Veronesi & Veronesi [2025] FedCFamC1F 968 (28 November 2025)

THE COURT ORDERS BY WAY OF INTERIM ORDER RELATING TO PARENTING:

1. Orders 1, 2 and 3 of the Orders of 6 June 2025 be discharged.
2. The children Y, born in 2020 and X, born in 2017 ("the children") shall live with the father.
3. The children spend unsupervised time with the Mother on 30 November 2025 from 9.00am to 5.00pm with changeover to occur at McDonald's Suburb B.
4. From 5 December 2025 and each alternate weekend thereafter the children shall spend unsupervised time with the Mother from 5.00pm Friday to 5.00pm Sunday.
5. For Christmas in 2025 the children shall spend unsupervised time with the Mother from 5.00pm Christmas Eve until 3.00pm Christmas Day.
6. On 29 December 2025 the children spend unsupervised time with the Mother from 9.00am to 3.00pm.
7. The children spend unsupervised time with the Mother from 9.00am on 12 January 2026 to 5.00pm on 17 January 2026.
8. On a without admissions basis the parties are restrained from consuming alcohol which would reasonably cause a Blood Alcohol Concentration reading of above 0.05 during or in the 12 hours prior to their time with the child, and from bringing the children into contact with any other person who has done so.
9. The Mother shall continue to attend upon her general practitioner, counsellor, psychologist and any other associated health care provider at such frequencies as recommended by her general practitioner, psychiatrist and psychologise and take all medications as prescribed by her health care providers.
10. Both parents, their servants and agents be and are hereby restrained by injunction from:

(a) Abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking or otherwise denigrating the other parent and their extended family members to or in the presence of hearing of the child or any of them;

(b) Discussing these proceedings or any other documents prepared in relation to these proceedings to or in the presence or hearing of the children (save for explaining the spend time provisions of these Orders);

(c) Discussing an allegations raised in these proceedings with or in the presence and/or hearing of the child;

(d) Passing messages to each other via the child;

(e) Physically discipling the child;

(f) Questioning the child in relation to their views or preferences concerning their living arrangements or the time they spend with the other parent;

(g) Providing any documents pertaining to these proceedings to any person other than their legal representatives, except as provided in these orders;

1. The children are not to be left alone with Mr D.
2. The Independent Children's Lawyer has leave to issue a subpoena to the New South Wales Police Force in relation to Mr D.
3. On 18 January 2026, the Mother shall undergo Hair Follicle Testing for alcohol.
4. The Mother is restrained by way of injunction from bleaching or dying her hair.
5. The hair follicle test results are to be provided by the Mother to the Independent Children's Lawyer within 7 days of receipt.

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

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

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

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

These reasons were delivered Ex Tempore on 28 November 2025 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors and in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.

1. This is a parenting case. We are now up to day five. Four more days are required and the matter will be adjourned after today to 27 January 2026 here at the Court in Parramatta. The father in this case, Mr Veronesi, was born in 1986. He is employed full-time for the Australian Defence Force. The respondent mother is Ms Veronesi. The mother was born in 1986. She is currently unemployed. The parents have two children. The oldest, X, was born in 2017. The younger child, Y, was born in 2020.
2. The current interim parenting orders require supervision of the mother's time with the children. Mr Laidlaw of Counsel, on behalf of the mother, seeks a variation to the interim parenting orders to allow unsupervised time between the children and the mother, in broad terms, every second weekend with the mother, and some further dates, including a five-day block between 12 and 17 January 2026, and other time on Christmas Day and so on. In relation to orders, I will get back to the three proposals, once I have given these reasons.
3. This is a rather unusual set of circumstances, because the Court has heard four and a half days of evidence, including all of the father's evidence and over a day of the mother in the witness box, under cross-examination by Mr Blackah of Counsel for the father. So, whereas in most interim hearings, the Court is not in a position with any great confidence to make findings or draw conclusions, it is not quite the case here, given the large amount of evidence which is currently before me.
4. The parents commenced their cohabitation in 2014, and they married in 2016. The mother says they separated under one roof in or around February 2023, and physically separated completely on 2 December 2023, when the father changed the locks on the former matrimonial home. The father says that the separation did not actually occur under one roof until September 2023, and then final separation was December 2023. Whatever the precise living arrangements in that household from the beginning of 2023 onwards, it was not a happy place. There was a good deal of conflict between these parents. There was a lot of upset. There was a lot of unhappiness.
5. Some of the aspects that contributed to the unhappiness and the conflict between the parents would include the evidence concerning the manner in which the father monitored the mother. Some of the upset, no doubt, was contributed to by the fact that the mother was suffering from a major depressive disorder, which does not appear to have been diagnosed during that time. Following the birth of both children, the mother had suffered from post-natal depression, and I will return to the issue of the mother's health in due course.
6. These reasons that I am providing are being given in the short form in accordance with section 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). The Court is nonetheless required to, and very mindful of, all of the provisions of Part VII of the Act, starting at the outset with the statement that appears in section 60CA of the Act, namely, that:

"In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration."

1. Section 60CC sets out how it is that a court is to determine what is in a child's best interests, and the various subsections that appear under section 60CC are at the forefront of my mind when giving these Reasons for Judgment.
2. It is abundantly clear to the Court that there is a very great benefit to these two children of being able to have a relationship with both of their parents. At this point in time, given the current state of the evidence, there is nothing to suggest to the Court that this is not so. In their own way, each of them are doing their best to be a good parent. No doubt, like all parents, these two have shortcomings. Some of the matters which the Court notes, and which are of concern to the Court, do relate to what was happening within that family's household over a number of years leading up to the final separation.
3. I mentioned the evidence concerning the father's monitoring of the mother. This is of great concern to the Court, and in particular I draw attention to the evidence regarding the question of expenditure of money by the mother. I had a chance to observe the father at some considerable length, and also the mother yesterday at some considerable length, on this topic. It is clear to the Court that this was a source of great conflict between these two parents. There is a fine line between organising the family's budget and conducting oneself in such a manner that you overstep the mark and leave someone, in this case the mother, in a position where she essentially was having to report to the father and request from the father that money be transferred to her relevant account to assist with the payment of ordinary items for the running of the family household, including groceries and including petrol for the car.
4. There seems to be a prevalence of young men, or reasonably young men, who are overstepping the mark when it comes to financial controlling behaviour towards their partners. It seems to me that it ought not be the case that a young mother at the supermarket with a trolley full of groceries ought to be required to send text messages or photographs of how much the shopping is going to cost before money gets transferred.
5. Now, it was put to the mother, that the mother was merely unorganised or disorganised and if only she had alerted the father about these matters or how much she would have needed, he would have given it to her or transferred it to her within time. The same goes in respect of the petrol tank. But it seems to me that it ought not come to that. It seems to me that what was occurring did overstep the mark. The mother very much felt that she did not have financial independence. I have had an opportunity to watch the father and the mother in the witness box. It is clear to me that the mother very much felt she was not granted financial independence in a situation where she was at home with two young children and the father was at work pursuing his career.
6. There is some evidence about how often the father was at home or how often the father was at work, but it seems to me that my view on the evidence is that, overwhelmingly, apart from the pandemic, this father was present at his job. Even if my precise assessment of that at this stage is not correct, I will review the totality of the evidence. But it is overwhelmingly the case that the mother had primary caring responsibility for these children. I am sure that when he was at home, the father helped with the children but he was not always at home and the mother was always at home. His job was to get the money in. Her job was to care for the children, run the household, etcetera.
7. That is my assessment of this evidence thus far. My assessment may change to some extent by the conclusion of the trial and when there are more submissions about it all, but this is very much my strong impression from what I have read and seen so far. I do think that the father's monitoring of the expenditure was a serious matter of concern within that family. At this point in time, I do not need to go further and decide whether or not that conduct amounted to family violence or whether it amounted to serious and controlling family violence. Those are matters, it seems to me, that ought to be the subject of submission before I would venture along such a path, but what I do note is that the monitoring of the expenditure was inappropriate, excessive, and there should have been another arrangement in place whereby the mother did not feel that she needed to account to the father for every dollar spent and make the requests in the manner that she was required to by the father.
8. The father - and this is not necessarily a criticism, because his career no doubt calls for it, I apprehend - has rigid views on various matters, which is, it seems to me, in his line of work, utterly essential, but in a household with a wife and young children, not always so helpful. I will leave it at that for now. There is evidence, which does concern me, about the monitoring of the mother in other ways, including the evidence concerning the tablet on the chest of drawers in the mother's bedroom.
9. There is other evidence also about which I will consider further before a final judgment, and about which I make no concluded decision yet, for instance, the mother's evidence about conversations which she said that she had in her car with other people, including with her own mother, which the father would then ask her about, and the dash cam camera seems to be the source of such information which would indicate a monitoring of the mother in that respect. There seems to be evidence concerning the geolocation app, which the mother says the father accessed. There is an inference that the Court could indeed draw that that is, in fact, what occurred.
10. I am concerned, also, about the evidence I have heard relating to this particular issue - whether the father has the ability and insight to properly promote the children's relationship with their mother. There are concerning signs in relation to that. Submissions were made about it this afternoon by Dr McConaghy, Counsel on behalf of the Independent Children's Lawyer. At this point in time, there is nothing to support the father's current case in terms of a final order sought, namely, a no time order. That in itself is concerning. I have been in this job a long time. I have seen what a no time case looks like, and it does not look like this. The Court then asks itself what is behind this?
11. The Court is very concerned at the evidence that I have seen, read and heard concerning the delay. I think it was some seven months when the children did not see their mother. The impression that I have formed is that the father did not prioritise this. The impression I have formed is that the father put obstacles in the way of the contact centre's involvement. It seems, on more than one occasion, contact centres were not taken up even though they were available and for reasons which the father explained, but which seemed to the Court to be inadequate. I may be wrong. It may have only been one contact centre that offered time, but I think it was two. It will not make any difference to these Reasons for Judgment.
12. What worries me is that there is a lack of insight there that the seven-month period without their mother would lead the father to say still say in the witness box, along the lines of, "They weren't asking about her. They didn't ask to see her" - words to that effect. Notwithstanding the non-availability of a contact centre, there should have been some other arrangements made. The lack of insight is also seen in evidence concerning Christmas and perhaps one of the birthdays of the children where it seems it did not occur to the father that it might be a good idea to organise a telephone call between the children and the mother. That is worrying, but it is not beyond fixing, because whatever orders this Court makes, I am certain the father will follow.
13. I am concerned to the point that I do think it is appropriate that the orders should change and having come to that conclusion, the question is what they should change to. The children need to be seeing their mother more often. The question is whether the time should be unsupervised now, or not, and the view that I have formed is there is no reason to continue the supervision. This mother suffered from a major depressive disorder. That was not her fault. It was no one's fault. As far as I can ascertain from the evidence, no one has attributed any particular reason to this occurring.
14. It is not the mother's fault that she suffered from post-natal depression. It happens to many women. I have heard the recordings that were played. They are worrying and they are disturbing. But frankly, the father, even though he is not medically trained, he knew there was some issue with his wife, that she needed supporting, and he did his best to provide support to her within his capabilities. He is not trained as a psychiatrist or a counsellor. He did his best to support her. I saw from the text messages that he would send when the disturbing recorded messages were sent by the mother. I saw in there, messages from a man who was concerned about his wife and was wanting to support her, "Don't worry, babe. It's okay. You're doing a good job".
15. He knew it was a difficult situation with the two little ones at home and he had to be on site at his work . He knew it was a difficult situation, but he did not do anything about it at the time of these recordings were made, that is to say he did not remove the children from the mother. He did not insist they be supervised by somebody else. I do think that, unfortunately, that aspect of the matter and the evidence and the history of this family has now been sucked up into this litigation, which only in Sydney could become so out of control that I am sitting in Court in Parramatta on day five of something that needs four more days when it ought to have been able to be concluded a lot quicker.
16. Nevertheless, my comment concerning this particular registry or the Sydney registry is merely an example of what I mean about something being caught up in litigation. Until the litigation started, this whole issue of the recordings was neither here nor there. It was not until December, after the final separation, the father even took the matter to the police. Not only that, when he did go there, he made comments to them, which are apparent in Exhibit 1. He made comments to them that he was not particularly concerned about what was in there. They certainly were not concerned about it. These were read out by the Independent Children's Lawyer's Counsel during submissions, Dr McConaghy.
17. It confirms my view that when the recordings were made and heard by the father for the first time, he was not concerned for the physical welfare of the children or their welfare generally. When he went to the police in December of that year, he was not concerned for their welfare. But when it gets to the Court case, suddenly it is at the top of the agenda.
18. As Dr McConaghy pointed out, there is that long period of time between 1 September 2022, the first recording, and indeed, December 2023 - a long period of time when the father did not do anything about these recordings, and the inference that is open to the Court and the inference that I draw is that he was not concerned to the point that he thought that the children were actually in any danger, and that includes the recordings about driving motor vehicles into a river or not caring if people drowned in a river, and it includes the other recordings that were played in Court yesterday.
19. Although, I do note there may have been some discrepancy between that list that was played yesterday and precisely what the police heard. I do not consider that these children were flogged by their mother. I do not consider that they were physically assaulted by their mother or their father. At the very most, it seems to me that, so far as both of them are concerned, if there was ever any physical discipline, it was an appropriate smack. That is to say, if there was ever a smack by the father or the mother of these children, it was not inappropriate. It was in appropriate circumstances and to an appropriate degree. It was certainly not excessive. The father himself gave evidence he had never seen the mother hit the children.
20. It is clear that the mother was in poor health, it seems to me, and that was confirmed. It is confirmed by the evidence. She was suffering a major depressive disorder at the time that this happened. It is not yet clear, and I have not yet got to the bottom of the question of the medication of the mother. Whether she was on it at the time; whether she was not on it at the time; when did she start on the antidepressant medication; when did she go off it; when did she go back onto it? I know this is a big point that has been raised on behalf of the father in terms of risk issues and has been raised fairly and squarely by Counsel for the father.
21. I have seen the Medicare record. I have seen the list of prescriptions that have been filled. I have heard the mother's testimony about the fact that she says she does take the medication, the fluoxetine, and she has been taking it. I do not necessarily consider that what appears in the Medicare schedule that has been produced, and which is currently Exhibit 18, tells the entire story. I say that for this reason. Two months ago, this mother was seen by Dr G, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. That was the second occasion Dr G had seen the mother. He diagnosed the mother recently, and he had done so previously and this is contained in paragraph 80 of his more recent report, which I have made Exhibit 29, as suffering from a major depressive disorder, but that the major depressive disorder is in remission. Dr G's report states, inter alia:

"80. Based on my examination and assessment of [Ms Veronesi] on [...] September 2025 in conjunction with the materials I was granted access to, it is my opinion that her psychiatric diagnosis remains that of a Major Depressive Disorder (MDD).

1. Considering [Ms Veronesi's] stable and unremarkable mental state findings on examination on [...] September 2025, I assessed her psychiatric condition of MDD to be in remission at the present time.
2. Regarding my diagnostic psychiatric opinion of remitted MDD in relation to [Ms Veronesi], please note the following:

...

e) It is my diagnostic psychiatric opinion that, while [Ms Veronesi] previously met sufficient DSM-5 criteria to assign the diagnosis of MDD, she did not exhibit active symptoms of the condition when I assessed her on [...] September 2025.

f) [Ms Veronesi's] MDD is in remission due to the combination of pharmacological and psychological treatment. It is necessary and appropriate for the combined treatment approach to continue in the medium term."

1. The Independent Children's Lawyer seeks, and I think the mother does, too, that the mother shall continue to attend upon her general practitioner, counsellor, psychologist and any associated healthcare provider, and also continue to take medications prescribed. That will now form part of an order, and the mother will be required to do that.
2. Further, Dr G states in his most recent report dated 20 October 2025, that:

"84. ...it is my diagnostic psychiatric opinion that she did not meet DSM-5 criteria to assign the diagnoses of Alcohol Use Disorder or an illicit Substance Use Disorder...

1. For the sake of diagnostic comprehensiveness, it is worth noting that [Ms Veronesi] previously received a diagnosis of Post Natal Depression (PND) from [Dr. C]. I concur with the clinical opinion that [Ms Veronesi] developed PND following the birth of her children.
2. As far as the diagnosis of PND in [Ms Veronesi] is concerned, please note the below:

...

f) [Ms Veronesi] previously met sufficient DSM-5 criteria to assign the historical diagnosis of peripartum depression.

1. [Ms Veronesi] did not represent any psychiatric risk of harm to herself or others when I examined her on [...] September 2025.

Responses to the matters raised in the letter of instruction:

1. The letter of instruction of 12 September 2025 contained the terms of reference for the report:

   a) "...we request that you prepare a Psychiatric report with respect to the Mother's current mental health status, including diagnosis, prognosis, continuation of treatment and any other recommendations";

   b) a specific instruction that the report "only pertains to the Mother's mental health and should not address any aspects of parental capacity".

2. My responses to the matters raised in the letter of instruction are provided under each separate item listed in the multi-part question in paragraph 88 (a).

3. "...the Mother's current mental health status...".

   a) A description of [Ms Veronesi's] current mental health status was outlined in the '[Ms Veronesi's] description of her current mental health status' section of the report.

   b) I outlined my examination of [Ms Veronesi's] current mental state in the 'Mental State Examination (MSE) on [...] September 2025' section of the report.

   c) My diagnostic psychiatric assessment and opinion of [Ms Veronesi's] current mental health status is outlined in the 'Psychiatric disorder as per DSM-5' section of the report.

4. "...diagnosis...".

   a) My diagnostic psychiatric opinion regarding [Ms Veronesi] is outlined in the 'Psychiatric disorder as per DSM-5' section of the report.

   b) It is my clinical opinion that [Ms Veronesi's] existing DSM-5 psychiatric disorder of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is in remission at the present time.

   c) I did not diagnose [Ms Veronesi] with any additional DSM-5 psychiatric disorders, including:

   1. another mood-spectrum disorder such as Bipolar I or II Disorder,
   2. an anxious-spectrum disorder such as Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), panic disorder, agoraphobia, or specific phobias,
   3. a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or delusional disorder,

iv) an attentional disorder - namely ADHD,

v) a trauma-based disorder - namely PTSD,

vi) an Alcohol Use Disorder,

vii) an illicit Substance Use Disorder,

viii) a personality disorder, or

ix) a major or mild neurocognitive disorder.

d) [Ms Veronesi] previously met DSM-5 criteria to assign the diagnosis of peripartum depression following the birth of her children. The condition is not clinically relevant now.

1. "...prognosis...".

   a) Considering my diagnostic psychiatric opinion that [Ms Veronesi's] existing psychiatric disorder of MDD is in remission at the present time, in combination with her favourable response to the combination of pharmacological and psychological treatment, it is my clinical opinion that her MDD has a positive prognosis if she continues to actively engage in evidence-based treatment for it.

   b) During my assessment of [Ms Veronesi's] current mental health status, we discussed her understanding of the concept of early warning signs of mental health deterioration/relapse as it applies to her health situation. She demonstrated insight into the early warning signs that would signal mental health deterioration or relapse of her existing psychiatric disorder. This provides clinical reassurance that her existing psychiatric disorder of MDD has a positive prognosis.

   c) Alongside the conversation about early warning signs, [Ms Veronesi] articulated a satisfactory relapse prevention and safety plan should she either experience mental health deterioration or an acute mental health crisis. This, too, offers reassurance of the positive nature of her psychiatric condition's prognosis.

2. "...continuation of treatment...".

   a) The treatment reports provided by [Dr C] and [Mr. F] supported [Ms Veronesi's] account of stable mental health and sustained treatment concordance over the last year.

   b) [Ms Veronesi's] clinical presentation when I examined her on [...] September 2025 supported her account that she was concordant with prescribed antidepressant medication. I reached this conclusion due to the absence of symptoms and signs of untreated, acute MDD, or any psychiatric disorder, when I examined her.

   c) To ensure [Ms Veronesi's] MDD remains in remission, it is necessary and appropriate for her to continue with evidence-based treatment inclusive of an antidepressant agent and psychological/counselling-type interventions in the medium term.

3. "...any other recommendations".

a) I have no additional recommendations to make regarding [Ms Veronesi's] treatment for her existing psychiatric disorder of MDD."

1. This interview between the specialist psychiatrist and the mother occurred two months ago, and my recollection is that I heard evidence as to how long the interview was, and I might have to come back to that, but I might ask counsel to look for me to see whether they can find it and draw it to my attention when I finish giving these reasons.
2. In paragraph 93, it is crucial to note that Dr G says "the treatment reports". He has clearly read the treatment reports of the GP and Mr F, the psychologist, and he says:

"The treatment reports provided by [Dr C] and [Mr F] supported [Ms Veronesi's] account of stable mental health and sustained treatment concordance over the last year."

1. Also in paragraph 93(b), there is contained the following:

"[Ms Veronesi's] clinical presentation when I examined her on [...] September 2025 supported her account that she was concordant with prescribed antidepressant medication."

1. That is to say, irrespective of what the ultimate finding of this Court might be at the conclusion of the trial concerning the taking of medication by the mother, whatever the outcome of that finding, as far as the evidence stands at the moment, what the Court has is the specialist doctor having examined her two months ago and concluding that her clinical presentation supported her account that she was concordant with prescribed antidepressant medication. He then goes on to say:

"I reached this conclusion due to the absence of symptoms and signs of untreated, acute MDD or any psychiatric disorder, when I examined her."

"To ensure [Ms Veronesi's] MDD remains in remission, it is necessary and appropriate for her to continue with evidence-based treatment inclusive of an antidepressant agent and psychological/counselling-type interventions in the medium term."

1. Two months ago, the specialist, notwithstanding the outstanding issue of precisely what the findings will be regarding the mother's compliance with the regime of medication, Dr G, the expert and I note the only expert on this issue in the case, has given very clear evidence and provided a very clear opinion. Dr G would undoubtedly be a person, given his expertise, who would be able to detect symptoms and signs of untreated depression or psychiatric disorder. Of particular further comfort to the Court is the evidence relating to the mother's attendance with Ms E, the counsellor, whom the mother has seen on 24 occasions between September 2024 and September 2025.
2. In addition, there are all of the occasions the mother saw or has seen the counsellor, Mr F, and the mother has seen a GP regularly, evidenced by Exhibit 30, another Medicare report of attendances by the mother at doctors. The mother, as Dr McConaghy rightly points out, has not been hiding away. The mother sees her GP. The mother sees the counsellor, Ms E. The mother sees the psychologist, Mr F. She will be required to keep seeing these people in accordance with Order 8 as proposed, which includes the continuation of the taking of the medication as prescribed.
3. The fact that the mother over the previous year, approximately, has been seeing so many people, including the GP, the counsellor and the psychologist, again, gives the Court great confidence in coming to the conclusion that there is no need on this current evidence to continue the need for supervision. I do think there should be a hair follicle test, as proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer. Noting that these tests cover a three-month period, one more test seems to me to be sufficient, at a time to be suggested by the Independent Children's Lawyer and included in the order.
4. I will add a few more things. The question of alcohol has reared its head, and I have had regard to it, and there is no doubt that at one stage the mother was drinking more alcohol than she is now. The test results show from April 2025 show a score of 27, which still was not excessive, but was getting up there. The more recent result from October this year was much lower at 13, which shows a reduction in alcohol consumption. I understand the father continues to challenge the accuracy of the evidence in that regard, but that is the evidence as it currently stands.
5. Certainly, when seen by Dr G, he was not concerned in relation to the alcohol issue. I have well and truly taken into account in assessing the question of risk in this case, that is to say, in this interim decision.
6. To the extent that the father applies for leave to file further affidavit, that application is dismissed. This trial has gone on longer than it should have already. These parties had ample opportunity to put before the Court all relevant evidence. It is not the way that a trial works that a party gets a further bite of the cherry or gets a chance to plug holes in their evidence by providing a further affidavit.
7. I further note that this matter required a Case Management Hearing not long before the trial, because the father's own affidavit was significantly late to start with. To the extent that the father sought a further affidavit, that application is dismissed. I agree with the submission by Dr McConaghy that at the very least the increased time that the father was proposing was a step in the right direction.
8. Nonetheless, I note that he, through his Counsel, as he is entitled to do, the father retains or reserves the right to argue for a no time order on a final basis. The orders proposed by the father are not, at this interim stage, in the best interests of the children. The orders proposed by the mother at this interim stage, and supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, are in the best interests of the children.
9. I would add, by way of reasons, that I have kept at the forefront of my mind the question of the safety of these children and the risk issues, and I have done my best not to frame these reasons in such a way that any person may become disheartened, because they ought not do so. I would leave the parents with this matter to consider, namely, in their own way, they both have a lot to offer these children.
10. I am not going to order it, but it seems to me it would be a great suggestion by this Court for the father, to the extent he has counselling available to him through his work, to perhaps, with his counsellor, pursue what strategies might he be able to gain to assist him in relation to the parenting of the children in the best interests of the children, and trying to become more child-focused. I make that observation and suggestion not by way of order, but because of my apprehension from the evidence so far that the father has a lot to offer these children.
11. The mother is not seeking any no-time order. Implicit in that, is a conclusion that she considers the father has got a lot to offer the children. The Family Report Writer considers the father has got a lot to offer the children. The Family Report Writer also considers the mother has got a lot to offer these children.
12. Can I say to both of you, the fact that you both might have made mistakes in the past, you are not Robinson Crusoe in that regard, in this jurisdiction or anywhere. No one is perfect. No parent is perfect. That is for sure. Everyone has to play each ball on its merits, so to speak, and play it the best they see it. But at the end of the day, these parents have put this matter before the Court, and I will not resile from my obligation to make findings one way or the other. I have formed strong impressions so far, but the evidence is not over.
13. Mr Blackah rightly points out the experts have not given evidence. He has not had a chance to cross-examine them. Not only that, he has got several more hours of cross-examination of the mother. But I am in a better position than perhaps a Judge would be at the commencement of a trial, certainly better than that, if one was asked, for instance, to make an interim order and adjourn a case, because I have heard the parents to a very great extent, that is to say and it could not, in my view, in any way be considered that there is not sufficient evidence before me to at least draw the conclusions I have thus far, keeping in mind as always that this is not a final judgment and these are not final orders, and it may well be that they change to some extent.
14. It may well be that there has to be some variations to this. As matters stand at the moment though, these orders are supported by this evidence thus far. Given my continued involvement in the matter, I will leave the matter there, except to say so long as you are both aware, the mother and the father, that between now and the adjourned hearing date, it is open to you two to settle the case on some appropriate terms. You have got my impressions. You did not have that before. I am always very cautious, especially in matters like this, of expressing a view early on. Now is not early on. There is a way to go - but you could not call this early on.
15. It is certainly possible, desirable, and I am encouraging you both, even though you may both be somewhat apprehensive about the future, bear in mind what I have had to say, because if it cannot be settled, I will be back in January to hear the rest of it. Not only that, when I give a written judgment, I will have to go through a whole lot of matters, including precise findings concerning such issues as the compliance with medication regime, such issues as relating to the tablet that was on the mother's bedside table, how it got there, what happened to it, where it went, noting, as I do, the various parts of the evidence are covered by a certificate, but nonetheless the Court still makes findings.
16. The certificate does not protect the father from the court making findings as to what he did or did not do. The Court, in relation to issues such as the tablet, such as the monitoring of the expenditure of money, such as monitoring in other ways, if necessary, the Court will not resile from making findings, that is to say, reach a conclusion about precisely what occurred. If either parent thinks that I have been critical of them today, then at least you, unlike other unhappy litigants, it will not come as a complete shock when you read the final judgment and you see if there is any conclusion drawn against yourself, it will not come as a complete shock as to the Court's role in all of this. The Court's role is to get to the bottom of it, to discern the truth, to make findings, and the cards will fall then where they fall. Bear all that in mind. Talk to your families over Christmas, both of you, your parents, your friends, your counsellors, all of your support people. You have both had support people at court each day this week, which is very pleasing to see and you consider, both of you, all of the risks that are at hand by letting this go to a judgment. It is entirely a matter for you. This Court will be ready to roll on 27 January 2026 as required.

I certify that the preceding fifty (50) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard.