are made about the father or that undermine the Court's orders. In considering the duration of the visits, I have had regard to the orders the mother proposed on a final basis which limited the child's time with the father to only three hours on a few occasions a year. I am satisfied that time with the mother should be longer and more frequent albeit supervised.
4. I do not propose to impose an order that if the child contacts the mother, then the moratorium period is extended as to do so would only punish the child. It may however be very relevant to any consideration in the future of any proposal moving the mother's time from supervised to unsupervised. The father sought orders that the mother engage with a therapist. I do not propose to make that order. Whilst I am confident that it would be to the mother's benefit to engage with an appropriately qualified objectively minded therapist, I do not intend to impose upon her such an order. In the event she does, then she is at liberty to provide to the therapist a copy of the single expert's report and a copy of the reasons for judgment. If she does, and she gains some insight into her behaviour and its consequences then it may be the first step in a long road to ensuring she can eventually play a positive role in what remains of her child's childhood.
5. I am satisfied that the above arrangements are ones that are in the best interests of the child.

1. The ICL sought an order that the parties share equally the costs of the ICL. The Act provides that each party pays their own costs, subject to the provisions of s 114UB(2) which permits the Court to make such orders as to costs as it considers just if there are circumstances which so justify. No one matter set out in s 114UB(3) of the Act is determinative. Section 114UC permits the making of an order for the costs of the ICL in such proportions as the Court determines.
2. The father made no submissions as to costs, while the mother's counsel suggested that the mother was exempt from paying filing fees. That does not provide her with an immunity from costs. I further note her Costs Notice makes clear she is not in receipt of legal aid.
3. The ICL played a significant role in the proceedings. No party sought their discharge, and I note the mother's Initiating Application sought the appointment of an ICL. I am satisfied that these circumstances justify an order that the parties meet the costs of the ICL and meet them equally.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-eight (198) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Schonell.