Vanchev & Vanchev (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 402 (19 June 2025)

1. I wish to compliment all counsel for the manner and spirit of cooperation in which the trial was conducted.
2. Regrettably for all parties, the trial proceeded over 21 days, despite a considerably shorter initial estimate of eight days of trial time. Cross-examination was protracted because there were five counsel appearing, and each witness was generally cross-examined by at least four counsel, and in the case of professional witness, by all five. It was difficult to coordinate the availability of five counsel for future listings of the part heard trial, and on some occasions one of the parties and/or counsel was unwell and therefore the trial could not proceed on the adjourned dates.
3. On the day the Family Report writer was due to be cross-examined, it became apparent that many relevant events had occurred between that date and the date of the previous Family Report prepared in December 2023 pertaining to X. All counsel involved in the proceedings concerning X acknowledged an updated Family Report would be required. There were difficulties with the availability of securing another assessment appointment and arranging a further date on which Ms C could be available to give evidence, as the long summer holidays were approaching.
4. One of the overseas witnesses had a sick child on the first occasion she unsuccessfully attempted to give evidence, which contributed to the delay. As the trial progressed, more witnesses became involved, including the current caregivers for X, all three of whom gave evidence in December 2024, and some interim issues required time including the choice of X's secondary schooling which commenced in 2025.
5. To alleviate the impact of the trial being part heard on multiple occasions, I ordered a daily transcript from the commencement of the proceedings until 5 December 2025, which was provided to each of the parties.

1. The following issues were the subject of dispute between the father and Ms Vanchev:

(a) The allocation of parental responsibility;

(b) With whom X should live;

(c) Whether the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to X;

(d) Whether Ms Vanchev presents an unacceptable risk of harm to X;

(e) If X lives with one party, whether they have capacity to promote and facilitate her relationship with the other party; and

(f) Whether X has been influenced by either party, and whether this has resulted in her becoming aligned with the father and rejecting of Ms Vanchev.

1. The following issues were the subject of dispute between the father and Ms Nemec:

(a) The allocation of parental responsibility;

(b) Whether the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to Y and Z;

(c) Whether there is a future risk of Y and Z being influenced by the father, and whether that may result in them becoming unduly aligned with the father;

(d) How the sibling relationships can be maintained, regardless of the outcome of parenting orders; and

(e) Whether the father should spend time with Y and Z and if so, whether it be supervised.

1. I will consider these issues in the context of the relevant statutory framework.

1. The father was born in 1976 in Country D and is aged 48. He has a son of a previous relationship, aged 27 years, who resides in Country D.
2. Ms Vanchev was born in 1980 and is aged 44. She was born in Country E and identifies as Indian in terms of her ethnicity. The father and Ms Vanchev married in 2010 and their child, X, was born in 2012. They separated on 14 February 2015, when X was two years old, and divorced in 2018.
3. Ms Vanchev first made allegations of the fathers sexually inappropriate behaviour and family violence in 2015, when X was two years old. These allegations included the father lying in the bath naked with X on top of him, X playing with her father's penis and calling it 'ding dong', threatening to kill Ms Vanchev, and perpetrating sexual violence against her.[1] Child protection undertook an investigation and assessment in March 2015 shortly after separation. In March 2023, child protection received a secondary report in relation to X's safety and wellbeing while in the care of father.
4. In March 2015, the father-initiated parenting proceedings for the care of X. Final parenting orders pertaining to X were made by consent on 18 March 2016 ("the 2016 orders") inter alia for the parents to have equal shared responsibility for X, X live with Ms Vanchev and spend significant and substantial time with the father. X was also placed on the airport watch list.
5. In 2017 or 2018, Ms Vanchev requested the father agree to her taking X to Country E to visit the maternal grandfather, who was terminally ill. Because the parties were unable to reach agreement about international travel, Ms Vanchev subsequently filed an Initiating Application seeking to vary the 2016 orders to permit X to travel to Country E with her.
6. Interim orders were subsequently made by consent allowing Ms Vanchev and X to travel to Country E for a period of two days, which they did in January 2019. At the final hearing in 17 March 2020, final orders were made by consent for a shared care arrangement of X, and she was removed from the airport watch list ("the March 2020 orders").
7. After final orders were made in March 2020, Ms Vanchev deposes to observing changes in X's behaviour after spending time with her father,[2] which included amongst other things:

(a) Coming home from the father's house, rolling up in a ball on her bed, and complaining of a sore stomach;

(b) Returning home with dark circles under her eyes, dirty nails, unclean hair and clothes;

(c) Making comments that she must be happy when she sees her father, or he will take her toys away;

(d) Hiding behind chairs saying she was scared;

(e) Running away from Ms Vanchev's home after returning from spending time with the father during the January 2023 school holidays;

(f) Alleging she wasn't safe with Ms Vanchev, and the father had told her to go to the neighbours to call him so he could pick her up from Ms Vanchev's home;

(g) Refusing bedtime stories and nighttime prayers;

(h) Gaining 10kgs in a short space of time;

(i) Often hitting her mother after spending time with her father, before apologising and saying she didn't know why she acted like that;

(j) Biting the skin around her fingers until they were raw and scratching at her face and body until she drew blood;

(k) No longer permitting Ms Vanchev to hug her; and

(l) Becoming "very curious" about her body, including using a hand mirror to look at her vagina, watching herself naked in the mirror, pouring water on her vagina while in the bath stating it was 'nice', and using a shower head on her vagina.[3]

1. Subsequent to the March 2020 final orders, time generally proceeded pursuant to the orders. During this period, however, various reports were made to child protection raising concerns about X in the care of both her parents.
2. In March 2023, Ms Vanchev ceased time between X and the father due to allegations of family violence and sexual abuse perpetrated by the father. On the same day, Ms Vanchev applied for an Intervention Order against the father, which was granted in March 2023 and expired in mid-2025. In her trial affidavit, Ms Vanchev asserts that in March 2023, she was advised by DFFH that all time between X and the father should be suspended pending investigation. The father emphatically denies any allegations that he abused X.
3. In March 2023, X was interviewed by the Sexual Offence and Child Abuse Investigation Team ("SOCIT") relating to alleged sexual abuse of X and her younger stepsister, Y perpetrated by the father. No disclosure constituting a criminal act was made, and there was insufficient information to constitute a criminal offence. Of this interview, the Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) states:

...During this interview [X] did talk about how her mother and stepmother have been hurt by her father and that he has done bad things but did not elaborate on these statements. [X] stated she is worried her father won't change. [X] did disclose she and [Mr Vanchev] get into the hot tub without clothing, because [Mr Vanchev] has told [X], 'if we wear our bathers the detergent from washing them can make bubbles and this will break the hot tub'. [X] advised they sit next to each other and watch YouTube videos together and watch the sun set. [X] disclosed that after her shower [Mr Vanchev] placed the massage gun between her legs near her vagina, but not close and this made her feel a little bit uncomfortable, and it vibrated but she didn't get upset... [X] identified her mother, [Ms Vanchev] and her teacher has [sic] her safe people. [X] has disclosed that her father walks around the home and sits on the couch without clothing on. [X] informed Child Protection when seeing her father without clothing has made her feel a bit scared.[4]

1. X was again interviewed by child protection in April 2023 in the company of Ms Vanchev. The Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) states:

...[X] appeared to be very emotional at the commencement of the interview an [sic] immediately began to cry asking when she would be able to see her father... During the interview [X] identified there were some things about [Mr Vanchev] that she didn't think she would be safe with him. [X] identified that "[Mr Vanchev] has done bad stuff to people". [X] did not extend on this comment. [X] spoke about her not understanding why people think it is concerning of her going into the hot tub with her father 'chillin with no clothes on'. [X] spoke of the reason why this happens is because 'if you go into the hot tub with your bathers the soap gets too bubbly and can get broken' and her father told her this. [X] confirmed, 'you can only go in there with no clothes on'. [X] spoke of other times she sees her father without clothing when walking from the shower to his bedroom or sitting on the couch watching YouTube on his phone. [X] confirmed she would be sitting on the couch watching Peppa Pig at this time... When asked [X] spoke of feeling a bit scared when seeing her father without clothes on.

[X] spoke of the time her father placed a massage gun on her thigh, [X] described the feeling as a vibration and not feeling comfortable. [X] spoke of a time she felt unsafe with [Mr Vanchev] when he threw a cardboard box at [Y] hitting her and causing a bruise to her face. [X] identified a time when her father becomes angry over [Y] or [Z] not eating their food and her father pushing [Z]'s highchair and throwing a glass bowl.[5]

1. The father filed an Initiating Application on 18 April 2023 in relation to parenting matters, seeking to reinstate X's time with him. The matter was listed for hearing on 23 May 2023 and the matter was subsequently referred to the Magellan List.
2. On 13 June 2023, the father commenced spending supervised time with X for up to five hours each week, and on 21 August 2023 the father began unsupervised time with X for three days per fortnight.
3. On 29 July 2023, before Ms Vanchev left the house to take X to see her father, she alleges she noticed X was hiding something in her pants. When asked what she was hiding, X pulled out a letter from the Child Support Agency that Ms Vanchev had left on the dining table. Ms Vanchev deposes to her suspicions that X was intending to give the letter to the father during the supervised visit.[6]
4. Ms Vanchev deposes that upon picking X up from spending time with her father on 26 November 2023, X would not speak to her and immediately showered and hid her underwear in a bookcase behind toys after arriving home. The same night, X wet the bed, which was unusual for her. When Ms Vanchev asked X why she had hidden her underwear, she said she did not know, but appeared panicked they had been found. Ms Vanchev noticed a "brownish discharge" and "a very strong sour smell". [7] Child protection received a report of same on 29 November 2023.
5. On 19 December 2023, approximately 11 days after the first Family Report in MLC4016/2023 was released, Ms Vanchev received a call from Ms F, a worker from child protection, who advised her she had seen X at school that day, and X had disclosed things that required investigation. According to the DFFH Response pursuant to s 69ZW Order (Exhibit DFFH-3), one of the disclosures was that "[Ms Vanchev] had touched her vagina and it hurt... it happened on her bed and was over clothing but denied [Ms Vanchev] going inside her vagina".[8] When Ms Vanchev picked X up from school, X did not mention the visit from child protection, however, she wet the bed that night.[9]
6. In December 2023, two child protection workers and two police officers attended Ms Vanchev's home, advising that a report had been made, and they were investigating X's behaviour when she returns from the father's home. As X was not home, the police officers left, however, the child protection workers stayed to ask Ms Vanchev questions. In Ms Vanchev's affidavit of 12 April 2024, she deposes they asked her the following:

(a) If she had ever set the pet cat on fire with a lighter;

(b) If she had ever put the cat under the bedcovers to suffocate her;

(c) Whether she had made X say that her dad hit her sister with a carton;

(d) If she had touched X's vagina on two occasions, once in her bed and once on the couch;

(e) If she had ever run over X with her car; and

(f) If she had ever made X undergo lice treatment when she does not have lice.

1. Child protection received a further report in January 2024 that X had disclosed Ms Vanchev had been perpetrating sexual abuse towards her since November 2023, which occurred at night in her bedroom, and that Ms Vanchev had digitally penetrated her.[10] This disclosure differed from the previous disclosure when X alleged Ms Vanchev had touched her vagina over clothing.
2. In February 2024, child protection contacted the father and Ms Vanchev to advise them X had made disclosures against Ms Vanchev, and it was requested that Ms Vanchev arrange for alternative accommodation for X while an investigation took place. During this period, X stayed in the care of one of Ms Vanchev's friends, and the father continued to spend unsupervised time with X.
3. X was subsequently interviewed by SOCIT in February 2024 in Suburb G, and a Video and Audio Recorded Evidence (VARE) ('VARE tape') was recorded (Exhibit ICL-1). During this interview, X disclosed that Ms Vanchev had hit her with a car, hit her with a hairbrush, almost hit her with a fry pan, touched her vagina multiple times over clothes and digitally penetrated her vagina, called her a "fat bitch" and said untrue things about her father. On the same day, Ms Vanchev was contacted by a member of Victoria Police who advised her that an interim Intervention Order had been made against her by Victoria Police, listing X as a protected person.
4. On 8 February 2024, following X's first SOCIT interview, Ms Vanchev filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking that X live with her.
5. In February 2024, Ms Vanchev was interviewed by SOCIT at Suburb G Police Station. On that day she filed an Amended Application in a Proceeding, which no longer sought that X live with her.
6. In February 2024, pursuant to s 162(e) and (d) of the Child Youth and Families Act 2005 (Cth), child protection substantiated that the father had failed to protect, or was likely, or is likely to cause both emotional and sexual harm to X.[11]
7. In February 2024 the DFFH intervened in the proceedings and orders were made by a Senior Judicial Registrar for X to live where DFFH directs, the father to spend supervised time with her for three hours per week, therapeutic intervention for X, and Ms Vanchev to spend supervised time with X at times and places as agreed with DFFH. Since this date, X has not had contact with Ms Vanchev, in accordance with X's supposed wishes.
8. The father filed a Response on 22 April 2024 seeking that X live with him.
9. X commenced living with Mr & Mrs H ("the H's") on 23 May 2024. The H's agreed to care for X until the recommencement of the part heard trial on 21 October 2024. This placement was extended to December 2024. Thereafter, X has been living with Ms K, Ms J and Mr L ("the L's") in a kinship placement organised by DFFH.
10. The trial commenced before me on 6 May 2024.

1. Ms Nemec was born in Country M in 1985 and is aged 39. She moved to Australia in late 2011, and commenced a relationship with the father in March 2017. In 2019 their child, Y, was born. The parties second child, Z, was born in 2021.
2. In her trial affidavit Ms Nemec sets out the history of their relationship in the context of her allegations about the father's longstanding behaviour, which she characterises as sexually inappropriate. It must be emphasised that the father strenuously denies Ms Nemec's version of events about his interactions with various women who visited from Europe and/or were engaged by the couple to provide assistance with their business or were engaged as au pairs to assist the family.
3. A week after the father and Ms Nemec met, she alleges that the father secretly set up his phone on bedroom furniture and recorded them having sex. Ms Nemec deposes to feeling "disgusted", stating "[the father] did not respect my opinion and continued to film our intimate moments".[12]
4. Ms Nemec deposes that early in the relationship, the father told her Ms Vanchev was extremely abusive, cheated on him, and stole his savings. As a result, she began paying for the father's food, clothes, rent, and legal fees in the proceedings between him and Ms Vanchev.[13]
5. In late 2017, the father's cousin, Ms N, visited Australia from Country D. Ms Nemec alleges that after five days of living with her and the father, Ms N left due to the father's inappropriate sexual behaviour towards her. This is denied by the father.[14]
6. In early 2018, one of Ms Nemec's friends, Ms O, travelled to Australia from Country M to visit. Shortly into her stay, she told Ms Nemec she was not comfortable staying in the father's home due to his inappropriate behaviour, and she moved out of their home. The father denies he behaved inappropriately towards Ms O.[15]
7. Ms Nemec travelled to Country M in mid-2018 to visit her family, without telling the father she had purchased a ticket, as she contends she feared he would try and stop her. She deposes that approximately three days into the trip she began receiving messages from the father stating, "you're there seeing someone, you're a slut",[16] which continued throughout the duration of the trip. Upon her return to Australia, the father picked her up from the airport and became so angry on the way home he said words to the effect of "I am going to leave you on the side of the road".[17] The father did not specifically deny this allegation in his affidavit.
8. In late 2018, the father engaged Ms P, a young au-pair from Country Q, to work for the family. After two weeks, Ms Nemec alleges Ms P came to her crying and said, "when I was washing the dishes in the kitchen [the father] came from behind and grabbed my bum".[18] She had her bags packed, and asked Ms Nemec to take her to the train station that day. Since then, Ms Nemec has not heard from her despite her attempts to make contact. The father denies any inappropriate behaviour.
9. In 2018, Ms Nemec suffered a knee injury and began seeing a physiotherapist. She deposes the father became extremely jealous of the physiotherapist and accused her of having an affair with him. She alleges the father made her change physiotherapists to a much older person and forced her to have sex with him before each appointment.[19] This is denied by the father.
10. In December 2018, Ms Nemec prepared an affidavit in support of the father in his previous family law proceedings with Ms Vanchev. She deposes that they wrote the affidavit together, she wrote what he told her to, and she was afraid how he would treat her if she did not cooperate. Prior to separating from the father, Ms Nemec deposes to witnessing the father telling X how to act, and what to do during the Family Report interview such as "don't show any affection and love to [Ms Vanchev], don't engage with any activities she will try to pick for you, you need to pretend to be scared of her when she raises her hand or when she gets too close to you".[20] This is denied by the father.
11. In late 2019, Ms Nemec deposes that a woman named Ms R contacted the father after she saw a Facebook post advertising a babysitter/farm hand role. After seven days with the family, Ms R left. According to Ms Nemec, this was because the father made her feel uncomfortable.[21] This is denied by the father.
12. In early 2020, the father and Ms Nemec engaged an au-pair from Country D named Ms S. At the same time, Ms Nemec's friend, Ms T, travelled to Australia to visit the family. Ms Nemec alleges the father was sexually inappropriate with Ms T and deposes to witnessing the father tell her to sunbake naked in the garden and pull her hair before whispering in her ear. Ms T allegedly told Ms Nemec the father had touched her private areas, she was uncomfortable, and couldn't wait to leave. Subsequently, both Ms S and Ms T left the family home.[22] This version of events is denied by the father.
13. In early 2020, the father engaged two backpackers from Country UU to work for the family. Ms Nemec alleges he said to them words to the effect of "are you lesbians?", and they ended up leaving after approximately two days. The father denies asking whether they were lesbians, but admitted he asked them if they were in a relationship.[23]
14. In mid-2022, Ms V and her mother Ms W travelled to Australia to visit the family. After spending a few weeks in Australia, Ms W travelled back to Country M and left Ms V in the care of Ms Nemec and the father for the rest of the holiday. At the time, Ms V was 12 years old. Ms Nemec deposes to observing the following events whilst Ms V was in their household:[24]

(a) She saw the father in the spa wearing nothing but a G-string, holding Ms V's feet on his penis. When Ms V saw Ms Nemec, she immediately moved her legs;

(b) The father put a camera in Ms V's bedroom and pointed it at her bed. When Ms Nemec repositioned the camera, the father moved it back and told her not to touch it again; and

(c) During the last week of her holiday in Australia, Ms V constantly wanted to be in the presence of Ms Nemec. She assumed it was because she missed her mother, but now believes it was because she was afraid to be alone with the father.

1. When these allegations were put to the father by counsel for Ms Nemec during cross-examination, he denied these events ever took place, stating they were "lies".[25]
2. Ms Nemec deposes that in approximately October or November of 2022, she witnessed the father place a vibrating massage gun on X's vagina when she was sitting on the sofa and asked her how it felt.[26] I note that in Exhibit DFFH-2, referred to above, X herself told DFFH the father had placed a massage gun between her legs near her vagina, but not close. Ms Nemec also asserts the father showed X a rubber penis and vagina and explained how they worked. Both allegations are vehemently denied by the father.
3. The maternal grandmother, Mrs AG Nemec, travelled to Australia to visit the family in late 2022. During this visit, while she was washing dishes, Ms Nemec alleges the father went up behind her and pulled her pants and underwear down in view of the maternal grandmother. Ms Nemec deposes to telling the father "No, stop doing that" to which he responded "no let's have a naked Sunday, it's fun" before he became angry when she tried to pull her pants up.[27] The maternal grandmother also deposed to that incident in her affidavit[28] and was not challenged about it during cross-examination.
4. Ms Nemec deposes that on 21 March 2023, she felt unwell and did not want to have sex with the father. Subsequently, the father told Ms Nemec she was disgusting and began to pull down family pictures from the wall and throw them outside, stating he could not look at them anymore. Ms Nemec alleged the father hit her with a moving box when she tried to talk to him. During the argument, Ms Nemec deposes Y was covering her ears, and the father said words to the effect of "I will smack your head so hard your hands will fly away if you cover your ears one more time".[29] At 9.15pm that night, Ms Nemec sent an email to her friend, Ms AA, asking for help. Ms AA made a report to DD Authority who then made a report to Victoria Police.
5. In March 2023, Victoria Police arrived at the home and removed the father. The father left his mobile phone at home. In her trial affidavit, Ms Nemec deposes that in a panic, she deleted an album from the father's phone containing naked pictures and videos of herself, as she was fearful the father would send them to other people. She also deleted Facebook messages between herself and the father, and footage of her removing cameras which the father had installed inside the house. Ms Nemec also called Ms Vanchev and advised her to pick X up from school. The father and Ms Nemec officially separated on 23 March 2023.
6. The day after the parties separated, Y and Z's pony was found dead in the paddock.[30]
7. After the father was taken to the police station in March 2023, Ms Nemec asserts she contacted Ms W, to advise her of what had transpired, and encouraged her to talk to her daughter Ms V about her time in Australia, and report anything untoward to the police. Ms W called her the next day, and Ms Nemec asserts that Ms V had disclosed the following events whilst she was in their home:[31]

(a) Whilst in the spa, the father asked her if she had been kissed before, if she knew how to kiss, and offered to teach her;

(b) While Ms Nemec had been out of the house shopping, the father took Ms V to the bathroom, pulled down his pants and started to touch his penis until he got an erection and explained to her "this is how a penis looks when it is hard" and asked her to touch it; and

(c) The father had shown Ms V pornographic videos in the horse stables.

1. Ms W did not swear an affidavit in the proceeding, and the father denied any such allegation.
2. An Intervention Order was made against the father in early 2023, listing Ms Nemec, Y, and Z as protected persons. In her Outline of Case, Ms Nemec refers to a long history of family violence, coercive control, and sexually inappropriate behaviour in her relationship with the father and asserts the children are at unacceptable risk of harm in his care.
3. On 29 April 2023, the father filed an Initiating Application for parenting matters pertaining to Y and Z. Ms Nemec filed a Response on 3 May 2023.
4. Orders were made on 21 August 2023 by a Senior Judicial Registrar for Y and Z to spend supervised time with the father every Saturday for three hours, with the first visit to occur on 28 August 2023.
5. Ms Nemec deposes that the day prior to the first supervised spend time visit, Y's teacher called her to advised that Y had wet her pants twice and was crying. According to Ms Nemec, on the day of the first visit Y woke up with a sore stomach, did not eat her breakfast, and was very quiet. After the visit, Ms Nemec deposes Y said words to the effect of "Mummy, X was telling me you are not the best mummy, but lady supervisor said stop X".[32]
6. The trial commenced before me on 6 May 2024. To date, time between the father, Y, and Z has continued to be supervised per the orders of 21 August 2023.

1. On 21 February 2025, the father's solicitor provided to my Chambers two Minutes of Proposed Final Orders, which sets out the final orders he seeks for X, and for Y and Z. In respect of X, the father seeks sole responsibility for major decision making, for X to live with him, and spend time and communicate with Ms Vanchev in accordance with her wishes. Regarding Y and Z, the father seeks joint decision-making responsibility about major long-term issues, the children live with Ms Nemec and spend gradually increasing time with him. These Minutes of Proposed Orders are Annexure A1 and A2 to these reasons.

1. The father relied upon the following documents:

(a) Amended Initiating Application of the father filed 14 March 2024;

(b) Amended Initiating Application of the father filed 21 March 2024;

(c) Magellan Reports dated 5 July 2023;

(d) Affidavit of Mr BB filed 8 August 2023;

(e) Affidavit of Ms CC filed 8 August 2023;

(f) Subpoena, DD Authority, filed 10 August 2023;

(g) Affidavit of Mr EE filed 15 August 2023;

(h) Affidavit of Ms FF filed 31 August 2023;

(i) Affidavit of Ms FF filed 22 February 2024;

(j) DFFH s 69ZW Response dated February 2024;

(k) Trial affidavits of the father filed 14 March 2024 and 21 March 2024;

(l) Affidavit of Mr EE filed 11 April 2024;

(m) Affidavit of Mr GG filed 12 April 2024;

(n) Family Reports dated 6 December 2023 and 13 February 2025;

(o) Outline of Case document filed 1 May 2024; and

(p) Documents tendered by counsel, including documents produced pursuant to subpoena.

1. Prior to the finalisation of the trial, Ms Vanchev's counsel provided my Chambers with a Minute which sets out the final orders she seeks. The Minute of Proposed Orders are Annexure B to these reasons. She seeks sole decision-making responsibility for all major long-term issues for X, X live with her and spend no time with the father.

1. Ms Vanchev relied upon the following documents:

(a) DFFH Magellan Report for MLC4016/2023 dated 5 July 2023;

(b) Affidavit of Ms HH filed 25 January 2024;

(c) DFFH s 69ZW Response dated February 2024;

(d) Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 12 April 2024;

(e) Trial affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024;

(f) Family Reports of MLC4016/2023 dated 6 December 2023 (first family report) and 13February 2025 ('second family report');

(g) Outline of Case document filed 1 May 2024; and

(h) Documents tendered by counsel, including documents produced pursuant to subpoena.

1. Prior to the commencement of the trial, Ms Nemec filed an Amended Response to Final Orders on 4 April 2024 which sets out the final orders she seeks. These proposed orders are Annexure C hereto, however, are formulated pursuant to the old legislation. She seeks sole parental responsibility for Y and Z, the children live with her, and the children spend no time with the father.

(a) Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 4 April 2024;

(b) Trial affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024;

(c) Affidavit of Mrs AG Nemec filed 9 April 2024;

(d) Affidavit of Ms JJ filed 9 April 2024;

(e) Affidavit of Ms AA filed 15 April 2024

(f) Affidavit of Ms HH filed 8 February 2024;

(g) Affidavit of Dr LL filed 2 May 2024;

(h) Family Report of MLC4122/2023 dated 6 December 2023 (family report);

(i) DFFH Magellan Report for MLC4122/2023 dated 5 July 2023 (Exhibit DFFH-2);

(j) Outline of Case document filed 2 May 2024; and

(k) Documents tendered by counsel, including documents produced pursuant to subpoena.

1. On the last day of trial, the Independent Children's Lawyer provided to my Chambers two Minutes of Final Proposed Orders relating to all three children. The proposed Minutes are Annexure D1 and D2 respectively, and are attached hereto.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer proposes that orders be made for X, so that the father have sole decision making for the long-term major issues regarding X, she live with the father and spend time with Ms Vanchev according to her wishes.
3. In relation to Y and Z, the Independent Children's Lawyer proposes Ms Nemec have sole decision making for the long-term major issues in relation to the children, they live with Ms Nemec, and spend supervised time with the father.

Documents relied upon by the Independent Children's Lawyer

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer relied upon the following documents in relation the father and Ms Vanchev:

(a) Child Impact Report of Mr KK dated 5 July 2023;

(b) DFFH Magellan Report in MLC4122/2023 dated 5 July 2023 (Exhibit DFFH-2);

(c) Dr BB's Psycho-sexual Report of the father dated 28 July 2023;

(d) Ms HH's psychological assessment report of Ms Vanchev dated 2 October 2023

(e) DFFH s 69ZW Report (Ms F) dated February 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-3);

(f) Family Contact Access Reports dated August 2023 and April 2024;

(g) Family Reports of Ms C dated 6 December 2023and 13 February 2025;

(h) Principal Practitioner Cumulative Harm Review (Ms MM) dated 2 May 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-4);

(i) Outline of Case document filed 2 May 2024; and

(j) Documents tendered by counsel, including documents produced pursuant to subpoena.

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer relied upon the following documents in relation the father and Ms Nemec:

(a) DFFH Magellan Report dated 5 July 2023 (Exhibit DFFH-2);

(b) Dr BB's Psycho-sexual Report of the father dated 28 July 2023;

(c) First Family Report dated 6 December 2023 (Vanchev & Vanchev);

(d) Ms HH Psychological Report of Ms Nemec dated 22 January 2024; and

(e) Mr EE - Family Contact Access Supervision Report dated April 2024.

1. On 21 October 2024, the day scheduled for the resumption of the part heard trial, and after six days of evidence, counsel for the DFFH made an oral application to the Court, proposing the proceedings pertaining to X be transferred to the Children's Court of Victoria ("the Children's Court") to enable final implementation of the DFFH's proposal for X to be gradually placed in the permanent care of the father. The DFFH sought a family preservation order with conditions for a 12-month period, under the relevant state legislation, rather than a determination by this Court at the conclusion of the trial.
2. Despite the statements in the report of Ms F (dated February 2024 and Exhibit DFFH-3), that course of action was proposed because of the recommendations of a DFFH Principal Practitioner, Ms MM, contained in the Cumulative Harm Review dated 2 May 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-4), psychiatric assessments of the father and Ms Vanchev completed by Dr NN, the Take Two reports in which X expressed a desire to live with the father, and the breakdown of the kinship placement between Mr & Mrs H and X.
3. I refused the application to transfer the proceedings to the Children's Court as it would have been both an abrogation of my legislative obligations and a delegation of my judicial decision making. The trial before me proceeded to its ultimate conclusion.
4. On the last day of trial, counsel for the DFFH provided to my Chambers a Final Minute of Proposed Orders relating to X. The proposed Minute is Annexure C to these reasons. In summary, the DFFH's proposal largely mirrors that of the Independent Children's Lawyer whereby X lives with the father and spends time with Ms Vanchev in accordance with her wishes.

1. The DFFH did not file an Outline of Case, so it is unclear which documents they sought to rely upon other than those documents tendered by counsel, including documents produced pursuant to subpoena.

1. The following documents were tendered during the course of the trial:

Five photos of Ms AA's horses, and text messages sent 18 November 2022.

Email chain between Ms OO and lawyers for the parties (Vanchev & Vanchev) between 23 September and 8 October 2024.

Text messages between the father and Ms JJ, and corresponding translation.

Marked for identification. Text of Saturday 12 October from Ms PP.

VARE of X dated February 2024. Suburb G SOCIT, tendered by consent.

Updated report from Dr LL (Ms Nemec's psychologist).

List of two psychotherapists - email from the ICL.

Letter/report to the Court dated 2 May 2024 from Ms F.

Magellan Report for MLC4122/2023 dated 5 July 2023 (Ms RR).

1. The standard of proof in this case is the balance of probabilities (s 140 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)).
2. Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides:

(1) In a civil proceeding, the court must find the case of a party proved if it is satisfied that the case has been proved on the balance of probabilities.

(2) Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:

(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and

(b) the nature of the subject- matter of the proceeding; and

(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.

1. The father, Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec relied upon their respective affidavits. The affidavits exhaustively recounted the history of the parties' relationship. I have examined that evidence and do not propose to repeat it in these reasons.
2. The factual controversies between all parties were numerous. I am not obliged to resolve every factual dispute or issue raised by the parties. In Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48; (2003) 200 ALR 447 at [62], Gleeson CJ, McHugh and Gummow JJ said this:

...A judge's reasons are not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by the losing party as relevant to an issue. Judgments of trial judges would soon become longer than they already are if a judge's failure to mention such facts and arguments would be evidence that he or she had not properly considered the losing party's case.

1. The father gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. During cross-examination he engaged in positive impression management and his explanations of events were often unconvincing. He vehemently denied all allegations levelled against him, instead suggesting that anything contrary to his interests had been made up by X or had been made up by Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec conspiring against him. Conversely, he readily accepted anything negative X said about Ms Vanchev to be true. He often sought to minimise his behaviour, such as his reluctance to accept his messages to Ms JJ, "legs behind the neck and boom", and "naked bum and always fun" had sexual connotations, rather characterising them as "funny jokes". Further, when counsel for the father put to Ms JJ during cross-examination the reason why the father had spread his legs and exposed his penis to her in the garage was because he was "bow legged as a result of an injury", the father did not correct him that this injury was caused several years after Ms JJ had left Australia.
2. As identified in the Magellan report (Exhibit DFFH-2), after initially speaking to child protection about being in the hot tub naked with X, the father then changed his story to wearing boxer shorts. That evidence is contradictory to X's comments to child protection that she had been naked in the spa with her father, and she did not understand why that should be considered inappropriate.[33] During cross-examination, the father denied to one counsel he had told X she could not wear bathers in the spa because of detergent, and that X had been coached by Ms Vanchev. To another counsel, he said he didn't remember saying that to X.
3. The father also sought to explain to child protection he had purchased the women's G-strings as a result of a "saddle burn injury" six months prior, and when asked why he was wearing them around the family home, he explained he was "playing dress ups in his bedroom".[34] No explanation was recorded why he felt the need to do so. He sought to portray himself as the victim of a calculated conspiracy conjured up by Ms Nemec and Ms Vanchev, to diminish the allegations levelled against him. It was difficult to accept his myopic view of the various events, and his self-justification. For these reasons, where there is a factual dispute between the applicant and respondent mothers, I generally prefer the evidence of the respondent mothers. It is also worth observing the father's counsel, in his final submissions did do make any comments about the veracity of his client's evidence nor whether the Court should accept his evidence and that of his witnesses. His comments were directed towards reasons why the Court should not accept the veracity of the evidence of Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec, some of their respective witnesses, and the Family Report writer.

1. Mr GG is a farm and business owner, who is also the father's friend and employer. He gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. He deposed to having known the father and Ms Nemec for approximately four years.[35] When the totality of allegations levelled against the father were put to him, he conceded he had not heard them before, and they shocked him. He agreed he would not know if the father had committed many of the allegations levelled against him, but disagreed he knew little about the father's private life. He gave evidence that he was funding the father's legal fees and provided him with housing as part of his work package but conceded that even if he had to terminate his employment due to issues with work cover, he would "work something out [with the father]" as he has "nowhere to go". It was clear that Mr GG was staunchly aligned with the father and shares a close personal relationship with him and therefore I do not consider his evidence as particularly objective nor helpful.
2. Ms P is a farm hand who is a friend of the father. She lives in the same small town as the father and Mr GG. She was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. She gave evidence that she socialises with the father, and the father stays with her at her house from time to time. It was clear that she viewed the matter entirely through the prism of what the father had told her, accepted his explanation of events, and was not open to any other version of reality, including the proposition put to her by counsel for Ms Vanchev that X was telling her what she wanted to hear. She was staunchly aligned with the father, and I consider her a partisan witness. Little weight can be given to her evidence.
3. Mr EE is an 'out of home care worker' and contact supervisor, who swore two affidavits in the proceedings. He was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. In accordance with the orders of 21 August 2023, Mr EE commenced supervising time between the father, Y, and Z. As of 28 February 2024, X also attended supervised time. Prior to this date, X nevertheless attended time frequently with the father, despite not being under the company's direct supervision service.[36] During a supervised visit, Mr EE conceded that despite having no legal responsibility to care for X, he engaged in a five-minute conversation with X and left Y and Z with the father out of his earshot. Mr EE conceded that during supervised visits, X would attempt to relentlessly confide in the supervisor and was highly critical of Ms Vanchev. Despite the obvious shortcomings in the supervision provided, I accept Mr EE as a witness of truth.
4. Ms CC is a clinical psychologist, who has treated the father for nine years, seeing him on a weekly basis. She was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. Despite not having clinically assessed Ms Nemec, she inappropriately made numerous diagnoses pertaining to her psychological state both in her report and in cross-examination. These included conclusions such as "[Ms Nemec] appears to have an underlying insecurity resulting from rejection by her father as a child and a deep-seated shame of birth deformities". [37] She also reluctantly conceded that she had historically treated X without Ms Vanchev's knowledge or consent, before she 'fell by the wayside' in favour of the father's treatment. She was clearly professionally conflicted, as she admitted to having stayed overnight at the father and Ms Nemec's home one night, after being locked out of her own. When it was put to her during cross-examination that nowhere in the report about the father did she mention any diagnostic elements nor provide any indication as to what testing was done or an objective scale, she explained she had "been in this profession for 50 years" and has been "diagnosing mental illness on a weekly basis".[38] She was clearly overly aligned with the father and a staunch advocate for him, rather than a professional witness. I do not consider her to be a credible witness due to her lack of objectivity and clear professional conflict. Due to the reasons outlined above, minimal weight will be given to her evidence.

1. Ms Vanchev gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. She was, at times, indignant and seemed to be focused on the lack of fairness of the situation, rather than the best interests of X. She appeared exasperated by the protracted proceedings and living in a heightened state of anxiety as a result. It often took her a significant amount of time to directly answer straight forward questions posed by counsel, and she regularly clouded her answers with what she claimed to be a misunderstanding. Despite this, she made appropriate concessions, contrary to her interests, such as agreeing she had slapped X in the past and that it would be impractical for X to live with her at the time due to her staunch reluctance to see or talk to her.
2. During his final address, counsel for the father eloquently sought to undermine and impugn Ms Vanchev's credibility, in order to persuade the Court why her evidence should not be accepted. He relied on the following:
   • The glacial pace of her cross-examination;[39]
   • The length of time it took for Ms Vanchev to concede the DFFH report referred to X's distress about not being able to talk to her father;[40]
   • Ms Vanchev's reluctance to acknowledge X did not want to see or talk to her, which was described by counsel for the father in final submissions as "game playing";[41]
   • Ms Vanchev's denial that she said certain things to the DFFH workers that were clearly in the reports prepared by DFFH, which counsel for the father submitted should cast doubts on her credibility;
   • When details of Ms Vanchev's communication with Ms Nemec was called for by counsel for the father, they evinced a far greater amount of communication than Ms Vanchev had admitted to;[42]
   • Ms Vanchev's failure to accept simple premises, such as her "clear if not toxic" dislike of the father, when upon reading of the various reports this has clearly persisted "probably since separation";[43]
   • When it was put to Ms Vanchev that she was attempting to "water down" the intervention order in place to control X, as it was manifestly restricting her capacity to talk to X, it required a "reasonable amount of cross-examination and putting matters to her for her to even grudgingly concede those things happened";[44]
   • Ms Vanchev's criticism of the Ms J & Mr K. Counsel for the father submitted that after their cross-examination, none of Ms Vanchev's concerns were realised and it was clear they are entirely appropriate, genuinely engaged people. Counsel submitted the way this unfolded is a "microcosm of what the father's case about the mothers generally but Ms Vanchev in particular has been - that there is a whirlwind of allegations made, but there is very little if any evidence that underpins them".[45]
   • Sexual abuse allegations have been made by Ms Vanchev throughout several proceedings, but in her sworn material before this Court, she didn't make mention of the historical allegations. Counsel for the father submitted that this is indicative of her lack of credibility.[46]
3. The criticisms levelled at Ms Vanchev may be explained to some extent by her inability to understand the sophisticated and analytical concepts underpinning the cross-examination. It was obvious Ms Vanchev was not an overly sophisticated witness and struggled to understand how she found herself estranged from her daughter and was the subject of intense scrutiny by the DFFH, arising from X's sexual abuse allegations, which she thought clearly stemmed from the father's influence during the period of unsupervised time between them. She did not understand the assessment of her by Dr NN, in particular the comments about her personality deficiencies. I accept it would be difficult for a witness in her position to do so and demonstrate objective insight into her psychiatric functioning, particularly at the end of gruelling cross-examination which endured for a number of days.
4. I also accept that in protracted proceedings, particularly when litigants are not privately funded, not all historical allegations from earlier proceedings are included in trial affidavits in subsequent proceedings. In this case, Ms Vanchev's sexual abuse allegations were comprehensively detailed in Ms MM's Cumulative Harm Review (Exhibit DFFH-4), although I accept that report was prepared after Ms Vanchev filed her trial affidavit.
5. Despite all of the criticisms and difficulty, I accept Ms Vanchev did demonstrate some insight as to the role her actions have played in X's current estrangement, and her deficiencies as a parent. I also do not consider she was playing games, as asserted by the father's counsel, nor that she was deliberately obtuse and non-responsive. Rather I assess that she had enormous difficulties with her current predicament and was unable to be as direct and responsive as would have been ideal, but that does not lead me to the conclusion that her evidence was deliberately or otherwise untrue, and that it should be rejected. She also presented as exhausted, weary, and fatigued by the whole process and dispute with the father which had been ongoing since 2015, which had clearly adversely impacted on her mental health. I accept her generally as a witness of truth.
6. Ms Vanchev did not call any other witnesses on her behalf.

1. Ms Nemec gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Vanchev, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. She generally answered questions directly. She acknowledged she had previously sworn affidavits in the original proceedings between the father and Ms Vanchev, which were untrue, however explained that she and the father wrote them together and she was "scared for [her] life to do something else".[47] When viewed in the context of her obtaining an intervention order against the father shortly after swearing these affidavits, I accept her evidence in this regard to be genuine. She impressed as a credible witness, who was able to directly give accounts of her life with the father, and I accept her evidence as generally truthful.
2. During his final address, counsel for the father also sought to undermine and impugn Ms Nemec's credibility. In order to persuade the Court why her evidence should not be accepted, he relied on the following:

(a) Ms Nemec swore two affidavits which on her oath, as at these proceedings, she acknowledges she swore knowing them to be lies;[48]

(b) In her affidavit filed 30 May 2023, Ms Nemec makes clear, direct, specific allegations about things Y said to her, which feature in DFFH reports, and amount to rape of a child. Notwithstanding this, these allegations do not feature in Ms Nemec's trial affidavit;[49]

(c) Paragraph 14 of Ms Nemec's trial affidavit deposes to various allegations in relation to X, with great specificity, which did not feature in her earlier affidavits. Counsel for the father submitted that the reason they did not feature in those earlier affidavits is because they are lies she has invented;[50]

(d) Ms Nemec's oral evidence about the massage gun placed on X's vagina by the father ought not be accepted because given the placement of the couch, the kitchen, the child, the father, and Ms Nemec, it would have been impossible for Ms Nemec to have seen what happened;[51]

(e) Ms Nemec gave evidence that she was financially controlled throughout the marriage, yet an examination of the corroborating documents from DD Authority and Mr GG does not bear out the allegations made.[52]

1. I am not persuaded by the above criticisms of Ms Nemec. It is not unusual for pertinent evidence to be omitted from affidavits of parties, who obviously rely on their lawyers to prepare documents, or for additional evidence to be included in subsequent affidavits. I also have regard to the traumatic impact on Ms Nemec of her experiences, as stated by her psychologist, which may well explain an inability to simultaneously recall all traumatic events.[53] I have made findings about the use of the massage gun, and I accept Ms Nemec's evidence the father's coercion and control forced her to make affidavits in support of his agenda. I also accept the bank statements demonstrate payments into accounts to which Ms Nemec had access, but I am also cognisant of and accept the allegations levelled against the father that he conducted the business affairs to minimise child support liability for X.

1. Ms JJ, a former nanny who lived with the father and Ms Nemec, gave evidence, and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Vanchev, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH over two tranches due to maternal obligations. She gave her evidence via Microsoft Teams with the assistance of a Country M interpreter. She impressed as a witness of truth who was obviously still affected by the events which had occurred during her stay in Australia. Her evidence directly contradicted the father's version of their interactions. She was genuinely incredulous when counsel for the father suggested the events which she said occurred on the way home from the airport did not happen, and when it was suggested to her that the reason the father's penis was exposed to her whilst they were in the garage, was because he was wearing a robe and because he was "bow legged". She emphatically rejected that the penis exposure in the garage was inadvertent.
2. Ms JJ had no identified self-advantageous reason to give her evidence, and to the contrary, I observed the giving of evidence from Country M presented significant inconvenience for her. The time of her evidence was in the early hours of the morning, and she clearly had the primary care of a sick child who needed her attention during the time she was being cross-examined. She made herself available on two occasions, despite her sick child. I accept her evidence as genuine and truthful, and where her evidence differs from the father's, I prefer Ms JJ's evidence.
3. Mrs AG Nemec, Ms Nemec's mother and the maternal grandmother, gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Vanchev, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. She gave her evidence via Microsoft Teams with the assistance of a Country M interpreter. Her evidence regarding the father instructing Y and Z to remove Ms Nemec's pants and underwear in front of her was not challenged. She impressed as a genuine and credible witness, and I accept her evidence in preference to the father.
4. Ms AA, a friend of Ms Nemec's, gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Vanchev, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. She acknowledged she had been embroiled in a payment dispute with both the father and Ms Nemec regarding horses. Her evidence was not particularly helpful to the matters before the Court for determination, other than at the very conclusion of her evidence she commented that the father inevitably attached sexual connotations to many matters, including a text message which was not before the Court when she said he had indeed attempted to sexualise the photograph of her horse whilst receiving veterinary treatment. Counsel for the father sought to paint her as a witness with a grudge against the father, who would say and do anything to create adverse circumstances for the father. She was cross-examined about her previous complaints to DD Authority, which involved the conduct of both Ms Nemec and the father, including the dispute about fees between them. She readily admitted her complaint had not been upheld by DD Authority. I accept her as generally a witness of truth.

1. Dr BB is a clinical and forensic psychologist who performed a psychosexual report of the father. He was cross-examined by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. He gave evidence that if the Court finds the various allegations of sexual impropriety levelled against the father to be true, then without identifying where it would stand, conceded that the fathers risk of sexual harm would be increased. He was a candid, professional witness and I accept his evidence as truth. I refer to his evidence in greater detail below.
2. Dr NN is an independent single expert witnesses appointed to conduct psychiatric evaluations of the father and Ms Vanchev, at the request of DFFH. He gave evidence and was cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Ms Vanchev, Independent Children's Lawyer, and the DFFH. He gave evidence in a professional and competent manner, answering questions directly and giving considered and thoughtful responses. I accept his evidence.
3. Ms C, the Family Report Writer, gave evidence and was cross-examined by all counsel in this matter. She prepared three reports in this matter and was a considered and professional witness. Despite suggestions by counsel to the contrary, she impressed as a balanced witness, and I accept her observations of each parent and the children. To her credit, she was prepared to make admissions and concessions during difficult cross-examination and when pressed, she gave evidence that she believes X has been groomed by her father.
4. Counsel for the father attempted to paint Ms C as a biased witness whose opinion was not subjective, and therefore her evidence should be discounted. I reject that characterisation of Ms C. The three Family Reports impressed me as well balanced and insightful regarding the family dynamics and the allegations of risk posed by the various parties. Her answers in cross-examination were thoughtful and direct, and I did not perceive she had any obvious bias against the father. It was only when she was pressed by counsel appearing on behalf of Ms Vanchev and then requested by the Court, did she state that she thought the father had groomed X. She was most reluctant to give that evidence, and I consider her to be an objective and professional witness. Just because her professional opinion differs from the father's perspective and case, does not mean she is incapable of objectivity in her assessment, nor a competent and capable witness.

1. Ms K, her mother, Ms J, and partner Mr L are X's current out of home carers, who gave evidence and were cross-examined regarding their suitability to care for X pending the conclusion of the proceedings. Ms J has a history of providing foster care and supporting adults and at-risk youth, and the family rescues and rehabilitates injured or displaced animals. All three impressed as altruistic, generous, and compassionate people with a genuine desire to care for X, and agreed to support and care for her for as long as may be required.
2. Ms F, DFFH case worker, prepared a number of reports in the proceedings and was the author of the DFFH Report prepared in February 2024 which substantiated that the father has likely, or is likely to cause both emotional and sexual harm to X pursuant to s 162(e) and (d) of the Child Youth and Families Act 2005 (Cth). She impressed as a logical and forthcoming professional witness, and I accept her evidence.
3. Ms SS is a Practice Leader at the DFFH Child Protection Suburb TT Division. She completed an updated caregiver/kinship assessment of Ms J and Ms K. She gave her evidence, which was not particularly controversial, in a straightforward and direct manner. She was an objective professional witness, and I accept her evidence.
4. Ms MM is a Practice Leader at the DFFH Child Protection Suburb TT Division and was the allocated case planner for X who prepared the Cumulative Harm Review (Exhibit DFFH-4). She was unable to provide an adequate explanation as to why her report, based on the same information as was available to Ms F, produced an entirely different outcome that did not substantiate harm, other than the fact she is a more senior member of staff, and her review of the file was "more comprehensive". Whilst I accept she gave her evidence as she perceived it, there was no cogent reason proffered why her evidence should be accepted in preference to that of Ms F. I do not accept that the psychiatric reports of Dr NN or the Take two report, wherein it is recorded that X was refusing to have anything to do with her mother, are reasons why the assertions of unacceptable risk of the father, should be swept under the carpet or ignored, in circumstances where a 12-year-old child is simply unable to appreciate the level and degree of risk she faces in the father's household, by virtue of his sexualised predatory behaviour against vulnerable women, his obvious lack of sexual boundaries, and his coercive and controlling conduct. I consider much of her evidence to be an attempt to justify the position adopted by the DFFH to find a placement for X in difficult and trying circumstances for the department.

1. This case was heard after the enactment of the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth). The legislative changes therefore apply to this case and the consideration of best interest factors below reflects the relevant legislation as at the date of final hearing.

The legal principles applicable to parenting disputes

1. Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act") sets out the provisions relating to children. Section 60B sets out the objects of the Act and the principles to be applied. Section 60CA provides that the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration when making parenting orders.
2. Section 60CC of the Act sets out how the Court is to determine what is in a child's best interest by reference to general considerations (s 60CC(2)). Section 60CC(2) sets out a non-hierarchical list of considerations which I must take into account, being:

(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.

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

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

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

1. Abuse in relation to a child is defined in s 4 of the Act and means:

(a) an assault, including a sexual assault, of the child; or

(b) a person (the first person) involving the child in a sexual activity with the first person or another person in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object by the first person or the other person, and where there is unequal power in the relationship between the child and the first person; or

(c) causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including (but not limited to) when that harm is caused by the child being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence; or

(d) serious neglect of the child

1. Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act and means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family for causes the family member to be fearful. The definition of family violence was recently considered by the Full Court of this court in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249
2. In considering what order to make, s 60CG of the Act requires the Court, to the extent possible, to ensure that the order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and enables the Court to include in the order any necessary safeguards.

How the Court approaches allegations of unacceptable risk

1. The High Court of Australia ("The High Court") in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 ("M v M"), at [76] said:

...the ultimate and paramount issue to be decided in proceedings for custody of, or access to, a child is whether the making of the order sought is in the interest of the welfare of the child. The fact that the proceedings involve an allegation that the child has been sexually abuse by the parent whom seeks custody or access does not alter the paramount and ultimate issue which the court has to determine, though the court's findings on the disputed allegation of sexual abuse will naturally have an important, perhaps a decisive impact, on the resolution of that issue.

1. The High Court in M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 ("M v M") at [76] also observed:

... it is a mistake to think that the family Court is under the same duty to resolve in a definitive way the disputed allegation of sexual abuse as a court exercising criminal jurisdiction would be if it were trying the party for a criminal offence...

....

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...

(Footnotes omitted)

No doubt there will be some cases in which the court is able to come to a positive finding that the allegation is well founded. In all but the most extraordinary cases, that finding will have a decisive impact on the order to be made respecting custody and access. There will be cases also in which the court has no hesitation in rejecting the allegation as groundless. Again, in the nature of things there will be very many cases, such as the present case, in which the court cannot confidently make a finding that sexual abuse has taken place. And there are strong practical family reasons why the court should refrain from making a positive finding that sexual abuse has actually taken place unless it is impelled by the particular circumstances of the case to do so.

In resolving the wider issue the 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. After all, in deciding what is in the best interests of a child, the Family Court is frequently called upon to assess and evaluate the likelihood or possibility of events or occurrences which, if they come about, will have a detrimental impact on the child's welfare. The existence and magnitude of the risk of sexual abuse, as with other risks of harm to the welfare of a child, is a fundamental matter to be taken into account in deciding issues of custody and access. In access cases, the magnitude of the risk may be less if the order in contemplation is supervised access. Even in such a case, however, there may be a risk of disturbance to a child who is compulsorily brought into contact with a parent who has sexually abused her or whom the child believes to have sexually abused her. But that is not the issue in this case.

Efforts to define with greater precision the magnitude of the risk which will justify a court in denying a parent access to a child have resulted in a variety of formulations. The degree of risk has been described as a "risk of serious harm" (A. v. A.), "an element of risk" or "an appreciable risk" (Marriage of M.), "a real possibility" (B. v. B. (Access)), a "real risk" (Leveque v. Leveque), and an "unacceptable risk": In re G. (A minor). This imposing array indicates that the courts are striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding. In devising these tests the courts have endeavoured, in their efforts to protect the child's paramount interests, to achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access. To achieve a proper balance, the 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. In Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 (Isles & Nelissen), the Full Court of this Court (Alstergren CJ, McClelland DCJ, Aldridge, Austin, and Tree JJ) reconsidered the issue of unacceptable risk. In the course of their reasons, their Honours observed that unacceptable risk is not to be established on the balance of probabilities.
2. Simply put, the Court is required to make factual findings about past relevant disputed events underpinning the allegations, to the requisite standard of proof and then on the basis of those findings and other relevant considerations, predict the level of future risk to a child. In carrying out the risk assessment, the Court assesses both the prediction of future harm and the severity of the impact, if such harm were to eventuate. The possibility of future harm and severity of harm may be determined as unacceptable.
3. As the Full Court observed at [47]:

... The civil standard of proof is not the measure by which an unacceptable risk of harm is to be assessed. The civil standard of proof is reserved for the proof of facts, the positive or negative findings in relation to which could well feed into any alternative finding about the existence of an unacceptable risk of harm.

1. Their Honours at [50], agreed with and adopted the commentary of Austin J in Fitzwater & Fitzwater [2019] FamCAFC 251; (2019) 60 Fam LR 212 ("Fitzwater"). At [132]-[142] of Fitzwater, his Honour observed:
   1. Having eschewed the need for any positive factual finding that the father had sexually abused the eldest child, the mother's case was instead that the evidence was still sufficiently persuasive to establish the risk of sexual abuse posed by the father to the children, and furthermore, that the magnitude of the risk was unacceptably high, such that it could only be attenuated by the imposition of the children's permanent supervision when spending time with the father. The trial judge properly understood that to be the nature of the mother's case, as is evident from the reasons for judgment (at [1], [31], [60], [497], [501]). Consequently, the mother and the trial judge were entirely focussed on what the evidence implied was the risk of harm to the children in the future; not what probably did or did not happen in the past.
   2. In civil proceedings, s 140(1) of the Evidence Act provides the "case of a party" must be found proven if the court is satisfied of its proof on the balance of probabilities. For that purpose, the "case of a party" is defined (in the Dictionary to the Evidence Act) to mean "the facts in issue in respect of which the party bears the legal burden of proof". The substantive law determines where the legal burden of proof falls in respect of facts in issue.
   3. It must be borne in mind that proceedings in respect of children under Part VII of the Act, while civil in nature, are not disputes inter partes in the ordinary sense of that expression because the court is not enforcing a parental right to custody or access (M v M at 76; ZP v PS [1994] HCA 29; (1994) 181 CLR 639 at 647). The paramount consideration in Part VII proceedings is the child's best interests (ss 60CA, 65AA of the Act). Unlike in other forms of civil litigation, no party bears an onus of proving the factual elements of a common law, equitable, or statutory cause of action to justify an entitlement to remedy. Rather, each party adduces evidence and propounds a suite of orders which he or she contends meets the child's best interests, which gives the proceedings a different character (CDJ v VAJ at 188-189). The resultant orders represent the court's discretionary judgment about how the child's interests will be best served and, due to the sheer breadth of the discretion, two judges may, with complete integrity and upon the same material, come to differing conclusions (CDJ v VAJ at 231).
   4. The conclusion reached by a court in Part VII proceedings, as reflected in the decrees it makes, is still premised upon proof of relevant facts and circumstances by evidence, but the law draws a distinction between proof of historical facts and the prediction of future possibilities. In determining what did or did not happen in the past, a court decides on the balance of probabilities, but not when hypothesising about future possibilities (Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 ("Malec")).
   5. In Malec, Brennan and Dawson JJ said (at 639-640):

...facts of that [historical] kind are ascertained for the purposes of civil litigation on the balance of probabilities...the ascertainment of [future] earning capacity involves an evaluation of possibilities, not establishing a fact as a matter of history...the court must form an estimate of the likelihood that the possibility will occur...

...

...To make a finding on the balance of probabilities as though the prospect were something that had occurred in the past was to misconceive the process of evaluation...

and Deane, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said (at 643):

...The future may be predicted and the hypothetical may be conjectured... Where proof is necessarily unattainable, it would be unfair to treat as certain a prediction which has a 51 per cent probability of occurring, but to ignore altogether a prediction which has a 49 per cent probability of occurring...

1. The High Court was there referring to the prediction of a plaintiff's income earning capacity in the context of quantifying personal injury damages, but the principle has been applied just as aptly to predictions about the risk of harm to children in this jurisdiction (see Oswald & Karrington (2016) FLC 93-726 at [60]; Bant & Clayton [2015] FamCAFC 222; (2015) 53 Fam LR 621 at [99], [107], [171], [172]). Such application of principle is consistent with M v M.
2. The assessment of risk is a predictive exercise and while it is, naturally enough, liable to be influenced by factual findings about past events, the contemplation of risk entails the foresight of possible harm. It is an oddity to expect that the mere possibility of future harm can or should be proven as a probability, as has been implied before (Potter and Potter [2007] FamCA 350; (2007) FLC 93-326 at [110], [129]). Risks of harm must be heeded even if they are improbable eventualities.
3. Speaking of the risk of some future occurrence is just another way of expressing the chance of it happening. The concept of chance lies along a continuum, encompassing all outcomes which lie in the range between highly probable and remotely possible, assuming the polar extremes of certainty are ignored. In the current context, the higher the chance of the children's sexual abuse, the greater the risk of their physical or psychological harm. At some point on the continuum the risk of such harm becomes so potent it cannot be tolerated: it is unacceptable.
4. It cannot be correct that the unacceptable risk of a child's sufferance of harm through future sexual abuse can only ever be established if it is proven as a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that the child (or another) has already been sexually abused in the past. Depending upon the strength of the evidence placed before the court, the possibility of past sexual abuse may of itself be sufficient to establish the chance of future sexual abuse. That has long been accepted as true (Nikolakis & Nikolakis [2010] FamCAFC 52 at [41], [44], [49]-[53], [96]; Partington & Cade (No.2) [2009] FamCAFC 230; (2009) FLC 93-422 at [56]- [61]; Johnson and Page at [68], [71], [76], [77]).
5. Indeed, that was exactly the factual scenario in M v M. There, the trial judge concluded it was possible the father had sexually abused the subject child, but could not make a positive finding it had occurred on the balance of probabilities, and therefore discharged the "access" order (as it was then described) to eliminate the future risk of the child being sexually abused by the father. The father's appeal was dismissed because the possibility of the child's past sexual abuse was sufficient, on the evidence adduced in that case, to establish the unacceptably high risk of the child's future sexual abuse.
6. As was recognised by Hale LJ (as her Ladyship then was) in Re C and B (Children) (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 F.L.R 611 at [28], in child-related proceedings, a comparatively small risk of really serious harm can justify action, while even the virtual certainty of slight harm might not. It could hardly be otherwise, because no prudent adult would willingly expose a child to the risk of sexual abuse when there is an unacceptably high chance of its occurrence, even though the chance is not proven by the evidence to be probable. Requiring the proof of any possible future child abuse as a probability would pervert the law as settled by the High Court in M v M and Malec.

1. In Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101 ("Eastley"), the Full Court observed that a trial judge must consider the cumulative effect of the whole of the evidence to assess the level of risk posed to a child, rather than dealing with individual events in isolation at [33]:

The first point to be made is that the law did not require the primary judge to assess the potency of the risk of harm posed to the children by reference to the evidence concerning individual events in isolation from the remainder of the evidence. On the contrary, the primary judge was required to assess the level of risk posed to the children on the whole of the evidence, since the strength of the evidence lies in its cumulative effect, much like how the strength of rope derives from the combination of its individually weaker strands (Transport Industries Insurance Co Ltd v Longmuir [1997] 1 VR 125 at 127-130 and 141; Savage v Lunn [1998] NSWCA 203; J.D Heydon, Cross on Evidence (LexisNexis Australia, 13th edition, 2021) at [1110] and [9040]).

What arrangements would promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child

1. The primary issue that informs what time, if any, X should spend with her father, is the risk arising from the allegations against the father about family violence, coercive and controlling conduct, his sexualised behaviour, and lack of sexual boundaries. The asserted unacceptable risk arising from Ms Vanchev spending time with X, arises from family violence and alleged sexual abuse.
2. Both the father and Ms Vanchev denied each of the allegations made of unacceptable risk of harm to X.
3. Ms Nemec also asserts the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to Y and Z, which risk arises from family violence, coercive and controlling conduct, his sexualised behaviour and lack of sexual boundaries.
4. The father also denied each of the allegations made of unacceptable risk of harm and contended Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec had concocted their concerns and colluded in their evidence.
5. There was no suggestion Ms Nemec posed an unacceptable risk to Y and Z. The father's proposal for the children to remain primarily in their mother's care is inherently inconsistent with unacceptable risk of harm.
6. Under this consideration, I will deal with the risk factors asserted by Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec against the father, and whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. I will also deal with the risk factors levelled against Ms Vanchev by the father, and whether Ms Vanchev poses an unacceptable risk to X.
7. The gravamen of the father's case is that he is the subject of a character assassination and false allegations, conspired by Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec. He also believes the allegations X has made against Ms Vanchev, regarding sexual abuse and inappropriate physical discipline are true. Whilst not expressly submitted by counsel, it can be surmised the father's case is that Ms Vanchev poses an unacceptable risk to X, and that X's views about her mother should be accorded significant weight. Counsel for the father asserted the Court ought not be distracted by the father's more liberal approach to sex and sexuality, nor find that his lack of sexual boundaries with women blur into him posing an unacceptable risk to his children.
8. Conversely, the gravamen of Ms Vanchev's case is the father has groomed X, alienated X from her entirely, and that the father poses an unacceptable risk of sexual and emotional harm. Similarly, Ms Nemec alleges the father poses an unacceptable risk of sexual and emotional harm to both Y and Z.
9. Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec consider the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children, if the children were to spend time with him, because of his history of family violence, sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual behaviours including indecent exposure, grooming and coercive control exerted over children and vulnerable women, and supervision of the children's time does not mitigate the unacceptable risk.
10. I now turn to consider the following identified allegations of risk pertaining to the father:
    • Allegations of family violence between Ms Vanchev and the father, and allegations of family violence between Ms Nemec and the father;
    • Allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against the three children;
    • Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against nannies;
    • Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against X;
    • Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against Y; and
    • Allegations of sexual abuse and/or family violence perpetrated by Ms Vanchev against X.

Allegations of family violence between Ms Vanchev and the father

1. The father and Ms Vanchev separated in February 2015, some 10 years ago, when X was two years old. Accordingly, the trial did not primarily focus on historical allegations of family violence, which Ms Vanchev alleges the father perpetrated, although the father's asserted conduct during his relationship with Ms Vanchev is highly relevant to his asserted violent and abusive conduct towards Ms Nemec.
2. Ms Vanchev's allegations are particularised at paragraphs [39]-[65] of her trial affidavit. The allegations are numerous and include verbal abuse, threats made by the father in 2009 and 2010 to cancel Ms Vanchev's visa, physical assaults including kicking her whilst she was in bed, hitting her with a hose, threatening to hit her with a hammer, and forcing her to engage in sexual intercourse after hitting her with the back of his hand and pinning her down with the weight of his body. Ms Vanchev alleges financial abuse perpetrated by the father, including requiring her to deposit all her wages into a joint account which he had access to, not permitting her to register her car in her own name despite having paid for the registration, forcing her to obtain loans from a bank, some of the proceeds of which were spent on a $3,500 motorbike, and putting the livestock business in her name, which enabled him to buy livestock in her name, because if he purchased livestock, he would lose his business licence.
3. Ms Vanchev deposes to the father smashing mobile phones against a wall, removing sim cards from her phone whilst he was at work, and on occasions taking the modem to work to deprive her of internet access. She alleges the father would keep her under surveillance, track her whereabouts via an app he installed on her phone, and would call her to question her about her activities and movements.
4. At paragraph 52 of her trial affidavit, Ms Vanchev deposes to a particular incident which occurred in late 2009 when the father, whilst intoxicated, accused her of having an affair with a work colleague, dragged her from her car, threw her on the ground, pulled her by the hair, and punched her in the face whilst yelling words to the effect that she made him look bad in front of work colleagues. She also asserts the father attempted to control her contact with, and isolate her from her sister, from whom she was estranged from 2009 until separation.
5. As to sexual abuse, Ms Vanchev alleges the father subjected her to graphic and frequent sexual abuse. The abuse included forcing her to wear lingerie and yelling that she was a whore and a slut, forcing her to have sex and ejaculating inside her prior to her visiting friends so that no one would touch her, demanding sex each night after X was in bed, and demanding she perform oral sex each day, whilst sometimes providing a cushion for her to kneel on.[54]
6. On other occasions, when she was washing the dishes, she alleges the father would pull her pants down and penetrate her against her wishes whilst X was present, the father would initiate sex with her whilst she was sleeping, video them having sex without her consent, force her to watch pornography whilst having sex, and insist she insert sexual toys into her vagina which he said had to remain inside her all day, despite her wanting to "throw up".[55]
7. Apparently ten days after giving birth to X, the father insisted on having sex with Ms Vanchev, despite recommendations of waiting a month to resume sex. After she had an abortion in 2014, the father forced her to have anal sex, having first purchased lubricant and informing her he was taking care of his wife for a special occasion.[56]
8. Ms Vanchev made an application for a Family Violence Intervention Order against the father, in favour of herself and X in early 2023, after learning the father had been arrested by Victoria Police as a result of the significant allegations of family violence and sexual abuse Ms Nemec made against him. The father consented to this Order without admissions in early 2023. The Order expires in mid-2025.
9. An examination of the Cumulative Harm Review prepared by Ms MM dated 2 May 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-4), refers to a report made to DFFH in 2015 asserting the father had perpetrated family violence including forcing Ms Vanchev to the ground and punching her. The report refers to multiple instances of physical assaults, sexual abuse, and threats to remove X from the country. The Cumulative Harm Review also refers to Ms Vanchev informing Child Protection in 2015 about the father's verbal and physical abuse, social isolation, tracking, financial control, and sexual abuse, including the references to the father forcing her to have sex shortly after X's birth, and anal sex the day after she had an abortion in 2014. Whilst I accept that both parents were actively engaged in complaining to child protection about the conduct of the other parent, the striking similarity between Ms Vanchev's particularised allegations in her trial affidavit, sworn on 12 April 2024, some two weeks or so prior to the release of the Cumulative Harm Review and those reported to child protection in 2015, are unlikely to be coincidental.
10. Because there were no submissions to the contrary, I accept the Cumulative Harm Review as an accurate recording of the various historical allegations and reports made to DFFH in 2015, which support Ms Vanchev's allegations of the family violence perpetrated by the father at that time.
11. The first Family Report dated 6 December 2023 ("the first Family Report"), records Ms Vanchev telling the Family Report writer the father perpetrated family violence towards her, although she did not necessarily realise that at the time. Paragraph [19] of the first Family Report refers to another contemporaneous document asserting family violence and sexual abuse, that is Ms Vanchev's cross-application for an intervention order made in 2015, in circumstances where the father had applied for an intervention order against Ms Vanchev when she was overseas visiting her family for a two-week period. Ms Vanchev's experience with family violence perpetrated by the father is further outlined in paragraphs [30]-[40] of the first Family Report.
12. During her assessment with Dr NN, psychiatrist, in September 2024, Ms Vanchev again recounted allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against her, which are broadly similar to allegations referred to above.[57]
13. The father vehemently denied the allegations levelled against him that he was a perpetrator of family violence. In his trial affidavit filed 21 March 2024 under the heading "Ms Vanchev and my relationship" the father deposes to the family violence he alleges Ms Vanchev perpetrated against him including threatening to harm herself or damage property and physically "lashing out" at the father by hitting, scratching, and biting him. In the first Family Report, the father alleges during their relationship, he was the victim of family violence perpetrated by Ms Vanchev, and that she continues to perpetrate this by "fabricating allegations of sexual abuse".[58] He denied he ever perpetrated any physical violence or controlling behaviour against Ms Vanchev.
14. In his trial affidavit filed 21 March 2024 the father also made allegations about Ms Vanchev's mental health including that she was suffering from depression, and possibly some form of mental illness.
15. I generally prefer the evidence of Ms Vanchev to that of the father, for the reasons referred to in my assessment of their credibility.
16. After carefully considering the allegations, cross allegations and my view of the respective credibility of the father and Ms Vanchev, I am satisfied on the evidence that Ms Vanchev's accounts of family violence and coercive conduct perpetrated by the father against her are genuine, and I so find. Whilst I accept the father and Ms Vanchev had a tumultuous relationship and there would have been heated arguments, I do not accept the father's evidence to the effect that Ms Vanchev was essentially the aggressor, and he was more passive. That is primarily because of the father's tendency to refuse to accept responsibility for his actions, lack of insight, his contradictory answers in cross-examination about pertinent evidence, such as the reason why X had to be naked in the spa, and the general tenor of his evidence that everyone is to blame except him, and that he is a victim of the actions of others.

Allegations of family violence between Ms Nemec and the father

1. In the Family Report, Ms Nemec advised the writer the father perpetrated "all forms" of family violence against her, X, Y, and Z during the relationship. She identifies these as physical, verbal, psychological, financial, and sexual abuse in addition to behaviour consistent with coercive control. In her Outline of Case document, Ms Nemec alleges that these behaviours began early in their relationship and continued until separation.
2. Ms Nemec deposes to the father's history of family violence in her trial affidavit, and at paragraphs [64]-[81] outlines the sexual abuse perpetrated by the father towards her. The first incident of sexual abuse happened about a week after she first met the father, when he secretly set up his phone on some bedroom furniture and filmed them having sex. When Ms Nemec told him it made her very uncomfortable that he had done that, she alleges he did not accept this, and said words to the effect of "I did it for you so you can see how good you are" and continued to film their intimate moments. During cross-examination, the father denied secretly filming them having sex, clarifying that it was instead Ms Nemec who recorded them having sex, and she did so "probably once or twice".[59] He denied being a voyeur.
3. Ms Nemec alleges the father also placed their home security cameras on the TV cabinet opposite the sofa one evening, to capture sexual videos of them. When she tried to remove the camera so it was no longer facing the sofa, Ms Nemec deposes the father would become very angry, abusive, and violent and "his behaviour would vary, sometimes he would give me the silent treatment, sometimes he would hit things such as doors and furniture, sometimes he would yell at me that I wanted to control things at home...".[60] She deposes that she had to agree to many sexual ideas that she did not feel comfortable with, such as taking videos during sex, taking an "extreme number" of pictures of her vagina, and assisting the father with his sex toys.[61]
4. At paragraph [67] of her trial affidavit, Ms Nemec alleges the father would force her to lick his anus, stating "we are one body and if you don't want to lick my anus then you don't love me". On one occasion he held her head against his anus, until she was able to get free. The father was upset by Ms Nemec's reaction and subsequently left the house. When this was put to the father during cross-examination, he laughed, explaining he has had "trouble with haemorrhoids" his whole life before denying it.[62]
5. Ms Nemec further deposes in her trial affidavit the father would "put his penis into my vagina when I was sleeping, and even if I said no, he would continue, and I had no choice but to wait until he ejaculated". Many evenings when she came into the living room, she alleges she was not allowed to do anything other than please the father, and it did not matter whether she wanted to or not, nor whether she was sick or in pain, and he would often penetrate her so hard that it caused a lot of pain and bleeding. She alleges the father told her that she must have sex with him whenever he wanted so he can "cope with himself and his moods" because of his high testosterone, and "if I don't get it at home, I'll get it somewhere else".[63] The father vehemently denies having nonconsensual sex with Ms Nemec, and instead posits she was an active participant in their sexual escapades.
6. It is alleged by Ms Nemec the father was also sexually inappropriate towards her in front of the children and would instruct the children to take her underwear off, before telling Z "that's my boy".[64] He would also force her to walk naked around the house, and became angry if she put her underwear on, saying words to the effect of "you don't love and trust me if you don't want to be naked... you are selfish not letting me see and enjoy your naked body".[65] The maternal grandmother gave evidence that whilst she was staying with the family in Australia, the father made Ms Nemec take all her clothes off in front of her, X, Y, and Z, saying it was "tradition" in his culture for the family to be naked on Sunday.[66] She described this as a very humiliating experience for both her and Ms Nemec, and most importantly her evidence in this regard was not challenged during cross-examination.
7. Ms Nemec also deposes in her trial affidavit the father would often humiliate her in front of her friends, especially at social events, when they worked by screaming at her in front of everyone words to the effect of "you're fucking useless and a fucking cunt".[67] He eventually isolated her from all her friends and would not let her spend time with them. Whilst the father would often apologise for his abusive behaviour and a few good days would follow, the father would soon go back to his abusive ways and the cycle would start again. When the father was cross-examined about the incident at social events, he said it was not true and he did not remember the incident in question. He stated there was only two times when he raised his voice, and on these occasions, he used the Country D language rather than English.[68]
8. Ms Nemec further asserts the father installed cameras around the interior of the family home and put black tape over the lights so that it could not be ascertained when they were active.[69] The father agreed that he had covered the lights with black tape, but stated he did so at the request of Ms Nemec because she was unable to sleep when the light from the camera was on. Nevertheless, he did not explain why cameras were placed in view of the beds in rooms where the baby did not sleep.
9. According to Ms Nemec, the father would also demand access to her mobile phone several times a day to access her social media accounts, banking, and other personal mobile apps. He would reply to text messages on her phone which she had received from friends without her knowledge, delete messages, and would block some of her friends so they could not contact her. During cross-examination, the father denied this, stating it was a lie.
10. As deposed in her trial affidavit, Ms Nemec was not allowed to leave the home without the father's permission, and most of the time just a simple trip to the supermarket would result in him accusing her of having an affair, even if the children were with her. This was denied by the father during cross-examination.
11. After Ms Nemec spent all her savings, the father made her take out two credit cards in her name which were originally used to purchase household appliances and a lawn mower. The father kept spending the funds which had been repaid on cigarettes and alcohol, amongst other things. Post-separation, she has been left to repay the debt accrued on these credit cards as they are in her name.[70] When cross-examined about these credit cards, the father denied knowing anything about them until post-separation, stating Ms Nemec was lying.
12. There was an Intervention Order in place against the father, in favour of Ms Nemec and the children, which expired in mid-2024. This Order was applied for by Victoria Police after completing a welfare check on Ms Nemec and the children, the events leading up to which are detailed above.
13. The Family Report states at paragraph [25] that "[the father] presented with poor personal boundaries, disclosed details about sex with [Ms Nemec] and intimate details about her relationship and personal health issues. These disinhibited behaviours demonstrated a poor sense of boundaries". During cross-examination, Ms C stated that this was an example of the father's lack of inhibition when talking about things of a sexual nature, and when considered as part of the bigger picture forms potential risk as a result of role modelling inappropriate sexual behaviour and boundaries to children.
14. In the Family Report of 6 December 2023, Ms C states at [103] that:

[Ms Nemec] is highly vulnerable and isolated due to her cultural background and ethnicity, her lack of adequate financial resources and her limited connections to her community. [Ms Nemec] also has minimal formal or appropriate informal/family networks. If she has been victimised by [the father] and to reinforce boundaries and expectations. Thus, [the father] has an overwhelming level of power and control in this scenario...

1. I share the sentiments of the Family Report writer in this respect and accept Ms Nemec's evidence in preference to the father's denials. The evidence from witnesses during the trial, particularly Ms JJ and the highly sexualised text messages forwarded to her, demonstrate an absence of proper sexual boundaries on the part of the father.
2. I am particularly disturbed by Ms Nemec's reports of the father's conduct by pulling her pants down and insisting she was naked in the house on a Sunday, when her mother was present. It is telling that Ms Nemec's mother was not cross-examined about her evidence which corroborated Ms Nemec's version of events. This episode in itself is disturbing, coercive, and vile, and even without other evidence would lead to a finding of family violence and coercive sexual conduct perpetrated by the father. The father's vapid denials about his conduct and attempts at rationalising this sort of conduct as broader and more liberal sexual boundaries, or with words to that effect, is completely unconvincing. Also unconvincing is the father's attempts to deflect responsibility for his sexual behaviour to Ms Nemec. Such an example is his evidence the rubber vagina belonged to Ms Nemec, without explaining why she would have the need for such a sex toy. Similarly, his attempts to paint her as a willing accomplice are similar to his historical attempts to denigrate and undermine Ms Vanchev, as recorded in the Cumulative Harm Review.
3. For the reasons above, I find that Ms Nemec has been a victim of significant family violence, including sexual violence perpetrated by the father, and coercive conduct. I individually find:
   • The father, not Ms Nemec, insisted on filming their sexual encounters and photographing Ms Nemec's vagina;
   • The father forced Ms Nemec to lick his anus, as alleged by Ms Nemec;
   • The father insisted on sexual intercourse with Ms Nemec, including when she was asleep, as asserted by her;
   • The incident when the father forced Ms Nemec to be naked which commenced when she was washing dishes, as corroborated by Ms Nemec's mother, occurred as asserted; and
   • The father was generally verbally and sexually abusive to Ms Nemec.

Allegations of family violence perpetrated by the father against the children - X, Y, and Z

1. Ms Nemec asserts in her trial affidavit that the father would often punish Y if she did not eat her food and would tell her a witch was coming and pretend to be on the phone to the witch. This was corroborated by the evidence of Ms JJ and Ms AA. Ms Nemec further deposes that on some occasions, the father would take Y outside in the highchair in the dark and would leave her there. She would become distressed, cry, and scream, and when Ms Nemec tried to stop him, he would merely become angrier and scream at her.
2. It is further alleged the father often slapped Y on her bottom and legs from not cleaning up her mess or if she took toys away from her brother.[71] According to Ms Nemec, she would have bruises from where she was slapped, however, she was unable to obtain photographic evidence as the father had complete control of her mobile phone. Ms AA deposed in her affidavit filed 15 April 2024 that she witnessed the father smack Y on the bottom in August 2022 because she would not stop crying, and she later saw a big red mark on her bottom. She further deposes that she also heard the father tell her he would put her in a cage with dogs and she would stay there all night, and that Y wet herself when the father was threatening her. The father denied these allegations during cross-examination, protesting these were "lies".
3. Ms Nemec deposes to an incident in which the father was building a cardboard table for Y, and she was excitedly jumping up and down as she could not wait for it to be ready. The father then lost his patience and threw the cardboard box at Y, hitting her very hard and causing her to cry. Ms Nemec deposes to a further incident involving Z in February 2023 in which the father became upset with Z for not eating his food. The father moved the highchair Z was sitting into the kitchen, faced the chair away from Ms Nemec, and would not allow her to comfort him. Z was screaming and crying, and the father attempted to force feed him his meal. Ms Nemec saw the father raise his hands as if he was about to hit Z, so she ran to grab Z out of the chair, and as she did the father hit the highchair with such force that it flipped over, before he threw the food all over the floor and punched a door.[72]
4. When Y was interviewed for the Family Report and asked whether there was anything in her life that didn't make her feel happy, she stated "it wasn't good when Mum and Dad lived together, he hit me with a box" and the father "threw [Z]'s chair (high chair) down".[73] Y also said that "Dad made me feel not safe when he was screaming and yelling at us and discussed how she used to "hide in a cupboard from Dad so he couldn't find us".[74] During an interview with child protection, X stated that she "felt unsafe with the father when he threw a cardboard box at [Y], that he was angry when her siblings didn't eat their food, that he pushed [Z]'s chair and threw a glass bowl and got upset when she didn't give the horses water".[75] Despite this corroborating evidence, in particular the evidence of X, who is highly aligned with her father, the father denied any of these events transpired.
5. At paragraph [98] of the Family Report, Ms C states the following:

There are competing explanations for the formation of [Y] and [Z]'s apparently close relationship with their father. On one hand, it may be that [the father] has been a predictable and stable caregiver for the children throughout their young lives. This would have had a positive impact upon their development of a healthy and secure attachment with their father. An alternative rationalisation for this apparently close bond could also be that a trauma bond has developed between [Y], [Z], and [the father].

1. When Ms C was cross-examined about the reference to a possible "trauma bond" between Y, Z, and the father, she agreed that the incidents involving the cardboard box and the highchair could be causes of such trauma.
2. In his Outline of Case document, the father denies the children have or will be exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect, or harm and denied there are any safety concerns that require specific arrangements. He further asserts Ms Nemec has fabricated the allegations of family violence and engaged in a campaign to remove the father from the children's lives.
3. I accept the evidence of Ms Nemec in regard to the father's conduct towards the children and prefer her evidence to the father's unconvincing denials. Particularly because the father's conduct is corroborated by X when interviewed for the first Family Report. I find the father hit Y with the cardboard box, hit Z's highchair as alleged, and perpetrated family violence against Ms Nemec as detailed above.
4. Whilst the father alleges that Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec have colluded and conspired against him, and that the similarities in their respective narratives make it more likely than not they have colluded against him, there is a starkly obvious and contradictory explanation. That explanation is the father has behaved in a similarly violent, abusive, coercive and controlling manner in both relationships, which have demonstrably detrimentally affected each of his successive partners. I reject the father's conspiracy and collusion theories and accept the father's behaviour was likely similar towards his two recent partners. Neither Ms Vanchev nor Ms Nemec appeared rehearsed in giving their evidence and I accept their respective evidence about the level of communication between them, which was not particularly frequent. Ms Vanchev's allegations are discussed in the Cumulative Harm Report (Exhibit DFFH-4) and date from 2015, years before Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec met.
5. The specific allegations of family violence levelled against the father in respect of X will be discussed below in the context of sexual abuse, sexually inappropriate behaviour, and grooming.

Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against eight nannies

1. During the relationship between the father and Ms Nemec, eight nannies were employed to work for the family. All eight nannies made reports to DFFH regarding inappropriate sexual behaviour perpetrated by the father, and two made contemporaneous reports to Victoria Police regarding same.[76] The allegations made by the various nannies against the father are outlined in detailed above.
2. During cross-examination, the father attempted to curtail the credibility of the nannies by professing they had been coached by Ms Nemec, and the two nannies that went to the police only did so because they were trying to blackmail them to obtain "money for their holiday".[77] He further posited the nannies had been employed by Ms Nemec, rather than himself.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms Nemec tendered two statements that had been made by nannies employed by the family. In a statement dated 23 April 2023 (Exhibit MSN-3), Ms QQ stated she was interested in a job advertisement posted on Facebook by the father about working on a farm, of which she says the following:

I decided to answer to this offer as it was exciting and once a lifetime opportunity. [The father] reply to my message in private inbox that he would be happy to help me with the visa process. He asked me to send him my resume and my level of English. He also asked me for a kind of a payment to him for helping me. The payment was naked pictures of me send [sic] to his email.

1. During Ms QQ's time in Australia in 2013, the father introduced her to Ms Vanchev and X as his "cousin", despite her not being related to him. She states he did so because "[the father] told me it would be the best solution so nobody will suspect anything about us in case [sic] we would start an affair together"[78]
2. The statement details the father's sexualised behaviour towards her which started on the first night she arrived in Australia, and which culminated in them having sex within a week or so, and his coercive behaviour during her time in Australia.
3. The second statement (Exhibit MSN-4) was made by Ms N, the father's second cousin, regarding her time in Australia in late 2017. She stated she was invited to Australia by the father to spend time with him and Ms Nemec, and the father stated he would happily show her around, go sightseeing, and go camping. She states the following:

Our communication before my trip was rather unusual, disturbing in fact. After I bought my flight tickets, [the father] started sending me messages which I considered as sexual harassment. [The father] would mention things like having a bath together, he also sent me pictures of himself being in a bathtub. He was asking me a lot of questions about my personal intimate relationships, my boyfriends, and my sexual experiences. Although, I was disturbed by these messages, I decided to go to Australia anyway, considering the amount of money I spent on my flight tickets...

...

Shortly after our arrival at the home, [the father] served us a sparkling wine, and gave [Ms Nemec] a present in front of me. The present was an erotic game. Erotic dice with different sexual positions on it. This was very uncomfortable for me personally. When we went to sleep that evening, I locked my bedroom door because I did not feel safe in the house.

[The father] and [Ms Nemec] left for work next day, and I stayed at home on my own. After I work up, [the father] video called me and encouraged me to take a bath before he gets home. I refused to do it. When he arrived he made several uncomfortable advances towards me, by means of touching and hugging. At this point I felt physically and emotionally pressurised [sic] by him.

1. During her visit, Ms Nemec allegedly also confided in Ms N she was concerned about her safety and told her that she wanted to leave the father and separate from him. Ms N ended up leaving the house after a few days, and states the father subsequently harassed her with threatening messages saying he would ruin her life and her relationship with her boyfriend by "telling him a story that [she] cheat[ed] on him".[79]
2. Although the witness statements were tendered, neither of the authors were made available for cross-examination and I have had regard to that limitation as to the weight to be accorded to their evidence. I have, however, also had regard to the father's sexualised text messages which he forwarded to Ms JJ, prior to Ms JJ arriving in Australia, and which are referred to in detail below.
3. Of more persuasive weight is the evidence of another nanny employed by the family, Ms JJ. She swore an affidavit in the proceedings about her time in Australia in September 2022 after she responded to a Facebook post, in which the father and Ms Nemec were looking for a nanny. She was subjected to extensive cross-examination.
4. In her affidavit, Ms JJ deposes that prior to arriving in Australia, she began to receive "questionable messages" from the father that were of a sexual nature, which she shrugged off at the time as him just being open about his sexuality.[80] These texts (Exhibit MSN-1) include "in the spa always naked"; "Are you a shy woman? I hope not. Legs behind the neck and boom"; "Well when my flower blossoms, it'll cry by itself... cactus also stings... maybe I am a gardener... every morning and ever [sic] evening"; "naked bum and always merry".
5. During cross-examination by counsel appearing on behalf of Ms Nemec, the father gave evidence that his chain of texts stating "Are you a shy woman? I hope not. Legs behind the neck and boom" had no sexual connotation and were instead a reference to Ms JJ doing yoga before accessing the spa. He denied knowing what his cryptic messages referring to a flower, cactus, and gardener meant, but admitted that it was a sexual reference and "just a stupid joke".[81] When questioned about his text stating "naked bum and always merry", the father stated it was a "funny joke" and despite talking about her naked bum, he did not mean it as a sexual reference.[82] The father further denied there was a power dynamic in play in the context of these text messages being sent, and denied there was any "overstepping".[83] The translated text messages are contained in Exhibit MSN-1. The text messages are overtly sexual and even refer to being naked in the spa. I do not accept the father's denials to the effect the messages were not sexually predatory and highly inappropriate, but rather a joke.
6. In her affidavit, Ms JJ further deposes that when she arrived at the airport in Australia, the father picked her up. During the car ride home, he told her she could earn extra money if she massaged his back or whole body, before touching her inner thigh, stating "[Ms Nemec] can never know anything". That evening, after the children and Ms Nemec went to bed, the father asked Ms JJ to go into the garage with him where he smoked cigarettes. She deposes the father started telling her that he takes photos of Ms Nemec performing erotic acts, and that he was a very good photographer. He said he could take photos of her performing erotic acts, before proceeding to show her erotic videos of Ms Nemec, which made her uncomfortable and scared. When this was put to the father during cross-examination, he denied this ever occurred and accused Ms JJ of lying.
7. A few days later, Ms JJ deposes the following incident occurred:

[The father] asked me to meet him in the garage to talk and to bring a candle from the house but not to tell [Ms Nemec]. When I got to the garage it was dark and [the father] was wearing a dressing gown... After half an hour, he stood in front of me a [sic] spread his legs wide, so the dressing gown opened. He was not wearing any underwear and I could see his penis. I felt very uncomfortable seeing his penis, so I quickly left the garage.[84]

1. The father denied this event and accused her of lying, with the intention of blackmailing the couple for money to continue her holiday in Country UU. Despite the father's denial of this event, counsel for the father suggested the father's exposure of his penis was inadvertent, and a result of him being "bow legged". Ms JJ was obviously incredulous at the suggestion and emphatically denied the proposition. She reiterated her evidence and said the father had undone his dressing gown himself and put his leg up on a piece of garden equipment that was comparable to a small tractor and had thereby exposed his penis to her. Her evidence about this incident was spontaneous and entirely plausible.
2. Of her stay, Ms JJ also deposes to the following:

[the father] cut the internet off during my short stay with them so I could not contact my family who were already worried about me.

There was also a camera in my bedroom which on 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I had no privacy.[85]

1. The father asserts the allegations of Ms JJ are the result of a conspiracy with Ms Nemec and the other nannies, which is why the statements of the nannies are so similar. I do not agree with that hypothesis, and rather accept that each woman's version of events recounts her own personal experience at the hands of the father. I accept Ms JJ as a witness of truth who had little to gain from participating in the proceeding and I accept her evidence regarding the father's conduct towards her as truthful and emblematic of the father's predatory sexual behaviour and lack of sexual boundaries.
2. Furthermore, in a letter from DFFH dated 2 May 2024, authored by Ms F, (Exhibit DFFH-1), Ms F stated:

Based on the information that Child Protection hold, it can be verified that [the father] has a pattern and history of perpetrating family violence and likely used abusive sexual behaviours against vulnerable women. The women noted as nannies, family member or partners have been women who have needed to depend on [Mr Vanchev] for their visa, likelihood, and residence. It is a concern that [Mr Vanchev] minimises his perpetration of family violence and concerns of his historical behaviours had not been shared with Men's Behaviour Change Program which impacts their assessments and observations.

(Emphasis added)

1. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Ms F, who, as noted above was cross-examined by counsel for the various parties. I find the father engaged in sexually inappropriate and predatory behaviour towards Ms JJ including deliberately exposing his penis to her in the garage in the manner asserted by Ms JJ.
2. The events outlined above highlight the father's sexually predatory behaviour, which I do not accept to be merely a difference in cultural norms or a more liberated attitude to sexuality, as was submitted by counsel for the father. The father's repeated references to nakedness and sex in text messages with a vulnerable young woman, whom he had not even met, and the rapid escalation of his sexualised conduct are inexcusable and cannot possibly be swept aside as a liberated attitude to sexual activity. It is particularly concerning that such conduct is directed towards vulnerable young women, in the context of him having two young daughters of his own.

Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against X

1. There has been an extensive history of allegations made against the father in relation to sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated against X.
2. During an investigation conducted by child protection between early 2015 and mid-2015, Ms Vanchev advised the practitioner the father often bathed X alone and would not allow her in the room. It was Ms Vanchev's understanding that during this time the father and X would both be naked, and the father would require X to lie on top of him. She advised there was an occasion where X was playing with his penis. She alleged the father would jump on top of X and rub against her, stating "I'm riding horsey" and that X had said a few times "daddy let's do ding dong".[86] Ms Vanchev also alleged the father forced her to have sex with him multiple times including when she was in pain after giving birth and having a termination, was also forced to have anal sex, and sometimes woke up to him having sex with her. Ms Vanchev advised child protection they would often have sex in front of X. Child protection subsequently put these allegations to the father, who denied them, although he stated X had once pulled his pubic hair.[87]
3. A further report of sexually inappropriate behaviour was received by child protection in early 2016, when X was three years old. During this period, X was spending three nights a week with her mother, and four nights with her father pursuant to orders of the Court. It was reported that upon returning to Ms Vanchev's care, X would ask to be tickled on her head, chest, nipples, and bottom. X apparently told Ms Vanchev to put her finger "there", referring to her vagina, stating the father tickles her "there" and it hurts, stating he does it to make her sleep. Ms Vanchev also reported that during this time, X would return home stating "mummy's naughty".[88]
4. Child protection subsequently interviewed X and prior to questioning she stated, "I love my Mum so much, because I love her".[89] Initially when asked if she had a father, X stated no, but then went on to say she lived with her mother sometimes and her father sometimes. She stated she "told the fairies she doesn't want to go to daddy's" because her "mother did everything nice". When asked about the tickle game X stated she had already told the practitioner and she would not tell them again. When discussing her private parts, X stated the father "touched [her] bum" but refused to answer more questions.[90]
5. During this 2016 period of protective intervention, Ms Vanchev contacted the after-hours child protection emergency service because at handover, the father whispered something in X's ear prior to her entering the car. Per the Cumulative Harm Review (Exhibit DFFH-4), Ms Vanchev reported that X told her "Daddy did it again" and when asked what the father did she stated, "he tickled my bum" and "I didn't like it, it hurt".[91] According to Ms Vanchev, X said she told the father "Daddy don't do that please" to which the father replied "ha ha ha I'll do what I like"; and she recorded the conversation.[92] The following day, Ms Vanchev took X to see a GP, Dr VV, who advised X had said the "father tickled [sic] her 'everywhere' and pointed to her bottom and vagina". X would not allow Dr VV to complete an examination, but from their brief observations there did not appear to be any redness or swelling. The doctor advised that X did not want to look at the mother during her disclosure, and the GP felt it was X's words.[93]Ms Vanchev subsequently informed child protection that she would not allow X to have contact with her father that weekend.
6. Shortly thereafter, child protection received a new report from an anonymous person who refused to provide their details or outline their relationship to X or the family. They reported the parents were involved in a "hate war" and that Ms Vanchev would "lie about anything, was manipulative and clever, and not to be underestimated".[94] The following day, child protection and SOCIT met with X and Ms Vanchev, however, X would not separate from her mother. When practitioners expressed concern that X was being caught in the middle of her parents, Ms Vanchev became distressed and stated she was trying to protect X. Ms Vanchev then showed practitioners a video of X stating the father had "touched [her] bum", in which the mother was asking leading questions and X did not appear to be distressed.[95] Ms Vanchev denied coaching X.
7. Subsequently, a further report was received. It was reported the father had a video of X stating that Ms Vanchev tickled her, and when asked where X pointed to her crotch.[96] Child protection informed SOCIT of the new disclosure, and they confirmed they would not investigate. Child protection assessed both parents as responsible for harm in relation to s 162(e) of the Child Youth and Families Act 2005 (Cth).
8. In 2023, Ms Nemec advised child protection she observed the father sexually abuse X by using a massage gun on her vagina in approximately October or November 2022, showing X how to use sex toys, showering with her, and that the father slept in X's bed. After the father had slept in X's bed, the following day X would follow him around telling him she loved him repeatedly to which he would tell her to stay away from him. She further alleges the father would walk around the house in G-strings with his testicles hanging out exposing himself and that he would sit on the couch naked and touch himself in front of the children.[97]
9. In April 2023, child protection interviewed X in the company of Ms Vanchev, and X immediately began to cry and asked when she would be able to see her father. During the interview, X spoke about not understanding why people think it is concerning that she gets into the hot tub with her father "chillin with no clothes on". X explained to child protection this happens because the father told her "if you go into the hot tub with your bathers the soap gets too bubbly and can get broken". Of this interview, the Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) further states:

[X] spoke of other times she sees her father without clothing when walking from the shower to his bedroom or sitting on the couch watching YouTube on his phone. [X] confirmed she would be sitting on the couch watching Peppa Pig at this time. [X] identified the couch is at the home her and her father shared with her stepmother, [Ms Nemec], and half siblings, [Y] and [Z]. When asked [X] spoke of feeling a bit scared when seeing her father without clothes on.

[X] spoke of the time her father placed a massage gun on her thigh, [X] described the feeling as a vibration and not feeling comfortable.[98]

1. During cross-examination, the father vehemently denied these allegations levelled against him. Regarding the massage gun, he stated he had placed this on X's leg and not near her vagina, as alleged by Ms Nemec.[99] That evidence contradicts the father's statements to child protection, as recorded in the Magellan Report, that "[Mr Vanchev] spoke of using the massage gun on himself and denied using this device on X but spoke of X using it on herself".[100]
2. Counsel for the father vigorously cross-examined Ms Nemec about whether she had actually seen the incident involving the massage gun. She was adamant she was able to view the couch where X and the father were sitting, when she observed this incident. I accept her evidence the father and X were sitting on the couch with the massage gun, and it was applied between X's legs near her vagina, as described by X to SOCIT in March 2023, and as noted in the s 67Z Report dated June 2023, but I am unable to positively find it was placed on her vagina.
3. Regarding the sex toys, the father said these were Ms Nemec's, although as submitted by counsel for Ms Nemec, he did not provide an explanation as to why Ms Nemec would own a rubber vagina nor a machine which replicates oral sex on a man. Ms Nemec's explanation the father bought these items using her bank account to use after childbirth is inherently plausible.[101]
4. It is noted in the Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) that child protection received photos of the father on a beach with his four year old child in close proximity while naked, another where he is wearing a women's G-string underwear and lying on the same beach, two photos of the father dressed in women's clothing, and one photo of the father sleeping on the couch naked with a child exposed to this. Due to the inappropriate nature of the photographs and to protect the father's privacy, child protection deleted these images.
5. The Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) states the following:

The department received evidence during the Child Protection investigation of [the father] being naked around the children, inclusive of at the beach, in the spa (and insisting the children be naked in the spa with him) and whilst watching television. Whilst it is acknowledged that nudity is expected and acceptable in some contexts, [the father's] behaviour is considered to exceed what would be considered normal and reasonable. It is noted that [X] is approaching her pubertal years with [the father] at minimum demonstrating a lack of insight into [the father's] developmental need for privacy.[102]

1. Page 15 of the Magellan Report states that "[Ms Nemec] and [Ms Vanchev] have recently provided DFFH with a large amount of information which they assert is evidence of [Mr Vanchev] being a sexual abuser" and "there is not enough evidence for substantiation of childhood sexual abuse by [Mr Vanchev] towards his children however we are exceedingly concerned with his sexualised behaviour that is out of keeping with the normal and culturally accepted context... and violating social taboos".
2. In a report of Ms F, Advanced Child Protection Practitioner (Exhibit DFFH-1) she states:

It is known that exposure to excessive nudity can be a pattern of behaviours that forms grooming to normalise nudity, thus making them more open to abusive sexual behaviours. It is particularly more concerning when the person exposing the child to the above behaviours and preventing the child from wearing bathers in a spa under the guise that the detergent in the bathers will beak or damage the spa; is the child's primary caregiver, someone that they trust, respect and seek guidance from.[103]

1. Sometime during the February 2023 to July 2023 period of protective intervention, child protection assessed the father as responsible for harm in relation to s 162(1)(e) and s 162(1)(d) of the Child Youth and Families Act 2005 (Cth).[104] Per the DFFH s 67Z Report of 22 May 2023, child protection assessed that there was sufficient information to substantiate the sexual abuse alleged to have been perpetrated by the father; however, child protection was exceeding concerned about the persistent allegations made against the father. At minimum the father has a clear lack of appropriate boundaries and a poor understanding of what is appropriate for X at her age and stage of development. I agree with that assessment. Child protection also assessed both parents lacked insight in relation to the impact their animosity had on X.
2. In the first Family Report, Ms C observed that X's interactions with her father were excessive and exaggerated and in contrast to those observed by her mother. She also observed X displayed heightened affection towards her father and appeared particularly eager to obtain his approval. Ms C assessed X's interactions with the father as potentially inauthentic and that her responses to him were possibly exaggerated in order to appease and indulge him.
3. At [98] of the first family report Ms C said:

If there is substance to [Ms Vanchev's] allegations, then there is the potential that [X] has aligned herself with her father in the pursuit of her own safety. Children who have been exposed to abuse or family violence are known to often "side" with their abuser. In this scenario, if [X] has witnessed or been the victim of [the father's] abusive behaviour, then there is the potential for her to align herself with her father in order to protect herself. By siding with her father, [X] may be less likely to be the target of his aggressive, violent or abusive behaviours. This position would inherently offer her more power, and it may provide her with a sense of control over her circumstances. By remaining loyal to her father in rejecting and demeaning her mother, [X] may have found a way to "keep the peace". She may consequently experience the benefits of some stability and it may reinforce her sense of distain towards her mother, she may even view her mother as being at fault for her own experiences with [the father].

The significant issue remaining for determination in this matter is whether [X] has been placed at risk of physical, sexual or psychological harm when spending time with [the father]. Whilst Child Protection have not substantiated allegations of sexual harm, it is noted that they have substantiated risk to [X] and her siblings based upon physical and emotional harm. It is obvious that the lack of a substantiation decision does not necessarily suggest that such abuse has not occurred; simply that there is insufficient evidence to corroborate claims made by [Ms Vanchev] or [Ms Nemec].

If [Ms Vanchev's] account has veracity, [X] is at risk of significant abuse, allegedly perpetrated by her father. If the nature and extent of these allegations are accurate, then [X]'s time with her father should undoubtedly cease; it would be challenging to envisage any scenario whereby it would be appropriate for [X] to spend any time with her father in such circumstances.

1. In December 2024 when Ms C was scheduled to give evidence, it was decided that it would be appropriate for her to prepare a further report pertaining to X.
2. The second Family Report was released on 14 February 2025 ("the second Family Report) which pertained only to the father, Ms Vanchev and X. Ms C was cross-examined on 18 February 2025.
3. In the second Family Report Ms C identified as an issue of risk or concern, whether X had been influenced by either party and whether that resulted in her becoming aligned with her father.
4. Ms C was robustly cross-examined by the father's counsel about the hypothesis at [82] of the second Family Report that X may have trauma bonded with her father. Counsel for the father suggested to Ms C there was a myriad of other possible explanations why X had rejected her mother and aligned with her father, including the allegations of physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by Ms Vanchev.
5. During cross-examination by counsel for Ms Vanchev, Ms C said she considered X to have been groomed by the father.
6. As to the grooming of X, counsel appearing on behalf of Ms Vanchev put to Dr BB Ms Vanchev's allegations the father had come up behind when she was doing the dishes, pulled her pants down, and penetrated her from behind in X's presence. Logically, X would have been under two years old at the time because Ms Vanchev and the father separated when she was around two.
7. When this evidence was put to Dr BB, and if it were accepted as correct, he was asked to comment on X's proximity to this sexual act in the context of grooming. Dr BB said "there is certainly different ways of thinking about grooming, however - and some people would argue that individuals who engage in sexual acts in front of children, trying to normalise sexual acts and therefore expand boundaries, and so you can consider grooming in that respect. So it depends".[105]
8. I accept Ms C's evidence for the reasons above, and I consider Ms C to be an objective and professional witness, who had the opportunity of observing the parents and child on two occasions. I also accept that the father has groomed X.
9. On the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude X has been sexually abused by the father, and it is not necessary to make historical findings of alleged sexual abuse of X. I do observe that both parents historically made allegations of risk about the other. However, I find X has been exposed to inappropriate sexual behaviour by the father, including exposure to his nudity and inappropriate sexual boundaries. I also find the father placed a vibrating massage gun on X's leg near her vagina, which in the context of the father's behaviour and apparent sexual obsession, is of particular concern.

Allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour perpetrated by the father against Y

1. Throughout their relationship, Ms Nemec alleges the father was sexually inappropriate towards Y. This is denied by the father, with such allegations described by him as a "campaign to remove [him] from the children's lives".[106]
2. Most, if not all, allegations regarding the inappropriate sexual behaviour of the father towards Y come from her mother, Ms Nemec, and are outlined in detail in her trial affidavit.
3. Ms Nemec deposes the father would often point to her own vagina and tell Y what it was and would also show Y his penis in front of her, which made her very uncomfortable. He would tell the children (Y and Z) to take Ms Nemec's underwear off, and if she didn't let them the father would become angry. She also deposes to the father walking around in a G-string with his testicles hanging out.[107]
4. When Y was about three years old, Ms Nemec deposes that Y began touching her vagina frequently, and when asked why she stated, "Daddy told me to". The father would watch Y touch herself and told Ms Nemec "She loves the smell of her vagina, it makes her high".[108] When this was put to Ms C during cross-examination, she stated that such behaviour, if true, goes "beyond grooming" and constitutes sexual abuse. The father vehemently denied this during cross-examination, alleging this was a lie perpetuated by Ms Nemec.
5. Ms Nemec also observed the father in the bath with Y with an erect penis.[109] During cross-examination the father admitted both he and Ms Nemec had bathed naked with Y, however, denied ever having an erect penis, stating this was a lie concocted by Ms Nemec.
6. The Cumulative Harm Review (Exhibit DFFH-4) states that sometime during the protective intervention between February 2023 and July 2023, child protection and SOCIT interviewed Y whereby she stated the father screamed at her and it made her sad and scared. She also stated the father touched her private parts and went on to specify her vagina.
7. I accept Ms Nemec' s evidence about the father requiring the children to take off her underwear, because it is consistent with the father requiring Ms Nemec to remove her underwear and clothing and walk about the house naked on a Sunday as referred to above, and the family attending a normal beach without wearing any clothing. The father's nakedness at the beach and at other times including in the spa and whilst watching television, is referred to in the Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2) and was not specifically denied by him.
8. The totality of the father's sexually unacceptable behaviour, and his apparent preoccupation with sex, lends credence to Ms Nemec's statements about the father's conduct with Y in the bath and his inexplicable fascination with the child's vagina. I accept her evidence in this regard and her evidence about the father's erect penis whilst in the bath with his young daughter.

Whether X has been subject to sexual abuse and/or family violence by Ms Vanchev

1. The father submits that X is not safe with Ms Vanchev given the disclosures she made to the DFFH on 19 December 2023 and to other third parties regarding sexual abuse and family violence. Ms Vanchev vehemently denies these allegations, although accepted at times she and X had a volatile relationship, her parenting was authoritarian, and she hit X on a few occasions. To understand the sexual abuse allegations, it is helpful to examine the timeline and context in which they arose.
2. On 13 June 2023, the father commenced spending unsupervised time with X for up to five hours each week, and on 21 August 2023, the father began unsupervised time with X each Sunday and each alternate Saturday which continued until 28 February 2024, when supervised time between the father and X was ordered.
3. During this period of unsupervised time, the first Family Report interviews were conducted on 15 and 16 November 2023. Ms C gave evidence during cross-examination that X's behaviour during the assessment felt performative.
4. The first Family Report was released on 8 December 2023 and detailed the many and varied risk allegations levelled against each parent, including allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by the father, and recommended X remain living with her mother. No allegations regarding sexual abuse perpetrated by Ms Vanchev had been raised at this time. The paragraphs of the Family Reports adverse to the father are referred to above.
5. Eleven days after the release of the first Family Report, on 19 December 2023, child protection contacted Ms Vanchev to advise her that X had made disclosures. She later found out these were allegations of sexual abuse. X completed a VARE interview in February 2024 and on the same day, an interim Intervention Order taken out by Victoria Police was served on Ms Vanchev in favour of X. The father's unsupervised time with X was not suspended until 28 February 2024. Despite this timeline, the father gave evidence during cross-examination that at the time of the VARE interview, his time with X was supervised, which it was not.[110]
6. As noted by Ms F in her DFFH report dated February 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-3):

From December 2023 to February 2024, [X] is unable to identify anything she likes about [Ms Vanchev] and appears to align herself further with her father as she becomes distrusting and rejecting of adults who are friends with [Ms Vanchev] and seeks to be surrounded by [the father's] supports...

The current concerns of [Ms Vanchev] sexually harming [X] are not taken lightly but do not distract from the protective concerns regarding [the father] and how [X] has aligned her whole self to him. Based on the probability of [the father] using coercive control over the last 10 years, the veracity of the disclosures are in question. During these 10 years child protection records reflect [X] and [Ms Vanchev] struggles to create secure attachment which is likely to be caused by [Ms Vanchev's] mental health being directly impacted by the family and sexual violence she has endured by [the father], creating a loss of self and disempowerment.

For several years [X] has been displaying acute symptoms of a child experiencing emotional and sexual distress, from pain in her stomach, diss associative and irregular emotions, incontinence, vomiting, hiding of underwear, rejection of touch by a primary caregiver and aligning herself with one parent ([the father]).[111]

1. The VARE tape (Exhibit ICL-1) was played during the trial, and whilst X was able to particularise each allegation, she was very broad in her descriptions and conversational in her retelling. Notably, she did not become upset or emotional when recounting the allegations of sexual abuse or family violence perpetrated by Ms Vanchev. The only time she became emotional was when describing not being able to live with her father.
2. X's allegations of sexual abuse by her mother escalated and became more florid. The disclosures made by X during the VARE interview include Ms Vanchev "pressing" on her vagina before explaining it is "normal", inserting a finger into her vagina, hitting her with a car, and hitting her with a hairbrush. X was notably rigid in her storytelling and unable to elaborate further. SOCIT subsequently closed the investigation due to insufficient evidence.
3. In my view, it is no coincidence that X's allegations of sexual abuse against by Ms Vanchev coincide with the father spending unsupervised time with X, and the father being faced with the recommendations posited by the Family Report writer in the first Family Report. I find that there is no veracity to the allegation of sexual abuse perpetrated by Ms Vanchev against X. At best, these allegations are a manifestation of a trauma bond and unstable attachment between X and the father, or at worst, a successful attempt at psychological abuse and manipulation of X by the father. I consider it likely that the father has influenced and manipulated X which has resulted in her estrangement from Ms Vanchev and concur with the DFFH assessment of Ms F referred to above, as to the father's coercive and controlling campaign to align X with him and for her to reject her mother.
4. In addition to the more recent allegations of sexual abuse, there have been allegations of family violence and inappropriate discipline levelled against Ms Vanchev by the father, and more recently by X, almost since X was born which are outlined extensively in the Cumulative Harm Review (Exhibit DFFH-4).
5. In April 2020, when X was seven years old, it is reported she informed her psychologist that she did not want to return to Ms Vanchev's care because "mummy smacks me all the time", later stating she "only smacks me when I've done something wrong".[112] It was reported that X previously disclosed different punishments including being locked outside and made to sleep on the floor, and appeared genuine in her disclosure. The next year, a further report was received from WW School as X had disclosed, she did not like staying at her mother's house because she was strict, including telling her she had to eat dinner and slapping her cheek.[113] Nil bruising was reported. Throughout 2021, further reports of a similar nature were made to child protection by WW School. Nevertheless, in April 2023, when X was interviewed by child protection, she stated she liked sharing her time between her mother and father.
6. During cross-examination Ms Vanchev admitted to having hit X approximately four times and slapped her around three. She did not classify this behaviour as "violent" and explained that she would always go back to her daughter and explain the reason for her behaviour. When asked where she has gone wrong as a parent, Ms Vanchev explained that she "needed to be more Australian" in her way of parenting and "let X guide [her]" in how to parent her, and she was too structured and did not listen to X when needed.[114]
7. I accept Ms Vanchev's evidence of her previous authoritarian parenting style and that she has inappropriately disciplined X in the past, including hitting her. During cross-examination Ms Vanchev conceded her actions were wrong and said she had subsequently engaged with counselling to improve her parenting capacity.[115] I have confidence that she has reflected on these behaviours and has recognised the role she has played in the current situation.
8. I do not find that Ms Vanchev poses a risk of harm to X arising from physical, sexual or emotional abuse. I accept Ms Vanchev is desperate to rehabilitate her relationship with her daughter and has engaged in some form of counselling, although not optimal, as recommended by Dr NN. It is evident Ms Vanchev has been frustrated and confused by the lack of progress in arranging counselling or therapy between herself and X to address their estrangement and X's stated desire not to have anything to do with her. Ms Vanchev impressed as bewildered and not knowing why no assistance had been offered by the DFFH, a sentiment which I share. Throughout the proceedings the DFFH was requested to arrange family therapy or some form of psychological counselling for Ms Vanchev and X, but did not or could not, citing at their end the inability to obtain funding for such therapy.
9. I am satisfied Ms Vanchev is remorseful about her former parenting style, is well aware of the consequences, and is highly unlikely to engage in any conduct which could result in further estrangement including physical discipline, if reconciliation between mother and daughter is possible.

Does the father pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the children?

1. Turning now to consider whether the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to X, Y, and Z.
2. As observed above, the test for finding an unacceptable risk of harm is a predictive exercise, having regard to findings and asserted risk factors even if it is not possible to make a definitive finding, to determine whether an unacceptable risk of possible future harm exists.
3. The nature and extent of the risk must be appreciated. Tree J in Bant & Clayton [2015] FamCAFC 222; (2015) 53 Fam LR 621 observed at [171]:

Risk assessment involves determining firstly, the degree of the likelihood of the postulated event, and secondly, the prospect and magnitude of harm that may flow if the event occurs. The weighing of those two considerations - even accepting they may be imprecisely expressed within parameters - will inform whether the risk is adjudged to be acceptable or not. However that conclusion cannot be made in the abstract.

1. As to the risk the father poses, and the likelihood of the father engaging in sexual harm of the children, the father relied upon the psycho-sexual assessment of Dr BB undertaken in July 2023.
2. In his initial assessment, Dr BB concluded that a relevant testing method, RSVP, revealed the father's psychosexual risk was estimated at low. However, during cross-examination, Dr BB agreed at the time of his report he was unaware of multiple pertinent facts, which if the Court found were true, would affect his level of assessment. These include the following:

(a) The father had placed a massage device on X's inner thigh near her vagina, but not too close, and that it vibrated and made her feel uncomfortable;

(b) Y had told her mother that the father had touched her vagina;

(c) Y said her father had taught her to play with her vagina;

(d) The father said Y gets high on the smell of her vagina;

(e) The father's interpretation of the text messages with Ms JJ as a joke, before conceding they had sexual connotations;

(f) The father showed Ms JJ explicit videos of Ms Nemec on the first night Ms JJ was in the household;

(g) The father, whilst wearing a dressing gown, had exposed his penis to Ms JJ in the garden shed;

(h) The father had forced Ms Nemec to have sex with him against her will;

(i) Ms Nemec was videoed by the father having sex, without her consent;

(j) The father lying about the sex toys;

(k) The father showed X a rubber penis and vagina and showed her how they fitted together; and

(l) The father being observed in the bath with Y with an erect penis and allowing the children to play with his penis in the bath.

1. Dr BB agreed with counsel for Ms Nemec that if the aforementioned allegations are true, the risk of harm to all three children would increase from "low risk", without identifying where it would stand.[116]My findings about most of the events are referred to above.
2. It was submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the father in his opening address that the children's behaviour toward the father does not evidence an unacceptable risk of harm. Rather, risk is evidenced only by things that come from the two mothers; Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec, and it is the father's case that the mothers have cooperated with one another, if not conspired with one another on a concerned course of action to locate as much dirt as possible against the father, which has erroneously informed the material before the Court. He further submitted there is a difference between the risk posed, as alleged by the mothers, and the risk the DFFH identify as being "sexualised behaviour that is out of keeping with the normal and culturally accepted context and violating social taboos". This is simply the way the father and his family lived, and it is very much the case that he, Ms Nemec, and the children were often nude. He conceded it becomes a value judgment about what risk does this sort of less inhibited behaviour pose, and does it breach the threshold that is, in fact, some sort of grooming behaviour by the father.
3. In the Magellan Report (Exhibit DFFH-2), the DFFH concluded it was exceedingly concerned "[the father's] sexual behaviour, which is out of keeping with the normal and culturally expected context of today and violating the social taboos of society".[117] The department had received evidence of the father being around children dressed in exceedingly skimpy swimwear and being naked at the beach in front of the children, which exceeded what would be considered normal and reasonable. It was also noted that "excessive nudity can be a pattern of behaviour that is a form of grooming whereby nudity is normalised for the children, thus making them more open to untoward sexual behaviours. This may be a way to desensitise children to other sexual behaviours such a sexual touching to the point [sic] may not realise that something inappropriate is occurring".[118] I accept and agree with that conclusion and reject the submissions of counsel for the father referred to above.
4. Whilst child protection has not substantiated allegations of sexual harm, it is noted that as recently as February 2024, the DFFH substantiated the father has likely, or is likely to cause both emotional and sexual harm to X.[119] This lack of a substantiation decision does not necessarily suggest that such abuse has not occurred, simply that there is insufficient evidence to corroborate claims made by Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec.
5. On the cumulative evidence, I conclude there is a significant future risk to the children arising from the father's behaviour and in reaching that conclusion I have also had regard to the following factors:
   • the father's insistence the level of nudity is simply the way the family lived and that there is nothing inappropriate or abnormal about his conduct;
   • the father's obvious lack of remorse for his conduct;
   • the father's failure to realise the extent and pattern of his sexually predatory behaviour;
   • the father's constant desire to justify his conduct ;
   • his lack of acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, and attempt to blame others;
   • the characterisation of his overtly sexually predatory behaviour directed towards Ms JJ as a joke, when clearly it was not, and was instead sinister and menacing;
   • the father's demonstrated lack of insight into the consequences of his conduct despite having attended a men's behavioural change course;
   • the coercive and controlling behaviour demonstrated by the father over many years towards multiple women, including both Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec;
   • the complaints by different nannies employed by the father who have made complaints of sexual abuse, sexual coercion, and inappropriate touching whilst in his employment and living at the family home, and in particular Ms JJ;
   • two of the nannies made complaints to Victoria Police; and
6. The above factors lead me to conclude that even as at the conclusion of the trial, the father is unwilling or unable to accept the true nature of his predatory conduct, and the prospects of self-rehabilitation, development of insight or modification of this conduct, in the absence of acceptance of responsibility, are bleak indeed. He sees no reason why X should not be placed in effectively his sole care in a rural town, or that his conduct warrants supervision when he is spending time with Y and Z, two very young and vulnerable children. That, accordingly, raises the likelihood of the father engaging in similar conduct in the future, as he appears to reject the notion that his conduct is sexually predatory, lacking in boundaries, and entirely unacceptable, and that it is not a child's best interests to undermine the relationship with their mother.
7. Even though I have not positively found that the father has sexually abused the children, I have found he has exposed them to inappropriate sexual behaviour and boundaries, has perpetrated sexual violence against Ms Nemec and Ms Vanchev, perpetrated family violence against Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec, and Y, sometimes in the presence of the children, engaged in coercive and controlling conduct, and has undermined the relationship between X and Ms Vanchev to an extent that X currently refuses to see her mother, and has made accusations of sexual abuse against her.
8. The risks of potential sexual abuse, potential risks arising from exposure to lack of sexual boundaries and inappropriate sexual conduct to the children, are obvious and have grave consequences. Furthermore, the risk arising from the cumulative harm of the identified risks would be catastrophic. It is difficult to contemplate a parent with the lack of sexual boundaries and misogynistic attitude towards women, as the father has, would be a suitable parent or role model for a young pubescent girl, X, who will shortly be interacting and engaging with adolescent males. Her inability to recognise it is highly inappropriate to be naked in a spa with her father, "chillin with no clothes on" whilst watching videos and the sunset, is of the utmost concern.[120] Of further concern is the father's grooming of X and what may eventuate as a result, the successful estrangement of X from her mother, and the adverse consequences which will inevitably flow from the loss of the maternal relationship can only be considered coercive, controlling and psychologically and emotionally abusive.
9. As for Y and Z, it is not difficult to contemplate the father's modus operandi will continue with both children, who have already been subjected to inappropriate sexual behaviour and lack of boundaries, and in particular the father involving the children in removing Ms Nemec's clothing on the pretext of having a naked Sunday. It is also likely, in the context of the father's undermining of the relationship between X and Ms Vanchev, that he may well seek to undermine the relationship between Y, Z and their mother.
10. The risks for children being exposed to family violence are succinctly stated by Ms C at paragraph [101] of the first Family Report:

Being exposed to family violence (or witnessing it) in any format can have a profound impact upon children. As well as the potential for physical harm, family violence is known to harm children as it creates instability and trauma, disrupts healthy attachments, impedes all aspects of childhood development and compromises brain development... [X] has potentially been exposed to harm of this type and she is now apparently exhibiting behaviours which may be indicative of her having been exposed to childhood trauma.

1. When all the above risk factors are collectively taken into consideration, I conclude the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children, if they were to spend unsupervised time with him in the future. The likelihood of the father continuing the offensive conduct is significant, as are the grave outcomes for the children if they are further exposed to the father, and I so find.
2. I will address below whether the risks identified can be ameliorated during my consideration of what orders are in the best interest of the children.
3. I now turn to the remaining statutory considerations.

1. It is evident X is now strongly aligned with her father. She is currently 12 years old and has expressed a strong desire to live with the father and spend no time with Ms Vanchev. Her current view is in stark contrast to that expressed during the child protection interviews in April 2023, during which she spoke of a time she felt unsafe with the father and disclosed she liked sharing time between her mother and father. The change in attitude and more strident views coincides with commencement of unsupervised time with the father between August 2023 and February 2024, during which time the first Family Report was released.
2. X was reinterviewed for the second Family Report dated 13 February 2025. During the assessment X spontaneously requested the Family Report writer convey the following information to the Court:
   • "I want you to tell the Judge that I would like to live with my Dad."
   • "I don't want to see or spend any time with my Mum. I don't want any contact with her at all, thank you."
   • "I don't want to see [Ms Vanchev] for a long time."
   • "I want it to be clear that I want to live with my Dad." [121]
3. There is no doubt that as litigation has progressed, X has expressed more strident views about not wanting to spend time with Ms Vanchev.
4. During cross-examination, Ms C described X as aligned with the father, and exhibiting a disorganised attachment style, which can arise "if a child has not known which parent they can emotionally trust and keep them safe". In her second Family Report at [81], Ms C expresses the following:

When children try to maintain a positive relationship with both parents, a loyalty conflict may ensue. The higher the level of parental divergence, the more intense the loyalty conflict may become for the child. When an intense loyalty conflict occurs, a child may experience cognitive dissonance. This is an uncomfortable mental state when a person holds two thoughts that are concurrently incompatible or contradictory. In [X]'s case, she has expressed loyalty to her father and a father to live with him on a permanent basis. [X]'s behaviour when spending time with her father is reported by her to have generally been a positive experience. However, [X] appears to be aware that this is not congruent with [Ms Vanchev's] narrative of [the father]. In this scenario, children may attempt to resolve their loyalty conflict in a maladaptive manner i.e., by aligning with one parent ([the father]) and rejecting the other parent ([Ms Vanchev]).

(Emphasis added)

1. Ms C contended that "some weight should be given to X's wishes, though some caution should also be applied in terms of accepting X's wishes on an unquestioning basis".[122]
2. It is clear X has adopted the father's narrative and does not want to spend time with Ms Vanchev. However, I consider caution should be applied in attaching any probative weight to her expressed views, particularly as Ms C gave evidence during cross-examination that she is of the opinion that X has been groomed by her father.

1. Y is currently five years old, and Z is four years old. It was noted in the Family Report that Y "is of an age where she can articulate her own wishes and feelings", however "given her stage of development it could not be expected that she could have the insight nor reflective capacity to consider issues in their entirety".[123] Similarly, it is noted that given Z's "young age and level of maturity, his views were unable to be directly obtained, and regardless should carry no weight in this matter".[124]
2. I agree that given their ages and stages of development, Y and Z's opinions should be given minimal weight in this matter.

Developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs of the child

1. X is described by Ms C as a "bright, expressive and perceptive young person who has undoubtedly been exposed to extreme levels of unpredictability and instability during her childhood".[125] Despite this, she is doing well academically and has various extra-curricular pursuits that she enjoys.
2. As identified above, the father is from Country D and Ms Vanchev's cultural background is Indian/Country E. The father is a Catholic, whilst Ms Vanchev practices Hinduism.
3. Apart from reference to a comment made by X, when she did not want to be involved in celebration of Diwali, the trial did not particularly focus on X's cultural needs or heritage.
4. Understandably, because X has been the subject of a parental power play all her life, she has complex psychological and emotional needs.
5. The DFFH Report of February 2024 (Exhibit DFFH-3) prepared by Ms F concludes that X "needs to establish her own sense of safety and understanding in her environment, she has experienced instability, unpredictability and limited to no safety whilst in either parents care because of the acrimony between her parents and the family violence perpetrated by [the father]".[126] She needs stability in her accommodation and care, and stability more generally in knowing these proceedings will finally be coming to an end.
6. The second Family Report identified X, at that time, did not see any counsellors, although she reported that she used to see someone called Ms AH every Monday, which had subsequently ceased. X said she generally had a positive relationship with her multiple child protection workers, and if she had any issues or worries, she could talk to her current carers, in particular, Ms K.[127]

1. There were no particular identified psychological, emotional or cultural needs of either child.

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. I will firstly turn to the father's parental capacity.

1. The overwhelming factor with respect to the father's parental capacity is the unacceptable risk I have found he poses to X. I do not need to repeat the factors giving rise to that finding. Other than identified risk factors, the most important issue of parental capacity is the father's capacity, or lack thereof, to promote a relationship between X and her mother, despite his proposal for X to spend time with Ms Vanchev in accordance with her wishes.
2. The child protection reports and notifications since 2015 have been replete with concerns that both Ms Vanchev and the father are coaching X and that she has been embroiled in parental conflict since 2015. As observed by Ms MM, professionals at X's school have raised concerns that her parents are coaching the child in relation to what to say to child protection, and at times the school. Child protection professionals have similarly raised concerns that neither parent has been able to prioritise X's emotional and psychological needs and have relentlessly embroiled her in conflict and their respective needs to be triumphant in the legal proceedings. I agree that the conflict and attempts to embroil X in their longstanding dispute does not reflect well on the parental capacity of either of X's parents.
3. The concern identified in the first Family Report, that X was at risk of being influenced by her father and whether that will result in her becoming unduly aligned with her father, has clearly come to fruition. That is despite X not spending any overnight time with her father since March 2023, and having spent a limited period of unsupervised care with him between June 2023 and February 2024.
4. It is apparent the father is unable to foster a relationship between X and Ms Vanchev due to his persistent negative views about Ms Vanchev, and failure to recognise the important role she plays in X's life. It is stated in the Magellan Report dated 5 July 2023 (Exhibit DFFH-2) that:

[X] spoke of the times her father talked badly about her mother, [X] believes the things he said were true and her mother never breastfed her and this explains why she is so small.[128]

1. Ms Vanchev contends, and I agree, the father is unable to identify anything positive she has contributed to their daughter, particularly as she was previously X's primary caregiver. As noted by Ms C at [73] of the first Family Report:

[The father] stated that he is dissatisfied with the level of care that [Ms Vanchev] is providing to [X], and that this arrangement is not in [X]'s best interests.

1. During cross-examination, when the father was asked if Ms Vanchev is a good mother, he replied no, before identifying her sense of humour as her only positive attribute. When cross-examined by counsel appearing on behalf of Ms Vanchev, the father also gave the following evidence:

Do you think [X] loves [Ms Vanchev]? --- No

You don't think so? --- I don't think so.

All right. Do you think [Ms Vanchev] loves [X]? --- I don't think so.[129]

1. As to the father's understanding of X's needs, Ms C noted in the second Family Report prepared in February 2025 the following:
   1. [The father] reported that he was unaware of the nature and extent of the harm that [X] was apparently exposed to whilst she was in her mother's care. However, he said that "I want to do courses and get the knowledge about how to help her"...
   2. [The father] stated that [X] needs routine, and that "she needs a home; she needs to be a child again". [The father] believes that [X] needs stability throughout "her family, her lifestyle, her home, her eating habits, her school and her friendships". [The father] spoke of [X] needing "emotional support" and "needing someone there to listen".
2. I also consider the following statement made by the father to Ms C during the interview for the second Family Report, which demonstrates a complete lack of insight and fundamental grasp of the battle he has waged with Ms Vanchev since their separation in 2015:
   1. [Mr Vanchev] stressed that he is "not using [X] as a weapon". He claimed that "I'm not coaching her and I was not using her as a messenger... I always respected that the other parent had different skills and offered [X] a different environment.
3. Contrary to the father's assertion to Ms C, Ms Nemec deposes to witnessing the father telling X how to act and what to say during the Family Report interviews in his previous proceeding with Ms Vanchev. She states:

[The father] said to [X] words to the effect of "don't show any affection and love to your mother, don't engage with activities she will try to pick for you, you need to pretend to be scared of her when she raises her hand or when she gets too close to you". [The father] then showed [X] how to react scared. [The father] also told [X] "When I'm with you, you can hug me and kiss me as much as you want, and we will show them how much fun we can have together"... "if you don't fight for us, we will be living happy life in an amazing house with your sister and you will be suffering with your mother and will not see any of us anymore because we will move to Queensland".[130]

1. Ms Nemec's evidence is entirely consistent with the observations of Ms C in the first Family Report, that X's presentation seemed performative.
2. At paragraph [128] of her trial affidavit, Ms Nemec deposes the father would tell X words to the effect of "you never stand up for yourself and tell everyone how bad your mother is! You don't listen to me! You are not good enough! You never keep your word! You are as bad as your mother, and I hate your mother! You are just a little [Ms Vanchev]! Go pack your bags, you are going to live with your mother for good". She further deposes that X would say terrible things about Ms Vanchev as she knew this made her father happy, and she would get more attention from him. I accept Ms Nemec's evidence about her experience in their household whilst the father was engaged in litigation about X. It is also consistent with Ms Nemec's account the father compelled her to make affidavits favourable to him in that proceeding.
3. X has become a pawn in the father's game of manipulation and control. I have no doubt the father's negative views of Ms Vanchev have caused X to become aligned with him through an unstable attachment.
4. I can only conclude that on a superficial level the father is probably able to provide a decent home for X with animals in a rural environment, which she appears to enjoy, but on a more fundamental level, the father's parental capacity is seriously deficient and suboptimal.
5. As to his capacity to parent the two younger children, Ms Nemec, and rightly so in my view, is fearful the father will exert similar coercion over the two younger children, which may well result in her parenting being undermined and isolating the children from her, as he has successfully done with X and Ms Vanchev. My comments above, as to the father's parental capacity, are applicable to his capacity to parent the two younger children.

1. Ms Vanchev has not seen X since February 2024 when she was placed in out of home care by the DFFH following X's disclosures of alleged sexual abuse by Ms Vanchev.
2. My comments above about the observations of the parents, as referred to by Ms MM, are equally applicable to Ms Vanchev.
3. The first Family Report states Ms Vanchev "demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of X's emotional, psychological and safety needs" and "has clearly communicated with various professionals in order to ensure that X's needs are consistently being monitored and addressed appropriately during these proceedings".[131]
4. Ms C further opined in the first Family Report at paragraph 97:

[97] [Ms Vanchev] has evidently demonstrated a high level of consistent parenting for [X] throughout her life. She has also shown a capacity to create a child focussed environment for [X]. Children require routine and consistency to thrive emotionally, psychologically, socially, and physically. It appears that [Ms Vanchev] has fostered and prioritised these areas of [X]'s development.

1. The father vehemently contends the allegations made against him by Ms Vanchev are false. If these allegations are false, her capacity to meet the needs of the child are questionable, and she lacks the capacity to understand the psychological impact such allegations may have on a child of X's age and development.
2. During cross-examination, particularly by counsel for the father, Ms Vanchev demonstrated considerable insight into the problems she would face, if X were to return to her care, including conceding that it would be unrealistic for X to live with her at that time. In the second Family Report, Ms C records that Ms Vanchev acknowledged if orders were made for X to live with her, "we would need counselling and clear goals about how to heal and recover".[132]
3. At paragraph [74] of his psychiatric assessment of Ms Vanchev filed on 14 October 2024 but completed on 10 September 2024, Dr NN referred to Ms Vanchev's ongoing issues with the care of X, which he opined arise from a combination of her personality traits and unresolved anger with the father. He said at times when she has suffered from an adjustment disorder, her personality traits would have become exacerbated, and she would have further struggled with parenting her daughter. Her lack of supportive family network and different culture would also have worsened the situation, as would her poor level of insight into her own difficulties.
4. Dr NN concluded the above prevented Ms Vanchev from seeking the appropriate level of professional health and that had worsened the prognosis for future improvement. He acknowledged she had seen a couple of counsellors to focus on supporting her with regard to the effects of alleged family violence and loss of contact with her child, rather than addressing her own personality vulnerabilities and her previous behaviour towards X.
5. At paragraph [76] of his assessment, Dr NN opines that if unsupervised time between Ms Vanchev and X were contemplated by the court, then Ms Vanchev would require a considerably greater level of support than it currently exists. Optimal care would include regular sessions with an experienced psychologist skilled in family conflict situations to develop a more stable and adaptive set of coping strategies when faced with difficult situations. Work to resolve her grievances against the father would also be desirable, and there would need to be a child focused approach to help her deal specifically with X's problematic behaviour. [133]
6. I agree with Dr NN that if Ms Vanchev were able to access the recommended psychological assistance, it would be of considerable benefit to both her and X. The problem is however, the financial constraints Ms Vanchev faces and the availability of publicly funded services. During the running of the trial the Independent Children's Lawyer was requested to arrange a therapist to commence therapy for Ms Vanchev and X, with the anticipation and expectation that DFFH would meet the costs of such therapy. Regrettably DFFH declined to meet the costs of such therapy and no counselling or therapy between mother and daughter occurred during the whole duration of the trial. Rather than address the repair of the maternal and child relationship, DFFH were overly and unjustifiably focused on the views of a vulnerable 12 year old, whom I have found, has been groomed by the father.

1. Y and Z have lived with Ms Nemec since the parent's separation. They are primarily attached to her and have not spent unsupervised time with the father since March 2023. In the Family Report Ms C identified Ms Nemec was "more clearly able to articulate [Y] and [Z]'s routines, alongside their heath, developmental and emotional needs", appearing "particularly attuned to [their] emotional needs".[134]
2. During cross-examination, Ms Nemec gave evidence that she bakes cakes for Y and Z to take to supervised visits with their father, and encourages the children to take drawings to time, so that they have a happy and positive experience when seeing their father, which demonstrates considerable insight and child focus on her part.
3. There was little challenge to Ms Nemec's parental capacity because the father is content for the children to continue to reside with her and for her to remain their primary carer. Nevertheless, the father is highly critical of Ms Nemec because of the risk allegations levelled against him and alleges she has made up the purported risks after colluding with Ms Vanchev and the various nannies.
4. I do not have any concerns about Ms Nemec's parental capacity and find her to be a protective, insightful, and competent parent.

The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child

1. In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J at paragraph [26], described a meaningful relationship as one "which is important, significant and valuable to the child" and the word meaningful is "a qualitative adjective, not strictly a quantitative one".
2. It is ordinarily in a child's bests interests to have a meaningful relationship with both their parents. The Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 (Cth) at [45]-[46] refers to recognition of parental relationships and benefit to a child of parental relationships. However, in this case the prospect of a relationship between parent and child must be considered in the context of the child's safety.
3. I turn to this consideration for each of the children.

1. The father asserts that there are no safety issues for either X or Ms Vanchev, which would outweigh X's need to have a relationship with him. In his Outline of Case, the father identifies that prior to separation, he was actively involved in X's life and the 2020 orders continued without major incident for three years. During that time, prior to his separation from Ms Nemec, he and Ms Vanchev effectively shared the care of X. The benefit for X would be an ongoing relationship with her father, and for the child to live where she obviously wishes to live.
2. Whilst the father's formal proposal is for X to spend time with Ms Vanchev, in accordance with her wishes, the reality of that disingenuous proposal is that the father would undoubtedly give effect to X's current professed desire to have nothing to do with her mother. It is beyond realistic contemplation that the father would make any effort whatsoever to foster a relationship between X and her mother, having regards to his attitude and his answers during cross-examination above about the lack of love in the maternal and child relationship. There would not be any future relationship between X and her mother, if orders are made in accordance with the father's proposal.
3. From the father's perspective, his proposal for X to live with him would also ensure X continues her relationship with her half siblings, Y and Z, which would undoubtedly be beneficial for all three children.
4. The same considerations apply to the proposals of both the Independent Children's Lawyer and the DFFH, as far as X is concerned.
5. Ms Vanchev's position is that X would not benefit from a relationship with her father, as he poses an unacceptable risk of harm to X. To permit supervised time between X and the father would not preclude the father's attempts to undermine any possibility of salvaging the relationship between mother and daughter. There would not be any relationship between X and her father, if orders were made in accordance with Ms Vanchev's proposal. Ms Vanchev did not make any proposals for continuing the relationship between X, Y and Z, if X were to be placed in her care.
6. Regrettably and probably unavoidably, X will be unlikely to ever enjoy a relationship with both her parents. This sad situation has been caused to a large degree by the post-separation acrimony and conflict between her parents, which has endured since 2015.

1. The father's proposal for Y and Z would ensure his relationship with the two young children would continue, as would their primary care arrangements. He obviously does not consider he poses any risk to the children but rather is able to offer them a positive paternal role model. Maintaining a relationship with both parents would be advantageous to the children. The father would also be able to ensure all three children continue with the sibling relationship.
2. Ms Nemec's proposal would result in the severing of the children's paternal relationship. Her position is that there is no positive advantage for the children having an ongoing relationship with their father because he poses an unacceptable risk of harm to them. To permit supervised time, as proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer, would enable the father to continue to covertly manipulate the children and undermine her relationship with them. Ms Nemec's proposal does not address the children's ongoing relationship with X. Ms Nemec's position during the trial was that she did not want X to live with her, because she had serious concerns X would attempt to undermine her relationship with the children or attempt to influence the children in their attitude towards the father.
3. The Independent Children's Lawyer's proposal would provide stability in the children's living arrangements, and he submitted supervised time between the father and the children would mitigate any unacceptable risk the father may pose.
4. There was no direct proposal from any party about maintaining the relationship between all three children. If orders were made in accordance with the father's, proposal then all three children would spend time together in the father's household and their relationship would presumably develop. If orders pertaining to the father's time with Y and Z are made in accordance with the proposal of the Independent Children's Lawyer, that is for supervised time, and X lives in the father's household, X could accompany the father to supervised visits with the younger children. If orders are made in accordance with the proposals of Ms Vanchev, it would be up to the two mothers to promote a relationship between all three children. At present, Ms Nemec is reluctant for Y and Z to spend time with X because of X's alignment with the father and the risk that X may seek to undermine the relationship between the two younger children and their mother.

Anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child?

1. X is currently not living with either parent due to risk issues which have warranted ongoing DFFH intervention throughout the majority of 2024. As a result, X has resided in consecutive DFFH placements since February 2024. When discussing her current placement with the Family Report writer, X described it as her "best placement yet", although described feeling "like a dog being re-homed".[135]
2. Ms C observed in her second Family Report the following:

Out-of-home care is always considered an intervention of last resort. The priority must be to keep children safely at home with their families wherever possible... Nevertheless, it is well understood that children living in out of home care generally fare far worse when compared to the general population pertaining to issues such as health, employment, and educational attainment. Whilst the aim of out of home care is to ensure a child or young person's immediate safety, it could be predicted that there could be significant negative outcomes for [X] in terms of her social skills, her mental health, and her school performance if she lives anywhere other than with either of her parents.[136]

(Emphasis added)

1. When the issue of X's change of placement was raised by DFFH, I considered it appropriate and a proper discharge of my statutory obligations to ensure the proposed carers were properly scrutinised by the court. All three proposed carers were prepared to attend electronically and be cross-examined by counsel and each acquitted themselves admirably. I do not agree that Ms Vanchev should be subject to any criticism for raising the suitability of X's proposed carers.
2. It is clear an ongoing out-of-home care arrangement is not a viable long-term option for X, nor was it proposed by any counsel and I am unable to delegate decision making about X's living arrangements. These proceedings should finalise parenting orders between the parties.

The history of family violence, abuse or neglect, and any family violence order that applies or has applied

1. The allegations of family violence between the parties have been extensively canvassed earlier in these reasons and I do not propose to repeat them.

WHAT ORDERS ARE IN THE BEST INTERSTS OF THE CHILDREN AND CAN THE IDENTIFIED RISKS OF HARM BE AMELIORATED

1. As to the orders in the children's best interests, I first turn to responsibility for long term decision making.
2. Section 61C(1) of the Act provides that each parent has parental responsibility, regardless of whether they lived together or are separated (s 61(C)(2)), subject to any contrary order of the court (s 61C(3) and s 61D).
3. Orders made allocating parental responsibility for a child in relation to "major long-term issues" to more than one person, may provide for joint or sole decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues (s 61D(3)). The Act defines major long-term issues (s 4(1)) as the child's education, religion, culture, health, name, and change living arrangements. Section 61DAA defines the requirements of joint decision-making, which are to consult each other in relation to each such decisions and to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. A person who has parental responsibility for a child is not required to be consulted by another person, in respect of minor decisions for the child which are outside "major long-term issues" (s 61DAB).
4. In their respective proposed orders for X, both parents propose that they have sole long-term decision-making responsibility for the child. The Independent Children's Lawyer and the DFFH propose the father have sole long-term decision-making responsibility for X presumably because their respective proposals are for X to live with him.
5. None of the evidence suggested that it would be in the X's best interests for there to be an order for joint long-term decision-making responsibility. I consider it appropriate that whichever parent X lives with, should have sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues.
6. In the context of the historical and ongoing acrimonious parental relationship and the findings I have made about the father in particular, it is simply untenable to expect any cooperative decision making to be undertaken or even reached. That is obvious from the parental inability to reach any joint decision about X's secondary school, which arose during the trial. I will make an order for the parent with whom X lives, to have sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues.
7. As to Y and Z, the father proposes the parents have joint decision-making responsibility for the children, whereas Ms Nemec and the Independent Children's Lawyer both propose Ms Nemec should have sole decision-making responsibility. No part of the evidence supports the making of an order for joint long-term decision-making pertaining to Y and Z.
8. I agree with the proposal of Ms Nemec and the Independent Children's Lawyer, that sole responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues should be vested in Ms Nemec. The children will remain living with Ms Nemec and in the context of my findings about the serious allegations levelled at the father and that he poses an unacceptable risk to the children, it is also untenable to expect Ms Nemec to communicate with the father and attempt to reach decisions about major long-term issues with the father. My findings about the family violence perpetrated by the father against Ms Nemec and the children negate the possibility of finding that Ms Nemec should in the future, be required to communicate with the father. I will make an order providing for Ms Nemec to have sole decision making responsibility for major long term issues for Y and Z.
9. Having found that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to all three children, I now turn to the issue of amelioration of the harm and what orders for their living arrangements are in the children's best interests.
10. In relation to X, nobody proposed that supervised time between X and either of her parents was appropriate. Both parents seek orders for X to live with them and practically speaking, for the child to spend no time with the other parent. The Independent Children's Lawyer and the DFFH propose X live with the father, obviously without any supervision requirements.
11. Whatever decision is made, the prospect for X to enjoy a functional relationship with both her parents is negligible. The options for the child's future living arrangements paint a bleak picture and are really a choice between the least worst option.
12. On the one hand I am urged (by the father, Independent Children's Lawyer and the DFFH ) to make an order placing X with her father, whom I have found to be an unacceptable risk of harm by virtue of family violence including coercive and controlling behaviour and sexually predatory and inappropriate behaviour. The reasons for doing so are because that is what X desperately wants, the child asserts her mother has historically physically and sexually abused her (the latter allegation I have found to be untrue), Ms Vanchev's lack of parental capacity and risks to the child if she is placed with her mother contrary to her wishes, as expressed by Ms C the family report writer. These risks include adverse mental health outcomes, possible refusal of X to physically return to her mother's care or the prospect of X absconding from her mother's care.
13. Counsel for the father in his final address submitted the father had different and a more liberal attitude to sexuality and nudity than may be accepted as normal, but his conduct did not amount to sexual abuse but rather demonstrates a different understanding of boundaries. There was no evidence his conduct would render him more likely to abuse his own children.
14. I reject that submission in its entirety. I have found that the father was in the spa naked with X, has placed a massage gun in her inner leg near her vagina, has enforced beach nudity on the family and has engaged in sexually highly inappropriate conduct with Y and offensive and depraved comments about the child's sexuality ("she gets high on the smell of her vagina"). I also concur with Ms C and have found that the father has groomed X. Dr BB's answers during cross-examination, after he was appraised of additional information, did not persuade me or provide any confidence that the father was a low risk of sexual harm, indeed it was to the contrary.
15. Despite those submissions, the father poses another clear and present risk to X, and that is his denigration of Ms Vanchev and successful undermining of the relationship between X and her mother. As referred to above, absent an about face by X, there will not be any prospect of a relationship between X and her mother, if I accede to the proposal to place X with her father. I also consider the reverse to be true, which was in accordance with the differing proposal, that if X were to be placed with her mother, she will likely not have a relationship with her father, unless she absconds from her mother's care.
16. The attitude of the DFFH to X's future living arrangements was most perplexing. Despite Ms F substantiating the risk of harm to X from her father, there was no acceptable explanation why Ms MM's different opinion, that is X should be placed with the father, should be preferred to that of Ms F. Just because she conducted a comprehensive review of the DFFH file, does not place her in a superior position to Ms F to express a view about X and her future living arrangements. I also observe Ms MM's view was reached prior to the conclusion of all relevant evidence, including that of Ms JJ and Ms C. Despite Ms MM's evidence in cross-examination, I remain entirely dissatisfied about why her opinion should be preferred to Ms F, who is a trained investigator and whom I consider to be extremely professional.
17. I also have grave reservations about the DFFH effectively elevating X's views above all other considerations, in circumstances when the evidence of all participants remained untested. I have taken into account the child's views, but I am not required to elevate her views and make orders which are the most palatable to her, absent consideration of all other relevant factors and in particular the child's safety, which X appears unable to view objectively or understand the risks.
18. In final submissions, counsel for the DFFH adopted much of what counsel for the father had said. She submitted that whilst there is a risk to X, that risk is acceptable because "nothing has come of it". That entirely ignores the task of the court, as articulated in Isles & Nelissen. She submitted the issues regarding nakedness could be adequately dealt with via restraints. I remain bewildered by the attitude of the DFFH to the future living arrangements for X and why no steps were taken to address X's estrangement from her mother, as was raised by me on multiple occasions during the trial. I reject the suggestion the father would abide by any restraints to curb his nakedness, once he has secured X living with him. That is because even at the end of the trial, his counsel's submissions explaining the father's liberal attitude to sexuality, demonstrate he has no remorse for his conduct and doesn't see anything wrong with his actions in that regard. I cannot possibly be satisfied the father would in the future comply with any such injunction and indeed even if it were made, it would be impossible to delineate the scope of orders required to ensure the father's future conduct towards his daughter is not sexualised.
19. The submissions of the Independent Children's Lawyer were brief and succinct. The basis of his proposal was X's views and the likely harm to her if those views were not implemented, including Ms Vanchev's concession during cross-examination that it wasn't practical for X to live with her and that X was enjoying her current living circumstances, including attending AB School, which she could continue to do if she lives with the father, but not if she lives with the mother. He submitted the practical reality is that there is nowhere else for X to be placed, other than with the father.
20. On the other hand, Ms Vanchev proposes X be placed in her sole care because the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to X, which risk cannot be ameliorated in an unsupervised environment. I observe that I have found, in accordance with the opinion of Ms C, that X has been groomed by the father and that he poses an unacceptable risk to the children arising from a multitude of factors. Whether that risk can be ameliorated by supervision of X's time with the father, was not an option proposed by any of the parties.
21. As to the risks for X living with Ms Vanchev including practicalities, I accept X will likely be outraged and defiant about living with Ms Vanchev and may attempt to leave her care, but X's views and those risks, including a possible risk to X's future mental health as identified by Ms C, must be balanced with the future risks of placing her in the care of a parent who has successfully engaged in grooming the child.
22. I have given serious consideration to all of the submissions of counsel and have weighed both the advantages and disadvantages to X if she were to be placed in the household of either parent, and have reached the conclusion that orders will be made for X to live with her mother and spend no time with her father, as proposed by Ms Vanchev.
23. There was no suggestion by any party that if I found the father to be an unacceptable risk to X, he should spend supervised time with the child. I therefore intend to make an order that the father spend no time with X. It is inconceivable that X would ever have any prospects of adjusting to life with her mother, if orders were made for her to concurrently spend supervised time with her father. Both parents presented their proposals as effectively an either or situation, despite the father's lip service to the idea of X spending time with her mother in accordance with the child's wishes. The father cannot be under any misapprehension that as things stand, X would ever express a desire to spend time with her mother, whilst residing with her father. The polarisation of the child's future living arrangements arises from the continuous battle between the parents since she was 2 years old, the orders to be made cannot surprise either parent and are the inevitable result of X spending her childhood caught in the trenches between her waring parents. Both must accept responsibility for the inevitable.
24. I cannot, in all good consciousness, countenance a vulnerable 12-year-old child, who is likely pubescent, living with a sexual predator, as is the father. As referred to above, the likely consequences are grave and highly disturbing. Because her relationship with her mother has been so severely compromised and undermined, it would be naïve to contemplate X has a sufficient degree of maturity to enable her to assess the long-term risks to her arising from living with her father, given his predatory and abhorrent conduct to multiple vulnerable woman, including Ms Vanchev, Ms Nemec and Ms JJ and his conduct towards his two young daughters. X has no capacity to understand the risks and future ramifications of implementing what she perceives she now so sorely desires.
25. As to Y and Z, the father proposes the children spend unsupervised time with him, Ms Nemec proposes they spend no time with the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer proposes the children spend supervised time with the father, or as otherwise determined by the court, but does not particularise exactly what supervised time. It was not suggested by any party the identified risks could be ameliorated in any other way, other than by supervised time. There was no suggestion the father could undertake educational courses or counselling to ameliorate the risk. I observe the father has undertaken various self-improvement courses, as identified in his tender bundle, Exhibit F3, including Men's Behaviour Change Program Certificate (February 2024), Parenting After Separation Certificate (October 2023) and Tuning into Teens Certificate (August 2023). Despite these courses and certificates, the father still expressed concerning views and attitudes during cross examination and said little to persuade me he had genuinely accepted responsibility for his actions or was remorseful about his past conduct or would in the future dramatically change his liberal sexual attitude and boundaries.
26. Because of my findings that the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children, if he were to spend unsupervised time with them, I do not propose to make orders for unsupervised time as sought by the father. The question remaining is therefore whether supervision of the father's time with Y and Z will sufficiently mitigate the level of risk to the children and if so, is long term supervision in the children's best interests.
27. Supervised time has occurred between Y, Z and the father since 21 August 2023 pursuant to orders of the senior judicial registrar. I accept there have not been any allegations about the children being in harm's way during supervision, despite deficiencies in the quality of supervision provided. These deficiencies include allowing the children to go to the bathroom with the father unsupervised, the supervisor engaging in discussions with X about her family situation and the supervisor being completely unaware that it was inappropriate for the father to bring along friends, on some occasions and that his action in taking the family puppy to visits could be adversely construed as a covert attempt to influence the children. However, whether orders should be made for long term future supervision, as opposed to no time, requires consideration.
28. The imposition of a long-term or indefinite supervision arrangement is generally not appropriate as a long-term measure, although such orders have never been prohibited when the only unpalatable alternative is the complete elimination of a parent from a child's life (Lainhart and Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166 per Austin J at [35]). The risks are that supervision is an artificial environment and there is an obvious possibility of the children at some future time questioning the requirement for supervision, the potential for them to question their own safety, to challenge or resent their mother about the necessity for supervision, thus detrimentally affecting their relationship with their mother, their primary carer, the costs of supervision and whether such a situation is capable of supporting a meaningful relationship between children and a parent.
29. On the other hand, some authorities (Gorman & Huffman and Anor [2016] FamCAFC 174 and Keighly & Keighly [2023] FedCFamC1A 146) support the proposition that an order for indefinite supervision, although generally undesirable, may be appropriate in some circumstances, where a court is confident the time will be in the best interests of the children. Every case must be decided on its own facts (Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221; (2022) FLC 94-123 at [67]).
30. There were comprehensive supervision reports before the court and the supervisor was cross examined. Whilst it may superficially seem the supervised time between the father and the younger children has progressed reasonably well, I was left with the impression the supervision had not been particularly diligent, as referred to above, the father had sought to influence and manipulate the children by providing junk food, organising constant activities, taking along a puppy[137] and conveying to the children he was the fun parent and could offer them treats and experiences their mother could not. Viewed within the context of my findings that the father has undermined the relationship between Ms Vanchev and X and that he has groomed X, the subtle and nuanced attempts at manipulation raise considerable concerns. Even if time were to occur within the confines of a contact centre, I have doubts whether a contact service would provide ongoing and long-term supervision or would agree to any supervision at all, because of the seriousness of my findings about the father and his sexualised conduct. I am also concerned about the capability of a supervisor from a supervision agency to have the skills necessary to identify the subtleties of the father's undermining conduct and to act accordingly to protect the children.
31. Whether the children spend limited supervised time with their father or no time requires balancing of relevant considerations. After considering both the advantages and disadvantages of long-term supervision, I determine the risks with long term supervision as articulated above outweigh the benefits to the children and I am not confident that it is in the best interests of Y and Z for long term supervision to occur.
32. That is particularly pertinent in the context of the father having successfully groomed X and undermined her relationship with her mother and my lack of confidence that professional supervision would adequately address the father's conduct. I therefore propose to make orders providing for no time between the children and the father.
33. I am acutely aware of the consequences in this particular case of the severing of the children's future relationship with their father, and the possibility of future limited time between the three siblings. However, the father must accept responsibility for the inevitable decision to do so. As referred to above, at no stage did the father express particular regret or remorse for his unacceptable sexualised behaviour but rather sought to justify it on the basis of more liberal sexual attitudes or that he was engaging in jocular communications. Nor did he appear to have reflected upon his perpetration of family violence, including sexual violence and emotional coercion and control or the effect on his family members and others.
34. I am cautiously optimistic that if X is able to settle into her mother's household and eventually accept the decision made about her living arrangements, then the two mothers may well consider time between all three children, which would continue and enhance their future relationship.

1. In addition to proposed orders pertaining to the children's future living arrangements and the time they are to spend with the other parent, the orders of some of the parties propose future counselling, X's possible placement by the DFFH, removal of X, Y and Z from the watchlist, a restraint on Ms Nemec removing the children from Australia and obtaining and custody of passports, attendance at school and extracurricular activities, notification of residential address, notification of the children's health issues and restraints on denigration and discussing the proceedings with the children.
2. I will address each in turn.
3. I do not propose to make any orders providing for Ms Vanchev and X to engage in future counselling for a variety of reasons. First, because I must take litigants as I find them and cannot speculate their conduct will improve with professional assistance. As articulated by Austin J in Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166 at [29], "courts are not, and cannot operate like, therapeutic agencies, using litigation as the vehicle to meddle by making aspirational directions about how litigants should improve their parenting capacity in the hope of enhancing their children's familial experience". Secondly, it would be futile to do so, because of Ms Vanchev's financial constraints, rendering it impossible for Ms Vanchev to fund any such counselling, and in circumstances where the DFFH has refused to fund any counselling. As referred to above, I am confident Ms Vanchev will avail herself of whatever funded counselling services are available to her, to assist with repair of her relationship with her daughter.
4. The minute of order proposed by Ms Vanchev, includes a proposed alternative order, that if X does not live with either parent, she shall live where directed by DFFH. This alternative proposal was not really promulgated by the mother and was not the subject of any extensive submissions. I do not propose to make any such order on a final basis because to do so would be a divestiture of judicial power and the unlawful conferral of such power upon a third party to determine the proper future parenting arrangements for the child (Lainhart & Ellinson).
5. There was little focus during the trial about the necessity for any of the children to remain on the watchlist. As X will live with Ms Vanchev and she will have sole responsibility for decision making about major long-term issues, and X will not spend any time with her father, I do not consider it appropriate to impose any restraints on X travelling internationally with her mother. Similarly, because Y and Z will live with Ms Nemec, she will have sole responsibility for decision making about major long-term issues, and they will not spend any time with their father, I do not consider it appropriate to impose any restraints on the children travelling internationally with their mother. There was no cogent or indeed any evidence to support the proposition that either Ms Vanchev or Ms Nemec intend to live outside Australia with the children. To the contrary, both have lived in Australia for many years and appear to consider it their home. Both mothers may well wish to travel with the children to their respective countries of origin to visit extended family and there is no reason why they should be prevented from doing so, when the father will have no future involvement in the children's lives. I am also comforted by Ms Nemec's proposed order that she be restrained from relocating Y and Z's residence outside Australia, although I do not see the necessity for that because Y and Z will have no future relationship with their father. Because of the orders I intend to make for all children to live with their respective mothers and for their mothers to have sole decision-making responsibility for major long term issues, it is appropriate that each of Ms Vanchev and Ms Nemec be able to apply for and obtain passports for their children without the father's consent, should they wish to travel overseas with their children. I will make the orders sought by both mothers.
6. For all of the foregoing reasons, I made the orders as are set out at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding three hundred and eighty (380) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Williams.

Annexure A1

Fathers Final Minute of Proposed Orders - X

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.
2. The father have sole decision making responsibility in relation to all major long term issues for the child X born in 2012 ("the child").
3. The child live with the father.
4. The child to resume the lives with arrangements pursuant to the gradual increase of time in accordance with the family preservation reunification program facilitated by DFFH and AC Family Services.
5. The child spend time and communicate with the mother in accordance with the child's wishes.
6. Where there is to be time between the child and the mother, changeover occur at McDonalds restaurant Suburb AD or as otherwise agreed in writing between the parties.
7. The mother do all things and engage all services recommended by DFFH or the Independent Children's Lawyer to engage with therapeutic counselling with the child and follow all reasonable recommendation of the therapist.
8. The mother engage with and follow all reasonable recommendations of a clinical psychologist recommended by DFFH or the Independent Children's lawyer to address the issues raised in the report of Dr NN.
9. Each party be permitted to attend all school and extracurricular activities parents would normally attend, subject to the consent of the child.
10. The parties are to keep the other advised at all times of their residential addresses and mobile telephone numbers.
11. Each parent is to:

(a) Advise the other parent immediately of any serious illness or injury suffered by the child and if hospitalised, the hospital the child attends for treatment;

(b) Inform the other parent no less than 48 hours prior (other than in the case of an emergency) of any medical or allied health appointment the child is to attend and that parent be at liberty to attend the appointment, subject to the child's wishes.

(c) Authorise any medical or allied health practitioner upon who the child attends from time to time to communicate with the other parent on all matters including but not limited to the child's condition/ treatment/ attendances.

(a) Denigrating the other parent or any family members in the presence or hearing of the child or permitting any other person to do so;

(b) Discussing these proceedings with the child or in the presence or hearing of the child or permitting any other person to do so.

Annexure A2

Fathers Final Minute of Proposed Orders - Y & Z

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.
2. That the Mother and Father jointly make decisions about major long-term issues in relation to Y born in 2019 and Z born in 2021 (collectively "the children").
3. When making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the children, the parties are required:

(a) To consult each other in relation to each such decision; and

(b) To make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.

1. If the children are spending time with either of the parties in accordance with these orders, during that time neither party need to consult with the other with respect to decisions made in relation to the children that are not major long-term decisions.
2. The children live with the mother.
3. The children spend time and communicate with the father as follows:

(a) By skype or facetime each Tuesday and Thursday between 5pm and 5.30pm;

(b) For a period of 6 months, each Saturday from 10am until 6pm;

(c) Thereafter for a period of 12 months, each alternate weekend from after school or 3pm Friday until 5pm Saturday; and

(d) Thereafter, each alternate weekend from after school or 3pm Friday until 5pm Sunday.

(e) For each of the children's birthday from 3pm to 6pm;

(f) Each Father's Day from 5pm on the Saturday immediately preceding Father's Day until 5pm Father's Day;

(g) For Christmas:

(i) In 2026 and each alternate year thereafter from 4pm Christmas Day until 4pm Boxing Day.

(ii) In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter from 4pm Christmas Eve until 4pm Christmas Day;

(h) Commencing when the child Z is in Prep year of primary school, for half of all school holiday periods by agreement and failing agreement: In odd numbered years, for the first half; and

(i) In even numbered years, for second half.

1. If the child is in the father's care, the father's time be suspended:

(a) For each of the children's birthdays from 12noon until 3pm;

(b) For Christmas:

(i) In 2026 and each alternate year thereafter from 4pm Christmas Eve until 4pm Christmas Day;

(ii) In 2025 and each alternate year thereafter from 4pm Christmas Day until 4pm Boxing Day.

(c) Upon the child Z commencing Prep at primary school, for half of all school holiday periods by agreement and failing agreement:

(i) In even numbered years, for the first half; and

(ii) In odd numbered years, for second half.

(d) For Mother's Day from 5pm on the Saturday proceeding Father's Day until 5pm on Mother's Day.

1. Such further or other times as agreed in writing between the parties.
2. Changeover to occur at McDonalds, AE Street, Suburb AF unless otherwise agreed to between the parties in writing.
3. Each party be permitted to attend all school and extracurricular activities parents would normally attend.
4. The parties utilise an agreed parenting app for all communications regarding the children.
5. The parties are to keep the other advised at all times of their residential addresses and mobile telephone numbers.
6. Each parent is to:

(a) Advise the other parent immediately of any serious illness or injury suffered by either of the children and if hospitalised, the hospital the child attends for treatment;

(b) Inform the other parent no less than 48 hours prior (other than in the case of an emergency) of any medical or allied health appointment the child is to attend and that parent be at liberty to attend the appointment.

(c) Authorise any medical or allied health practitioner upon who either of the child attends from time to time to communicate with the other parent on all matters including but not limited to the child's condition/ treatment/ attendances.

(a) Denigrating the other parent or any family members in the presence or hearing of the children or permitting any other person to do so;

(b) Discussing these proceedings with the children or in the presence or hearing of the children or permitting any other person to do so.

Ms Vanchev's Final Minute of Proposed Orders - X

1. That the Mother have sole decision making responsibility in relation to all major, long term issues, including religion, education and major medical issues, regarding the child X born in 2012 ("X").
2. That X live with the Mother.
3. That in the alternative X live where DFFH directs if she is not living with either parent.
4. That X and the Mother attend family therapy which such therapist to be nominated by the Independent Children's Lawyer and it is requested that the Department of Family Fairness and Housing pay for the costs of this therapy.
5. That for the purposes of any international travel:

(a) The Mother be provided with and retain X's passport.

(b) The requirement for the Father's signature on any application for the renewal of X's passport be and is hereby dispensed with.

(c) Any order pertaining to X or the parents under the Airport Watch List be dismissed.

Ms Nemec's Final Minute of Proposed Orders - Y & Z

1. The children Y born in 2019 and Z born in 2021 ("the Children") live with the mother.
2. The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children.
3. The father spend no time with the children.
4. The mother be restrained from relocating the children's place of residence to outside the Commonwealth of Australia.
5. The children's names be forthwith removed from the Airport Watchlist.
6. The mother is solely appointed to give consent to the issue of a passport for the children under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) and for the renewal of each child's passport at the mothers cost from time to time.

Independent Childrens Lawyer Final Minute of Proposed Orders - X

1. That the father have sole decision making for the long term major issues regarding the child X born in 2012.
2. That the child live with the father.
3. That child spend time with the mother according to her wishes.
4. That the child attend AB School.

Independent Childrens Lawyer Final Minute of Proposed Orders - Y and Z

1. That the mother have sole decision making for the long term major issues in relation to the children Y born in 2019 and Z born in 2021.
2. That the children live with the mother.
3. That the children spend supervised time with the father or as otherwise determined by the Court.

Intervenors Final Minute of Proposed Orders - X

1. That all previous parenting orders be and are hereby discharged.
2. That X born in 2012 ("the child") live with the Father.
3. That order 2 be given effect to by the Father as follows:

(a) For the first three weeks after Judgment:

(i) on each Saturday from 10am to 4pm;

(ii) each Tuesday and Thursday from 3.30pm to 7.15pm until paragraphs (d) (for Thursdays) and (f) (for Tuesdays) occurs;

(b) Commencing the fourth week after Judgment, each Saturday from 10am to 4pm Sunday for two weeks;

(c) Commencing the sixth week after Judgment, each Friday from 3.30pm to 4pm Sunday for two weeks;

(d) Commencing the eighth week after Judgment, each Thursday from 3.30pm to 4pm Sunday for two weeks;

(e) Commencing the tenth week after Judgment, each Wednesday from 3.30pm to 9am Monday for two weeks; and

(f) Thereafter, full-time.

1. That all changeovers that are not at school be at the home of the child's current carers.
2. That the Father have sole decision-making responsibility for the child.
3. That the Mother spend time with the child in accordance with the child's.
4. That the Father do all things and acts to encourage and facilitate the child spending time with the Mother, including, any family therapy.
5. That the Mother and Father both be and are hereby restrained by injunction from denigrating the other to, or in the presence or hearing of the child.
6. That the Father is hereby restrained by injunction from exposing the child to nudity or partial nudity at any time.

1. DFFH expects the Father to support X spending time with her current
2. Carers as agreed between the Father and Carers and as requested by X.

[2] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024.

[3] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024

[6] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024

[7] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024, paragraph [33]

[9] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024

[12] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [64].

[13] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[14] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[15] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[16] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [32].

[17] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [33].

[18] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [21].

[19] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [17].

[20] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 14.

[21] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 22.

[22] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 23.

[23] Transcript 6 May 2024, p.62 lines 40-42.

[24] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraphs 112-120.

[25] Transcript 6 May 2024 p.51 line 32 to p.52 line 26.

[26] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [99]

[27] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 50.

[28] Affidavit of Mrs AG Nemec filed 9 April 2024, paragraph 9

[29] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 56

[30] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 124

[31] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraphs 112-120.

[32] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph 157.

[35] Affidavit of Mr EE filed 12 April 2024

[36] Transcript 9 May 2024, p.89 lines 14-36.

[37] Affidavit of Dr CC filed 8 August 2023

[38] Transcript 10 May 2024, p-397, lines 25-35

[39] Transcript 22 October 2024, p.525 line 40.

[40] Transcript 22 October 2024, p.478 to p.482.

[41] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.8 lines 6-11.

[42] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.9 lines 7-11.

[43] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.8 lines 30-37.

[44] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.10 lines 1-26.

[45] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.11 lines 30-32

[46] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.12-13

[47] Transcript 2 December 2024, p.897 lines 31-32.

[48] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.12 lines 27-29.

[49] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.13 lines 32-41.

[50] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.14 lines 6-9.

[51] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.15 lines 30-36.

[52] Transcript 20 February 2025, p.16 lines 5-12.

[53] Affidavit of Dr LL filed 2 May 2024

[54] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024

[55] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024 at paragraph [62]

[56] Affidavit of Ms Vanchev filed 12 April 2024

[57] Affidavit of Dr NN filed 14 October 2024

[58] First Family Report dated 6 December 2023, paragraph [45].

[59] Transcript 6 May 2024, p-51, line 10-25

[60] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [66].

[61] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [69]

[62] Transcript 6 May 2024, p.48, line 30-35

[63] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [77].

[64] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [80]

[65] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [80]

[66] Affidavit of Mrs AG Nemec filed 9 April 2024, paragraph [9]

[67] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [29]

[68] Transcript 6 May 2024, p.47 lines 20-30

[69] Family Report dated 6 December 2023 at [30]

[70] Affidavit of Ms Nemec dated 4 April 2024

[71] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[72] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[73] Family Report dated 6 December 2023 at [76]

[74] Family Report dated 6 December 2023 at [76]

[77] Transcript 6 May 2024, p-53, lines 15-40

[80] Affidavit of Ms JJ filed 9 April 2024, at paragraph [5]

[81] Transcript 7 May 2024, p.85 lines 40-45 and p.86 lines 38-39.

[82] Transcript 7 May 2024, p.88 lines 1-5.

[83] Transcript 7 May 2024, p.97 lines 16-21.

[84]Affidavit of Ms JJ filed 9 April 2024, at paragraph [18]

[85]Affidavit of Ms JJ filed 9 April 2024, at paragraph [15]

[99] Transcript 6 May 2025, p-22, line 15 - 20 and 30

[101] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024.

[105] Transcript 10 May 2025, p.376 lines 8-12.

[106] Case Outline of the father filed 1 May 2024.

[107] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[108] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [90]

[109] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024

[110] Transcript 7 May 2024, p-108, line 5 to 10

[114] Transcript 23 October 2024, p. 553 lines 5-16.

[115] Transcript 23 October 2024, p. 552 and 553

[116] Transcript 10 May 2024, p.372 lines 19-25.

[120] DFFH Magellan Report (MLC4016/2023) dated 5 July 2023, page 12 of 25

[121] Second Family Report dated 13 February 2025, paragraph [64]

[122] Second Family Report dated 13 February 2025, paragraph [77]

[123] Family Report dated 6 December 2023, paragraph [79]

[124] Family Report dated 6 December 2023, paragraph [80]

[125] Second Family Report dated 14 February 2025, paragraph [72]

[127] Second Family Report dated 14 February 2025, paragraph [63]

[129] Transcript 7 May 2024, p.134 lines 30-34

[130] Affidavit of Ms Nemec filed 4 April 2024, paragraph [14]

[131] First Family Report dated 6 December 2023, paragraph [65]

[132] Second Family Report dated 14 February 2025, paragraph [53]

[133] Affidavit of Dr NN filed 14 October 2024

[134] Family Report dated 6 December 2023, paragraph [60]

[135] Second Family Report dated 14 February 2025, paragraph [55]

[136] Second Family Report dated 14 February 2025, paragraph [90]

[137] Family Contact Access Supervision Report dated April 2024 annexed to Affidavit of Mr EE filed 23 October 2024