Watson & Mott [2025] FedCFamC2F 1703 (2 December 2025)

1. The parent with whom the child lives will be responsible for the day-to-day decision making for the child.
2. The child is to live with the father.
3. That unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, the child is to spend time with the mother in City B, NSW:

(a) for up to eight (8) hours each calendar month;

(b) supervised by D Contact Service or by such other community-based professional supervision service as agreed; and

(c) with the mother to meet the costs of supervision.

1. The mother is to give the father at least twenty-one (21) days' written notice of each intended visit, the visits not to include the father's birthday, Father's Day or Christmas Day.
2. The mother have telephone communication with the child (including by way of Facetime/Skype or other electronic means) at all times as agreed between the parents and failing agreement, each Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 6.00pm to 6.30pm (NSW time) and each parent is to afford the child privacy during the call.
3. The father facilitate the child communicating with the mother at all other reasonable times as the child requests.
4. The mother and father utilise the AppClose Application to communicate about parenting matters concerning the child.
5. This Order authorises any treating medical practitioner to release the child's medical information to the other parent.
6. Each party is hereby authorised to obtain (at their own cost) any information sought form any school that the child may attend from time to time including but not limited to, school reports, photographs, certificates and awards obtained by the child.
7. The parents are to:

(a) keep each other informed of their residential address and contact numbers and any changes should be notified to the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable;

(b) inform the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable of any medical conditions, significant health issues or illness suffered by the child; and

(c) ensure that the child does not come into contact with Ms E or Mr F, either in person or by electronic means.

1. Neither parent shall disclose the other parent's contact information, including their residential address, to any other person.
2. The parents do not criticise or denigrate the other parent, or any member of the other parent's family or household, to or in the presence of, or within the hearing of, the child, nor permit the child to remain in the presence or hearing of any other person engaging in such denigration.
3. That each parent is to keep the other parent informed of the details of any medical issues or emergencies concerning the parent or the child.
4. The father have the possession of the child's passport for safekeeping at all times.
5. If either party wishes to make an application for costs in respect of these proceedings, that party is to file and serve an Application in a Proceeding within twenty-eight (28) days, failing which the proceedings will be removed from the list of active pending cases.

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

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

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

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

1. These are parenting proceedings concerning a young and vulnerable girl, X born in 2015 ("X"). X is presently ten (10) years old and just about to complete Year 4 of Primary School.
2. X has had some upheaval in her life. Her parents, Mr Watson ("the father") and Ms Mott ("the mother") started seeing each other in 2013 or 2014 when they were both young adults living at Region C; X was born there. Their relationship was 'on again, off again' in nature with frequent separations and reconciliations during which times X stayed living with the mother but saw the father regularly.
3. In 2019 or 2020 the father, then living in his parents' granny flat, took the mother and X in at the mother's request when she was in need of accommodation. The parties resumed an intimate relationship but the father was not committed to reconciling and, when he told the mother in September 2020 that he had found a new partner (Ms G), the mother assaulted him, damaged property and threatened self-harm. The mother's actions resulted in Police taking out a Domestic Violence Order ("DVO") against her for the father's protection which was later made as a final order for five (5) years. Though serious, this was the only incident of family violence between the mother and the father and it is common ground that the mother did not breach the DVO.
4. After this, the father moved to City B to live with Ms G and X stayed living with the mother at Region C, communicating regularly with the father by telephone and spending some weekend time with him when it could be arranged. Covid-19 border restrictions sometimes resulted in the father becoming 'stuck' in NSW and unable to see X.
5. The mother received significant support from the maternal grandparents "Granny" and "Opa" in caring for X. This enabled the mother to work and to enjoy quality social time on her own and with friends, particularly on weekends. From X's perspective her mother was often absent [1] and at times telling the father during their calls that the mother was out "partying".
6. At Christmas 2020 the father retained X in City B after a visit as she had significant tooth decay and he was concerned that the mother was not properly caring for her. After a few weeks, he returned her to the mother again and the co-parenting arrangements continued as before.
7. In 2022 Ms G gave birth to the father's son H, affectionately known as "H". Over the next few months the mother spoke to the father about possibly moving to Melbourne or to Region J for work opportunities. The father objected and, around June/July 2022, the parents agreed instead that X could live with him as the mother said X was keen to see her new little brother. The agreement was to the effect that the mother would regularly see X in Queensland and communicate with her by Facetime or telephone.
8. When X came into the father's care, she displayed difficult behaviours and at times had faecal incontinence. She also made some disclosures suggestive of neglect in the mother's care and possible sexual abuse from "Opa". The father soon reneged on the parents' agreement, insisting that the mother only have limited daytime visits with X in the City B region, with the father supervising so that the mother did not try to take X back to Queensland. The mother acquiesced, very unhappily, and the co-parenting relationship quickly disintegrated.
9. The mother had by then re-partnered with Mr K who lived in Region C. She was increasingly worried that the father and Ms G were not going to promote X's relationship with her_._
10. In January 2023 X displayed some sexualised behaviours at out-of-school-hours care ('OOSH') and on 2 February the father commenced the present proceedings. His Initiating Application sought that X live with him, that he have sole parental responsibility and that X spend time with the mother for half school holidays. On 9 March the mother filed her Response, seeking that X live with her, that there be joint parental responsibility, and that X spend time with the father for half school holidays and on some weekends.
11. By consent, on 13 March 2023 the court made interim orders that the mother spend time with X on one (1) weekend per month and for one (1) week blocks in each school holiday period, with the mother to be restrained from removing X from the greater City B region. There was also provision for regular Facetime communication.
12. The mother saw X for some, but not all, of the visits. After an unpleasant altercation at a handover in early 2024 the visits broke down entirely as the mother had by then fallen pregnant and travel became problematic for her health. Ms G was also pregnant and the father was in no mood to negotiate more flexible arrangements for the mother to see X. Nor was Ms G; the relationship between she and the mother was at best negative, at worst toxic.
13. The first tranche of the hearing took place on 17 & 18 September 2024. Each parent was seeking that X live with them. Each contended that they were the one who could provide X with the more stable, settled home. The father raised particular concerns about the mother's volatility, family violence and possible abuse or neglect of X - including risk of sexual harm from the maternal grandfather. The mother raised specific concerns about the father's willingness to promote X's relationship with her.
14. At the end of the first tranche, the parties entered into some interim orders by consent whereby the mother would spend unsupervised block time with X in Queensland, with handovers to occur at either Brisbane or City B airport. Without admission, the mother was not to leave X in the unsupervised presence of the maternal grandfather "Opa".
15. Soon after, the mother gave birth to her son L in 2024 and Ms G gave birth to her and the father's second child whose name is regrettably not in evidence.
16. By the second tranche of the hearing on 4 & 5 April 2025, the case had radically changed.
17. The mother filed an updating affidavit admitting that she and Mr K had recently had a violent run-in with the mother's estranged sister Ms E ("Ms E") and her partner Mr F, a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang. The mother said that they had been threatened by "bikies" and that her sister had smashed her car windscreen, as a result of which Police had taken a DVO out against her sister for the mother's protection.
18. Subpoenaed Police records painted a much darker and more detailed picture. In summary, Mr F and Ms E were accusing Mr K of owing them $50,000 relating to some cocaine that Mr F had seemingly supplied to Mr K to on-sell. Mr F had intimidated and assaulted Mr K and death threats had been made. The mother was inextricably caught up in it and had herself been threatened. It also emerged that X had also come into contact with Mr F during her Christmas visit pursuant to the orders - and had been shaken by his violent threats.
19. The mother did not want to reveal her address, beyond saying it was somewhere in the Brisbane area. She formally abandoned her residence application but still pressed for unsupervised time on the basis that she would relocate to NSW, no further north than Suburb M, consistent with Police advice that it would be safer for her to live in NSW rather than in Queensland. On that basis, and conditional on X not going to Queensland for a period of twelve (12) months, the mother still proposed to spend time with her for one (1) weekend per term, and for the bulk of the school holidays. She proposed that neither parent allow X to come into contact with Ms E or Mr F, or disclose the other's address or contact information to any other person. [2]
20. But while the father was agreeable to the mother's order for joint parental responsibility and decision-making, he was now firmly opposed to unsupervised time. Contending that it would not be safe, he instead sought that any time between the mother and X be strictly supervised at a contact centre in City B.
21. For the Reasons that follow, the court has come to the unhappy conclusion that supervision is essential, but community-based in nature and limited to the greater City B region.

1. Mr Whelan of counsel appeared for the father. In the first tranche of the hearing, he read and relied upon: a Case Outline Document filed 16/09/24 (which contained the father's proposed minute of order); the father's affidavit filed 09/09/24; and the affidavit of the father's partner Ms G filed 16/09/24.
2. Mr Duane of counsel appeared for the mother. In the first tranche of the hearing, he read and relied upon: a Case Outline Document filed 13/09/24 (which contained the mother's proposed minute of order); a slightly-amended version of the mother's proposed minute which was tendered as exhibit 1; the affidavit of the mother filed 23/08/24; the affidavit of the mother's partner Mr K filed 12/09/24; an updating affidavit of Mr K (tendered as exhibit 7) which deposed to events he witnessed in the waiting area outside court during the father's cross-examination; and the affidavit of Mr Mott filed 12/09/24 ("Opa").
3. Much of the above material was filed late but both parties were given leave to rely upon it.
4. In the second tranche of the hearing, Mr Whelan read and relied upon: a Further Amended Initiating Application filed 03/04/25 which contained the father's more restrictive proposed minute of order although this was superseded by the minute he later tendered as exhibit 12. Mr Duane read and relied upon: an updated affidavit of the mother filed 03/04/25; and the mother's updated proposed minute of order (exhibit 10).
5. By consent, at the conclusion of the hearing some further interim orders were made for the mother to spend time with X the next day from 7.30am to 3.30pm, with changeovers to occur at the City B sports courts, with the mother's step-mother Ms N to be present at all times and Mr K not to be present. The mother's Facetime calls with X on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays were to continue. The parents were to communicate via AppClose. The orders noted that:

A. These are interim orders.

1. The Court noted that the parties agree that there should be an order for joint decision-making for [X]. The father has advised the Court that he wishes to promote the mother's relationship with [X], provided it is safe. Without admission from either party, the Court would encourage the parties to submit a consent order, pending a Judgment in the matter, whereby the mother could spend some supervised time with [X] in the interim.

1. The parties have not submitted any proposed further orders in the intervening period.
2. In arriving at a decision I have had the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses give their evidence. I have also had the benefit of written and oral submissions from both counsel. I have reviewed all the evidence, including all exhibits. The exhibits include a Family Report by Regulation 7 Family Consultant Ms O dated 13/02/24 (exhibit 2), her short Addendum Report dated 15/04/24 (exhibit 3), various Police records and other documents.

1. These proceedings are governed by the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("the Act"). Section 60CA of the Act states that when a court makes a parenting order, the child's best interests are the paramount consideration. In arriving at a best interests determination, the court is obliged to weigh up the considerations prescribed in s 60CC of the Act:

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

Determining child's best interests

(1) ...[I]n determining what is in the child's best interests, the court must:

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

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

[Aboriginality is not relevant in this particular case]

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

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

(i) the child; and

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

(b) any views expressed by the child;

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

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

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

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

(2A) 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. I am familiar with the provisions of the Act concerning parental responsibility and do not intend to set these out, particularly given the parties' agreed position that there should be joint parental responsibility and decision-making.
2. Section 68B of the Act empowers the court to grant injunctions in relation to a child where such injunctions are appropriate for the child's welfare, including injunctions to personally protect the child or to protect the child's parent. I am also aware of s 60CG of the Act which provides that, when considering what orders to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so, consistent with the child's best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
3. Safety is obviously a major consideration in this case. To that end, I am also familiar with the concept of "unacceptable risk" laid out by the High Court in M & M (1988) FLC 91-979 which has since been applied in numerous decisions at first instance and on appeal, including the recent appeal decision in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97; (2022) FLC 94-092.

1. Having given an overview of the case, I now turn to the Chronology in more detail.

1. The father was born in 1992 and is thirty-three (33) year old. He works as a tradesperson. He lives in the greater City B region with Ms G, a thirty-one (31) year old part-time retail assistant studying to become a beauty therapist. Their household consists of the father, Ms G, X, H now aged three (3) and their younger child who would now be one (1).
2. The mother was born in 1994 and is thirty-one (31) years old. She works in retail and lives at an undisclosed location in South-East Queensland with Mr K and L aged one (1). Mr K has work in both Brisbane and Sydney.

The mother's family violence in September 2020 resulting in the DVO:

1. This event was precipitated by the father texting the mother to say that he was seeing Ms G, that he knew the mother knew about it and was pretending otherwise, and that he wanted them to have a "grown up" conversation about it. [3] As noted, there was still intimacy in the parents' relationship [4] and in the witness box the father conceded that this was the first time he had told the mother he had a girlfriend. I therefore accept the mother's description that she was "blindsided" by his text.
2. Irate, the mother returned to the granny flat to pack her belongings. She punched the father multiple times to the face and threw glass bottles of alcohol at him, causing them to smash. He went to a nearby park to de-escalate things and the mother then smashed the TV even though X was watching it at the time. She texted the father about having smashed the TV and threatened to take his daughter away too. She also threatened to set his clothes on fire in the backyard. At some point the father's brother took X away from the chaos and the paternal grandfather asked the mother to leave. The mother then locked herself in the bathroom, from where she sent a video to the father of her attempting to slash her wrists with a piece of glass and threatening to kill herself, and telling him that he could "keep [X]".
3. After a while the maternal grandmother collected the mother and X. Police were called and, as noted earlier, to protect the father, they took out a DVO which was later made final for five (5) years. In addition to the usual conditions, the DVO prohibited the mother from approaching within 500 metres of where the father lived or worked.

Co-parenting arrangements from then until July 2022:

1. As noted, X lived with the mother and spent time with the father, who retained her for a brief period around Christmas 2020/January 2021 following which he returned her and the normal arrangements resumed.
2. The father still had some concerns about X during 2021.
3. On an unknown date that year, he says that he telephoned X who at that time was living with the mother at Opa's home. He says that X told him she wasn't wearing a shirt and that she and Opa had slept naked because it was so hot. The father was alarmed and called the mother who was unavailable. He rang the maternal grandmother and told her about it; the maternal grandparents were separated. He says that the maternal grandmother's response to him was "This is a bad trip down memory lane." She did not elaborate, nor it seems did he ask her to. In my view her comment could potentially have implied something sinister on Opa's part; it could alternatively have been a dismissive reference to the fact that the father was again making allegations concerning the mother's care of X just as he had done at Christmas. The maternal grandmother did not give evidence and ultimately nothing probative can be drawn from her comment.
4. X had some behavioural issues at school. In August 2021 the father emailed X's teacher to suggest that X proactively engage with the school counsellor to support her behaviour and mental health. In November 2021 X was in trouble for bullying.
5. As noted, around April 2022 the mother spoke to the father about moving with X to Melbourne or to Region J and he objected.

1. Around July 2022, by agreement between the parents, the mother handed X over to the father's care. The agreement was set out in text messages. The father stipulated that X would see the mother for one (1) weekend per month, with future arrangements to be reviewed after two (2) years and the mother not having to pay child support in the meantime. The mother countered that she wanted monthly weekends in Queensland, half school holidays and telephone calls to X each morning and night. [5] The father accepted her proposal, though to be fair it was always going to be unsustainable given the amount of travel involved and the father's own family commitments including his baby son "H".
2. When X came into his care, she was unsettled and still had faecal incontinence at times. The father and Ms G were concerned about how well the mother had looked after her. They did not trust the mother and monitored X's Facetime communication with her.
3. X told Ms G that Opa had made her go into a "dark basement" under his house and that she would cry and ask him "not to make her" but that he would do so anyway. Ms G, who was aware of X's 2021 statement to the father about sleeping naked with Opa, assumed the worst and decided to report both matters to the NSW child welfare authorities ("the DCJ").
4. On 1 August 2022 X's Assistant Principal advised the father that X had made a concerning disclosure to her teacher. She said that the mother had "slapped" her across the face during the night when she woke up, and that the mother had gone out on multiple occasions leaving X at home unsupervised. The father and Ms G believed it.
5. Sometime around then, X told the father and Ms G about an event she said had occurred when she was much younger. She said she had been at the shops with the mother and Opa, that Opa was supervising her but that, while Opa was looking at his phone, a man grabbed her and took her to the carpark, telling her he knew the mother. She said that the mother physically chased down the man and hit him until he let X go. The father and Ms G believed it and Ms G reported it to the DCJ.
6. The father telephoned the mother to tell her that X had made disclosures about Opa behaving inappropriately but he did not give particulars. The mother told him she had recently had a miscarriage and couldn't deal with the issue at that time. She was living with Opa at the time and later spoke to him about X making disclosures against him. He was upset and denied it. To avoid giving the father a reason not to send X back for visits, she moved out of Opa's home and found other accommodation.
7. After initially agreeing that X could go back to the mother in the September 2022 holidays, the father reneged and told her he would have to supervise the time in City B. He admitted in the witness box that he initially raised with the mother some concerns about the maternal grandmother, which were historical in nature and which he admitted were really just a ruse. He believed he and Ms G could provide X with a much safer and more supportive home environment. He was concerned about X's need for more structure than he thought the mother could provide, particularly given her behavioural issues and soiling. He was concerned about X's disclosures. But the other real concern he had was that X might want to go back to Queensland with the mother, or that the mother might take her back unilaterally - and he was not willing to take that chance now that he felt she was getting supportive parenting from he and Ms G.
8. The mother and maternal grandmother subsequently travelled down to City B for about a week in the September 2022 school holidays to see X. The visits occurred under the father's supervision. The last visit at P Venue was highly tense and acrimonious, with the father bringing along Ms G's mother for more support. The mother became angry during the visit, calling the father "a coward", "pathetic" and at one point asking Ms G's mother "Who the fuck are you?" when she intervened. X was witness to it all. Police were called although things soon settled and the mother and maternal grandmother left.
9. Police later undertook a welfare check at the father's home.
10. In November 2022 the parents started communicating in writing via AppClose.
11. X soon bonded with H as well as Ms G who she started calling "mum" - to the mother's chagrin. Neither the father nor Ms G discouraged her from doing so.
12. On 3 January 2023 X's vacation care providers contacted Ms G to advise that a number of other children had disclosed that X was showing them photographs of her vagina on her VTech watch (which X had snuck into her bag and which had camera capabilities). The father later confiscated the watch but could not find the photographs. When he and Ms G asked X why she thought that such behaviour was okay, she said that she "would take photos when she lived with Opa." There being no photographs, the father decided not to make a formal complaint to DCJ or Police.
13. In late February, not long after the father had commenced proceedings, a DCJ worker contacted Ms G to advise of an influx of reports concerning X's sexualised behaviours towards her peers. They referred X to the Child Development Team, following which she was accepted into the 'Q' Program, being an under-10s sexualised behaviours clinic.
14. As noted at [11] above, on 13 March 2023 the court made interim orders for the mother to spend time with X. The mother spent time with X from 7 - 14 April 2023 and from 12 - 14 May. X got to meet Mr K and they had a good time together.

Family violence between the mother and Mr K culminating in their separation:

1. In mid-June 2023, a serious incident of family violence occurred between the mother and Mr K.
2. According to subpoenaed Police records, [6] Police received a phone call at 3.23am from a female requesting that they attend her home. When Police arrived there at 6.17am, the mother told them that she had been out earlier that evening and had gotten into some sort of altercation in a nightclub, resulting in her being removed by security. Mr K was in the nightclub but was not involved in the altercation; he stayed there after she left.
3. The mother told Police that she went home to where she lived with Mr K (and another flatmate "Mr R"). She said that when she got home at approximately 2am, she could not find Mr K's dog and so she contacted him. He responded by saying "Try me". (In the witness box the mother said that Mr K had taken her message as a threat to let his dog out of the yard.) The mother said that Mr R then returned home and told her she should find another place to go. Mr K then returned home and started ripping all of the mother's clothes out of the bedroom cupboard and yelled out to Mr R that the mother had a knife - which she told Police she didn't. The mother told Police that Mr K briefly left the bedroom at which point she locked herself in the bathroom. She told Police that Mr K unlocked the bathroom door, telling her to get out and then grabbed her. She pushed back and then Mr K came at her again, causing the mother to hit her elbow into the door. He then dragged the mother out of the bathroom, she said "Stop!" and Mr K grabbed the mother, pushed her onto the bed and she pushed him back in the chest. Mr K then pushed the mother into the bedroom wall causing a dinner plate-sized hole and debris to scatter on the floor. Mr K then left the bedroom and eventually left the home. The mother phoned him to check on him and he told her "Wouldn't it be fun to have another DV against you?" She said she then called Police as she was scared and didn't want it made out to be that this was all her fault.
4. Police observed that the mother had a swollen left elbow, redness on her right wrist and a scratch on her left forearm as well as a red mark covering the right side of her face. Police observed that in the upstairs bedroom there was a significant hole in the wall and associated debris on the floor.
5. While speaking to Police, the mother also told them about an earlier violent event with Mr K where they had been in the car at S Gym and he had grabbed her by the shirt to make her stay in the car, telling her "I wanna have someone here so you don't lie about what I've done to you." The mother told Police that Mr K had "checked out of" the relationship as it was unhealthy and he wanted it to end. She told Police that Mr K's behaviour was out of character.
6. Police told the mother that they intended to take out a DVO against Mr K for her protection. The mother was supportive of that. Police were clearly concerned about these events, particularly the altercation in the home, noting that:

"The current incident has shown Police that the respondent has used violence against the aggrieved and the aggrieved was fearful of the respondent. The aggrieved wishes to continue in the relationship with the respondent and work out their issues. The aggrieved initially didn't want to take Police action as she did not want the trouble and to be seen to be at fault. The aggrieved has elected not to make a criminal complaint in the matter. The respondent satisfies the DFVPA 2012 Protective Assessment Framework with the Violent Behaviour and Damage to Property. The Police believe without their intervention, domestic violence is likely to continue considering the current status of the relationship and the aggrieved wishing to stay with the respondent."

1. The Police records reveal that the mother quickly repented of having contacted them, seemingly mindful of the potential negative impact these matters may have on the parenting proceedings. The next day, she contacted Police to tell them that her injuries were self-inflicted, and that all Mr K had trying to do was calm her down. She said that her facial injury was as a result of her smashing her own face into the wall as she was trying to leave. She said that the hole in the wall came about from her tripping over and accidentally putting her arm through it. She also told Police that "her friends had reminded her that she can have blackouts and that this is what happened during the incident." She was at pains to tell Police that she was the one who started the argument and that she was in a fit of rage at the time it occurred.
2. The mother again followed up with Police the following day, asking them not to proceed with the DVO application and to have it withdrawn. She told Police that she and Mr K had cut each other off and were now going their own ways. She said she did not want the DVO application to go ahead, and wanted the DV report to be cancelled as she believed it would look bad on her as she was currently going through custody proceedings with her ex-partner who would use the incident against her. She also said she had been intoxicated when she first spoke to Police. Police told her they were unable to withdraw the application and advised her to attend Court and explain the situation to the presiding Magistrate.
3. The mother and Mr K separated for around four (4) to six (6) months after this event, only resuming their relationship in late 2023.
4. Neither the mother nor Mr K's affidavits referred to these events. The 'high water mark' of the mother's disclosure was in the Family Report interview when, knowing the events would come up in subpoenaed material, she told the report writer that Police had attended on one occasion because "I had an outburst." While she admitted that Police had applied for a DVO against Mr K, she maintained that the event arose from her own emotional dysregulation and that "The Judge threw it out".
5. I have heard both the mother and Mr K give evidence in the witness box about these matters. Both claimed that Mr K was merely trying to calm the mother down on each occasion and Mr K denied acting in a violent manner. He and the mother both maintained that the hole in the wall was an accident arising from the mother tripping over. The mother seems to have been highly volatile and may have instigated the arguments; she had, after all, been removed from the nightclub earlier that evening after getting involved in an altercation. But equally, Mr K was physically aggressive and controlling towards her on both occasions and I do not believe that the hole in the wall was an accident; it was the result of Mr K using force against her. I am satisfied that what the mother contemporaneously reported to Police was substantially truthful, though not necessarily entirely so. Ultimately, I am satisfied that family violence occurred on both occasions, the altercation at the home being particularly serious.
6. These events show a dark underbelly to the relationship between the mother and Mr K about which neither of them are being fully frank with the court. When asked about it in the witness box, the mother said she didn't think it was "relevant" and downplayed it as a "drunken incident". This was a glib and plainly untrue answer; she clearly did think it was a relevant matter - which is why she tried to have Police withdraw the DVO application and cancel the report. Mr K's affidavit falsely deposed that he and the mother had been in a relationship for two (2) years, describing it as a "committed and stable" relationship, conveniently omitting the separation altogether.
7. Moreover, the mother and Mr K's attempt to rewrite history demonstrates their willingness to cover up the truth where necessary to assist the mother's parenting case. This is particularly problematic in this case given the highly concerning and somewhat murky events of late 2024 and early 2025.
8. The mother says that during she and Mr K's separation, she had eight (8) sessions with a psychologist to assist her with mental health and emotional regulation, which has continued thereafter on an as-needed basis every few months.
9. In the meantime the mother had X for a week in July 2023, two (2) days in August and two (2) days in October. On 11 December 2023 the mother and Mr K resumed their relationship.
10. At Christmas 2023 the father travelled to Queensland with Ms G, X and H, staying there for four (4) days. The mother asked if she could have X from 10am to 6pm on Boxing Day; the father demanded that any time be supervised at a contact centre which, on the basis of the knowledge he had at the time, was unreasonable. The child did not see the mother. The mother instead had X from 5 - 15 January 2024.

1. On 31 January 2024 the Family Report interviews and observations took place. The focus at that time was on which parent had the more stable and secure household, the father raising issues about the mother's home and the mother raising issues about the father's willingness to support X's relationship with her.
2. The mother rejected the father's concerns about Opa, saying he would never hurt her. She accepted that when X had bowel issues "he would have had to clean her" but said that he would never hurt her and had always been "a big father figure in [X]'s life". She said X had a very creative imagination; the father agreed with that. Although primary care of X was still in issue, the mother conceded to the report writer that she was agreeable to X staying in the father's care, though she wanted monthly visits and to have X for the whole of the school holidays. [7] (She later disputed having made that concession, which is why the Addendum Report was ordered confirming that she had. In the witness box she was more nuanced, reasoning that her concession was on the basis that the father was able to properly provide for X.)
3. The report writer recommended that the parents share parental responsibility. She recommended that X stay living with the father and spend time with the mother, subject to having her own bed and not being left unsupervised. She also recommended that both parents undertake the 'Circle of Security' Program and, given the mother's stringent rejection of even the possibility of sexual abuse having occurred, she recommended that the mother undertake a 'Protective Behaviours' Program to recognise possible red flags and to be better able to support X. [8]

1. The mother's last visit prior to the final hearing occurred on 4 February 2024. At the end of the mother's visit, Mr K tried to hand Ms G a bag of toys and things the mother had purchased for X. Ms G refused to accept them. Tempers flared and the mother told Ms G that the orders were silent about gifts. Notably, X told Ms G "Please don't be rude to my mum" - which reflects how she saw things. X ended up distressed, later apologising to Ms G when she got in their car to go home. In my view, there was no need for an apology; Ms G should have simply accepted the bag and none of it would have happened. Overall, the events at handover do none of the adults any credit: Ms G for unreasonably rejecting a gift; the mother for getting angry; and all the adults for putting X in the middle. Ms G even complained to Police the next day about the mother's behaviour; this was high-handed and unnecessary.
2. The mother was due to spend a week with X in early 2024. However, she was pregnant and had received medical advice against travel. She sought that the visit occur in Queensland instead and the father refused. No visit occurred. She later received a medical clearance for a one-off visit to City B for Mother's Day - but the father refused this request too, telling her that "other plans" had been arranged. The mother requested time in Queensland on her birthday, X's birthday, holiday time (July), and for her baby shower but no agreement was reached. On the basis of what the father knew about the mother's circumstances at the time, his refusal to agree to any of these proposals reflects poorly on his attitude to fostering the mother/daughter relationship.
3. X still had some ongoing behavioural challenges. On 12 September 2024 X was suspended from OOSH after multiple incidents of rudeness towards peers and educators including calling peers "filthy little whore" and hitting a teacher and calling him a "fat cunt".

1. The first tranche of the hearing did not go particularly well for the father; in the witness box both he and Ms G came across as quite disparaging of the mother as a parent.
2. The AppClose communications between the parents [9] were shown to the father in the witness box and proved to be something of an embarrassment for him. Numerous messages of his were shown to be overly lengthy, disparaging, lecturing and condescending towards the mother. It was also apparent that Ms G was aware of and approved of, his messaging, as well as regularly including her own input. [10] The father was also forced to concede that at times he had made it difficult for X to see the mother, including refusing her requests to see X after February 2024. He was also unpleasantly reminded of having returned the mother's gifts for X, including on one (1) occasion a piece of jewellery. Overall, it was a humbling experience for him.
3. In the waiting area outside court, Mr K overheard Ms G denigrating the mother, referring to her as a "shit mother" and saying "I fucking hate her" and "I will beat her at this." He saw Ms G's mother walk out of court and update Ms G about what was being said in the courtroom. He also saw the father do likewise - all of which happened while Ms G was waiting outside to give evidence. At one point Ms G said to her father "I can't believe what she's saying, I'll take her fake teeth and shove them down her throat. Poor kid having her as a future mother." (The mother has dentures for two (2) missing teeth).
4. Ms G denied the above allegations but I accept them to be true. She was agitated, she was heightened and she was frustrated at being told that the father was not performing particularly well in the witness box.
5. As noted, at the close of the hearing the parties entered into some interim orders by consent. The father's negative attitude towards the mother having been exposed in the witness box, I have little doubt that part of the father's motivation for agreeing to orders for time in Queensland was to show that he was willing to promote the mother/daughter relationship.
6. Ironically, the risks to X seeing the mother in Queensland were in fact much greater than anyone knew at the time. A veritable storm was brewing there, the extent of which only became apparent at the second tranche of the hearing.

The events of late 2024 and early 2025 - what the mother was willing to tell this court:

1. It is useful to begin with the mother's updated affidavit.
2. The mother deposed, inter alia, that in January 2025 the maternal grandmother had invited Ms E and Mr F to live in the home at Suburb T where at that time the mother, Mr K, L and the maternal grandmother were living. The mother objected to them moving in, saying it wouldn't be a safe environment due to the risk of potential harm or violence. The maternal grandmother told the mother that the mother didn't have a choice but that it was agreed that she, Mr K and L would have two (2) weeks in which to move out before they arrived. Notwithstanding that agreement, Ms E and Mr F arrived a few days later with their belongings and started moving in. The mother's affidavit goes on to depose that there was an argument and that Ms E and Mr F threatened she and Mr K that they had to leave the home or "bikies" would drag them out. The mother says she, Mr K and L left the same day, leaving most of their belongings behind and living in a hotel for some weeks.
3. The mother deposes that a violent incident occurred in February 2025 when the mother went back to the Suburb T home with her friend Ms U to collect their belongings. She says she did not bring L with her "as I didn't believe it would be safe."
4. The mother says that when they got there, the maternal grandmother, Ms E and Mr F were all yelling at her and asking "Where is your fat fuck of a partner?" She got into a verbal argument with them - she does not say what it related to - before locking herself in the bedroom and calling Police. Ms E objected to her calling Police and began kicking the door, as a result of which the mother hung up. Things then calmed down to some degree and the mother went back outside and resumed packing her belongings with Ms U. She says that Ms E began threatening her by saying she had called her bikie mates to come over.
5. The mother became afraid and got into the car to leave, again calling Police. As she did, Ms E started striking the passenger side of the windscreen with a tyre iron, shattering it. Ms U drove off, the mother (and perhaps Ms U) presumably covered with pieces of broken glass. They thought they were being followed by another vehicle and pulled over near a shop where the mother again called Police. Police attended, spoke to her and took out a Police Protection Notice against Ms E, which also named Mr K, X and L "as a precaution". She said that she had not returned to the Suburb T property but that the father was facilitating telephone communication between X, the maternal grandmother and Ms E - which she objected to. Her affidavit otherwise went on to criticise the father's attitude to fostering her relationship with X and referred to various other matters - essentially 'normalising' events. Her affidavit concluded with:
   1. I maintain that [X] is not at risk of harm in my care. I am disappointed that [Mr Watson] is not facilitating my time with her. I believe that she misses me greatly and also misses [L].
6. In summary, the mother's affidavit paints a harrowing picture of the events of February 2025 but the prelude to that event, while ominous, remains a mystery. Why was there such animosity between she and Mr K on the one hand, and her sister and Mr F on the other? Why were 'bikies' involved? This is the missing part of the story the mother did not tell, and to get to that evidence one has to consider the subpoenaed Police material from which it is obvious that the mother has engaged in another 'cover up'.

1. The mother was vastly more forthcoming with Police.
2. Though lengthy, it is necessary to set out in full her Statement to Police in February 2025. [11] It should be noted that some people's names are 'blanked out' in the subpoenaed version of the Statement and I have inserted the missing names in square brackets, consistent with the evidence the mother gave in the witness box.

Statement

[Ms Mott] states:

1. I am a 30 year old female and I currently reside at an address known to Police.
2. My partner is [Mr K]. [Mr K] and I have been together for 2 years.
3. My sister is: [Ms E] and her partner is [Mr F]. [Ms E] and [Mr F] have been together for 3 - 4 years. I know [Mr F] to be a [...] Bikie. I know this, because [Mr F or Ms E] has told me this before.
4. [Ms E] and [Mr F] have a daughter, her name is [V] and she is 1 years old [sic].
5. [Ms E] and I used to get along until [V] was about 6 months old. This is when the relationship between [Ms E] and I started to become really toxic. In the first 6 months I was always going over to their house to see [V] and o [sic] just generally help out. I didn't like [Mr F] however I was friendly with him through this time just for the sack [sic] of [Ms E] and our mum: [Mr F], [Ms E], [V] and my mum were all living together at this time at a house in [Suburb W].
6. In about October and November 2024, [Mr K] and I were living at [Suburb Y]. During this time, [Mr F] stared [sic] coming over to our house regularly, unannounced. I would never let [Mr F] into the house but each time he came over, he was only coming over looking for [Mr K]. I thought this was weird that he as [sic] coming over, unannounced and looking for [Mr K]. [Mr F] would come over and he would be aggressive but calm, kind of like 'stand over'. [Mr F] would come to the front door and ask for [Mr K] and say things like "Where the fuck is [Mr K] tell him to come and see me".
7. During this time, I kept asking [Mr K] why [Mr F] was coming over asking for him. [Mr K] would say things like "Nothing babe, it's all good, it's getting sorted".
8. I didn't want to ask anything further. I guess in a way, I am so focused on trying to get custody of my 9-year-old daughter: [X] so I didn't want to know what was going on and I just trusted [Mr K].
9. Things started to get worse. [Mr F] started calling me every second day asking for [Mr K] and wanting to know where he was. I would sometimes answer these phone calls and other times I would let the phone call ring out. If I did answer the phone I would say "This is between you and him. I have nothing to do with this".
10. I don't have [Mr F] saved in my phone as a contact or anything, I just know the last three digits of his number is: ...
11. In early December 2024, Police turned up to our house looking for [Mr K]. [Mr K] wasn't home, he was at work. Police told me they wanted to speak to [Mr K] as they had a warrant but they wouldn't let me see the warrant. Police told me to tell [Mr K] to go to [Suburb Z] Police Station to have something delt with [sic]. This has then concerned me.
12. It was after this that I spoke to [Mr K] and asked him what was going on.
13. I think [Mr K] just wanted to keep me separated from everything hat a [sic] going on. [Mr K] told me that he would go to the Police Station once he had finished work. [Mr K] finished work really late that night so he didn't go to the [Suburb Z] Police Station. The following day, I don't recall the exact date however about 6 Police Officers rocked up at our door looking for [Mr K]. [Mr K] was in the shower and I walked in and told him Police were at the front door. Police wouldn't tell me what was going on and why they were there but once [Mr K] got out of the shower they arrested him and took him to the Police Station. [Mr K] was gone for a couple of hours. Once [Mr K] was released from custody he went to work. Once [Mr K] as [sic] released from custody he did call me and told me hat [sic] when he got home he was going to tell me everything that was going on.
14. That night, [Mr K] told me that he had been charged with Fraud offences because [Mr F] was demanding $15,000 from him in relation to cocaine.
15. I said "What the fuck do you mean?"
16. [Mr K] said, "[Mr F] has tried to get me to sell cocaine. It was really shit stuff and I tried to give it back to [Mr F] and [Mr F] is refusing to take it back and this is why [Mr F] is wanting money from me because I couldn't sell it all".
17. I said, "You are an idiot for getting involved".
18. [Mr K] said "I have been trying to sort it out and make it right".
19. [Mr K] didn't tell me what the Fraud offence were for [sic] or how the [sic] fitted into the entire situation however this is what lead [Mr K] to tell me what was going on with [Mr F] and why he was coming around the house and calling me.
20. At this point, I told [Mr K] that he needs to get it sorted or to go to Police. [Mr K] refused to because he was scared of repercussions of what [Mr F] would do if he came forward to the Police.
21. It was at this point that we decided that we needed to move to a new address, to a different suburb to get away from [Mr F] so that he would stop coming over unannounced and essentially not know where we were.
22. [In] December 2024, [Mr K] and I moved to [Suburb T]. My mum also moved in with us. We didn't tell anyone about this address besides my dad: [Mr Mott].
23. About 2 weeks later, [Mr F] found out where we lived. I believe he found out because my mum told [Mr F] and [Ms E]. [Mr F] started to call me and [Mr K] on our mobile phones and was threatening to come around. I told [Mr F] multiple times that he was not to come to our house and I told [Mr F] that I would make [Mr K] aware that he was looking for him.
24. I can't remember what day it was, but I think it was still in December 2024. [Mr K] and I were home with my daughter: [X] who is 9 years old and our son: [L] who at the time was 3 months old. [Mr F] came over and was banging at the door. [X] ran over to the door and answered the door by opening it and I just heard [X] say "Uncle [Mr F]". I then went over to the door to talk to [Mr F] and I asked [X] to go away.
25. [Mr F] said, "Where the fuck is [Mr K]".
26. I said "[Mr K] isn't here and can you please not do this while the kids are here".
27. [Mr F] said "your lying [sic], your just protecting him [sic]".
28. I had to argue the point with [Mr F], telling him that [Mr K] wasn't there. I begged him to not do this here because [L and X] was there [sic].
29. [Mr F] said "I am not going to do anything, I just need to talk to him. He has fucked my relationship with [Ms E]".
30. I said "That's not on us."
31. [Mr F] said "What do you mean by that?"
32. I said "Don't blame your relationship on ending because of us, you are the one that cheated on [Ms E]".
33. [Mr F] said "I don't give a fuck just tell [Mr K] to come and see me".
34. I said "No worries, I will let him know".
35. [Mr F] then left the property.
36. I went upstairs to let [Mr K] know. [X] was upstairs shaking and crying and I had to console her.
37. I said to [Mr K] "You need to contact him and you need to figure this out".
38. From there, things seemed to cool down a little bit. [Mr F] stopped harassing me.
39. Towards the end of January 2025, things started to fire back up again. [Mr F] was messaging me saying things like "Where the fuck is this fat cunt, stop hiding him, stop protecting him" type messages. [Mr F] started to ask me where [Mr K] worked.
40. I remember receiving a phone call from [Mr K]. I can't remember what date but he told me that [Mr F] had rocked up to his work trying to find him but he wasn't three [sic].
41. [Mr K] told me that he had received a phone call from [Mr F] and [Mr F] was demanding money from him because he needed to pay his lawyers and needed the money that he had borrowed of [Ms E] [sic] to pay it back. I don't know what further discussions were had between [Mr K] and [Mr F].
42. [Mr F] was looking like he was going to be going to Jail in [early] 2025 due to sentencing on a matter and because of this, my mum had asked if [Ms E] could move into my house at [Suburb T]. I told my mum a clear no that this could not happen. I gave my mum a few options however she just decided that [Ms E] could move in. I told [Ms E] that she could move a few things in but at no point was [Mr F] allowed to come over. As it turned out, [Mr F] didn't get sentenced to do any jail time, he just got probation which meant, [Mr F] was now moving into the house that [Mr K] and I shared with my mum. [Mr K] and I didn't want this to happen.
43. It was [...] January 2025, it was about 3 - 4pm in the afternoon. [Mr K] and I were home with the kids and [Mr K] and I were getting ready to go to Brisbane for the night. [Ms E] was moving a few things into the house. I had made it very clear to my mum that [Ms E] was not to fully move into the house until we had left. So at this point, [Ms E] wasn't living there, se as jus [sic] moving things into the house.
44. [Mr F] has turned up unannounced. [Mr F] has just come inside the house.
45. [Ms E] said "Oh he isn't going to do anything he is just helping me move."
46. It wasn't even 30 seconds of [Mr F] being there and [Mr F] walked up to [Mr K] while [Mr K] was sitting in the front bedroom of the house, this was the room we were sleeping in. [Mr K] was holding our son [L]. I was standing outside of the room.
47. [Mr F] said "What the fuck is the go cunt? Where the fuck is this money? I am not going to hit you".
48. I could hear the conversation going back and forth but I couldn't hear all of it. I could see that while [Mr K] was sitting down holding our son, [Mr F] was standing over him.
49. [Mr F] said "If you don't get it sorted I can guarantee that you won't hold your son or walk again".
50. [Mr K] and [Mr F] continued to argue. I walked into the room and told [Mr F] to stop and I removed [L] from [Mr K].
51. I said "[Mr F] you need to leave".
52. At this point, [Mr K] was really shaken up. You could tell in his body language that he was scared an [sic] anxious and he wanted to go out and leave and go to Brisbane as soon as possible.
53. [Mr F] and [Ms E] left the house, and they left in my mum's [car][sic] [...]. I don't know the registration. We picked up our friend up, [unnamed friend] I don't know his last name and we all drove together to Brisbane.
54. Once they left, [Mr K] and I continued to get ready to go to Brisbane.
55. Around 6-7pm, [Mr K and I] left [Suburb T] and went to Brisbane. [Unnamed friend] drove us to Brisbane in is [sic] [motor vehicle] New South Wales registration: ...
56. I was wearing a black and red blazer jacket with a lot of different logos and stuff on it, I was wearing platform black [...] boots. [Mr K] was wearing a plain black t-shirt and black jeans.
57. We parked behind [AA] Night Club in [Suburb BB]. [Mr K], [unnamed friend] and I had some time to kill so we went to the [CC Hotel] to the gaming lounge t [sic] have a drink and a play on the pokies.
58. I could tell that [Mr K] as anxious [sic] and worried. I saw [Mr K] kept checking his mobile phone.
59. I told [Mr K] to come to the bathroom with me so I could talk to hm and make him feel at ease. While we were in the toilets, [unnamed friend] messaged [Mr K] and told him that [Mr F] had just walked in. This has then made [Mr K] more anxious.
60. I said "I will walk out and have a look".
61. I walked out of the bathroom and saw [Mr F] was sitting at a pokie machine to the right of me. I walked up to [Mr F]. [Mr F] was wearing a bright blue t-shirt by the brand [...], this was on the front and bac [sic] of the t-shirt, he was wearing black shorts and [...] shoes.
62. I said "Please don't do anything, not here, we are just trying to have a good night. I don't normally beg but please don't do anything".
63. [Mr F] said "I won't I just want to talk to him".
64. Stupidly I believed this. I messaged [Mr K] and told him to come out, I told him that we would leave and go to a different place.
65. As [Mr K] came out of the bathroom and into the pokie area, [Mr F] got up from his seat and started to staunch walk [sic] towards [Mr K].
66. [Mr F] said "You didn't think I would fucking find you".
67. I said "Stop".
68. I walked away and the next minute all I hear is like a smack noise. I turned around and saw that [Mr F] had hit [Mr K] across his jaw. I could see [Mr K] was holding his hands up against this [sic] jaw.
69. A lady walked up and said "Woah, what's going on". I don't know lady [sic] but it was like she was coming to help or break up the fight. This lady was about mid 50s with blonde/grey hair.
70. [Mr F] has started walking out of the pokie area and [Mr K] was following him. I started to follow them both and as we got to the front of the hotel there were Police Officers across the road. [Mr K] pointed at them and said "They are right there". [Mr F] left.
71. [Unknown friend] asked the hotel and security if they had the assault on footage.
72. I walked up to the lady who intervened to ask if she was ok. The lady told me she was fine and she was jus [sic] shaken up. The lady asked "is he a bikie?" I said "Yes" and the lady then said "I wasn't nothing to do with it" [sic]. I apologised to her and she just walked away.
73. Our night continued and we eventually went home.
74. [In] January 2025, [Mr K] and I packed up our personal items that we could take with us and this was the beginning of us becoming pretty much homeless because we were too scared to now live in our house.
75. [In] January 2025 I received a phone call from [Ms E]. I have [Ms E] saved in my phone as "[...]" and her contact number is: ... I remember her saying to me "You better not go to the Police about this or I will tell [Mr Watson] (my ex) everything that you and [Mr K] have been involved with".
76. I said "I have tried so hard to get [X] home, please don't she is just a child and she has been through enough. I can't talk to you anymore". I hung up the phone.
77. Then, text messages started between [Ms E] and I. I have provided Detective Senior Constable [DD] with these text messages.
78. Between the [...] January 2025 to the [...] February 2025, [Mr K], [L] and I have basically been hotel hoping [sic] because we have no where to live and we don't want [Mr F] or [Ms E] to know where we are, or my mother for that fact as she will tell them where we are.
79. [In] February 2025, I received a phone call from [Ms E] however it was both [Mr F] and [Ms E]. They were both saying "Where is the fat cunt, stop hiding him".
80. I said "I am not fucking speaking to you".
81. [Mr F] said "Tell me where the fuck he is. If you don't I will kill this cunt. The cunt stole $50,000 from me."
82. I said, "I have nothing to do with this, I have no part of it. You have pretty much made me homeless because of this."
83. [Ms E] said "I don't fucking care. You have 2 hours to tell us where he is or I am going to tell [Mr Watson] and [Ms G] everything."
84. I said "I am done with this phone call". And I then hung up on the phone cal [sic].
85. I called my dad and asked him to try and talk to [Ms E]. I tried to call my mum however [Ms E] answered it.
86. [Mr K] and I then started to talk about taking Domestic Violence Order's [sic] out on [Ms E] and [Mr F].
87. After this, I had a number of conversations with my mum about me coming to the [Suburb T] house to get all of my belongings. I wasn't going to take [Mr K]. I was going go to the house [sic] with my dad to get everything. During these conversations, I have said to my mum that I am only coming to get my stuff when [Ms E] and [Mr F] aren't there.
88. I had arranged to go to the [Suburb T] house [in] February 2025. I spoke to mum this morning and she told me that [Ms E] and [Mr F] wouldn't be there. My dad went to the house first and told me that [Ms E] and [Mr F] weren't there, so it was ok for me to go. So, I stated [sic] to head towards the house so that I could get my stuff. I was with my friend [Ms U] and he was driving [unknown friend's] car, [...].
89. At 12.51pm, my dad text me and told me that [Ms E] and [Mr F] had returned to the house and they were upstairs. I asked dad if he could arrange for them to leave so that I could come and get my stuff.
90. I arrived to the [Suburb T] house and when I went inside, I saw [Ms E] and [Mr F]. I handed [L] to my dad and asked him to take him. I was fearful of what was going to happen.
91. [Ms U] and I started moving things peacefully out of the house and into the [car]. My mum was also at the house. I bluntly asked here where [X]'s things were. Mum said "Don't speak to me like that, I will g [sic] and get them".
92. This is when [Mr F] said "Shut up and speak to your mum with respect".
93. I said "Stay out of it".
94. [Mr F] said "Where the fuck is the fat cunt of your partner, I know your [sic] hiding him. You have no money but you just go [sic] your hair done".
95. I said "Shut the fuck up, my money is my money, I work for a living".
96. [Mr F] said "Don't fucking talk to me like that".
97. [Ms E] then came out of her room and said "Don't speak to him like that".
98. I said "No [Ms E], he isn't speaking to me with respect so why would I speak to him with respect".
99. [Ms E] said "You guys stole $50,000 from us, you're a fucking liar".
100. I said "I am not dealing with this, I just want to get my stuff and go".
101. [Ms E] was getting aggravated and came closer and [Mr F] as [sic] yelling stuff at me but I was fixated on [Ms E] I can't remember what [Mr F] said.
102. I used my mobile phone and I contacted the Police. [Ms E] said "Don't you fucking contact the Police you dirty dog or I will cave your fucking head in".
103. I was in the front bedroom of the house and I had closed the bedroom door. [Ms E] started to kick at the door and was trying to come into the room.
104. At this point I was on the phone to the Police operator. I didn't speak into the phone but I knew it was a live line. I then hung up and I walked out the door and out of the house and contacted Police again.
105. I stayed clear of the house but I sat in the car that was parked out the front of the house on the road way. [Ms U] was moving my stuff from the house and into the back of the trailer.
106. [Ms E] was standing in the garage and shouting "You better not have contacted the Police. Do you want more missing teeth".
107. [Mr F] was upstairs in the bedroom and I could see him standing in the window, the window was open and he was on the phone.
108. About 5 minutes later, a truck rocked up to the house with an excavator on the back of it. [Ms E] and [Mr F] walked up to the truck. [Ms U] begged me to leave so we did. [Ms U] was driving and as [Ms U] was getting in the car, [Ms E] said "You're a dead cunt" and my mum said "You are dead to me and you're a dirty slut".
109. As [Ms U] and I were pulling away to drive away, [Ms E] walked over to the car with a smile on her face holding a tyre wrench. As I was sitting in the front passenger seat, [Ms E] has used the tyre wrench to smash the front windscreen in.
110. [Ms E] said "Say Goodbye to your dentures you bitch"
111. I wear dentures for my two front teeth. I wasn't wearing them at the time, I haven't had them for about two weeks because I left them at the house, but I am assuming by that comment that [Ms E] said, is that she has done something to them.
112. As [Ms U] and I drove away from the house, we realised that the truck was following us. The truck followed us from [Suburb T] to [unknown location]. We decided that we needed to pull over, so we pulled into the car park of [a store], which is located on [EE Street, Suburb FF]. The truck did not follow us into here.
113. [Ms U] got really scared and said "Sorry, I can't be involved in this" and he left in an Uber.
114. Within 10 minutes of us being in this car park, about five or so Harley Davidson motorcycles drove past the car park entrance of the road. I noticed a very familiar bike, that bike is a [...] looking bike with black handle bars. I thought that this bike was [Mr GG]. I could be mistaken, I just know that he rides a [...] bike.
115. By this point, I was still on the phone to Police and I told them where I was and Police attended to the car park. While Police were there, the rider on the [...] motorbike rode past again and slowed down. I locked eyes with him and I identified that the rider was [Mr F] right away. I knew it was him by identifying it was him by his facial features under his helmet. The helmet he was wearing did not cover his face.
116. Police have then taken me to [Suburb HH] Police Station. When we were on our way to [Suburb HH] Police Station I noticed multiple Harley Davidsons riding past the station.
117. I have provided this statement to Detective Senior Constable [DD]. I have shown Detective Senior Constable [DD] my mobile phone and I have allowed her to take video recordings of conversations I have had with my sister [Ms E] who is saved in my phone as "[...]" and a conversation I have had with [unknown] who I know to be [unknown].
118. My mobile phone number is: ...
119. [In] February 2025 provided [sic] this statement to Detective Senior Constable [DD].

1. The subpoenaed Police records reveal that the mother briefly fled to NSW after giving this Statement. [12] Mr K himself contacted Police, expressing fears for his safety and wanting to be on the DVO protecting the mother from her sister. He told Police that "they" (inferentially Ms E and Mr F) had attacked him a number of times. [13] Mr K told Police that on one (1) such occasion Mr F had attended his home and shown him a gun.[14] Both the mother and Mr K seem to have been accusing Mr F of extortion. [15]
2. Police considered that it was necessary and desirable to put in place a DVO to protect the mother, with Mr K, L and X as named persons therein, due to the: [16]

...extremely concerning behaviour...including multiple threats to kill the aggrieved and named person as well as the drive bys and intimidation displayed by the respondent, her partner the involved person and his OMCG associates...

1. Police also considered it necessary and desirable to put in place a DVO to protect Mr K, with the mother as a named person therein, due to the: [17]

...extremely concerning behaviour [related by [Mr K]] including multiple threats to kill the aggrieved and named person...

1. In early 2024 a Temporary DVO was made against Ms E to protect the mother. It was in broad terms, prohibiting her from contacting the mother, communicating with her (except via a lawyer), or attempting to locate the mother or asking someone else to do so. [18] A Temporary DVO was made against Mr F in much the same terms as was also made for the protection of Mr K. [19]
2. The subpoenaed Police records reveal that, when Ms E was being served with the DVO application, she told them she would not be attending Court for it, she "did not care" about the DVO and that if she saw the mother she was going to "slap her until she understands you can't treat family like this." [20] Police noted two (2) previous DVOs between the mother and her sister, with each being the aggrieved in one and the respondent in the other. [21]
3. Ms E also told Police that the mother was a compulsive liar. Notably, she also told them that two (2) weeks prior, Mr K had been holding up a knife, that Ms E had told him to put it down and that Mr K had then damaged her car with a hammer, including breaking the windscreen wipers. [22] In his own discussions with Police, Mr K admitted to damaging the windscreen of a vehicle owned either by Ms E or Mr F, describing himself as emotional at the time and that he was "retaliating". He also admitted to a confrontation with the maternal grandmother, following which he told Police that Mr F had again been making death threats. Mr K's so-called retaliation seems to have happened the day after Mr F had assaulted him at the nightclub.[23]
4. According to the subpoenaed Police records, in February 2025 the mother reported to them that Ms E had telephoned her asking her to 'drop the charges' against Mr F and threatening suicide. Ms E also said she had contacted the father and told him that the mother was abusing alcohol and drugs. Ms E had also telephoned their brother who had then contacted the mother and abused her. The mother told Police that her sister had a long mental health history which may be contributing to her behaviour. [24]

The mother's further evidence in the second tranche of the hearing:

1. When the mother entered the witness box, the nature of the case had changed and the focus was very much on these recent events.
2. She had to concede that she had not told the father about what was happening in their life, including the serious threats from Mr F in the leadup to the father sending X there for Christmas and their move to Suburb T where Mr K told Police they had been "in hiding". [25] She had to concede that X had answered the door for Mr F one day as set out in her Police Statement, and that X had been left shaken by Mr F's aggressive behaviour.
3. Asked about the nightclub assault, she said that she was working at the nightclub that evening as an '...'- a form of employment her affidavit had not mentioned.
4. The mother accepted that the events of February 2025 were more confronting than her affidavit had revealed and that various 'bikie' members had ridden past herself and Ms U seemingly to intimidate them. She said that the Mr GG referred to in her Police Statement was the President of the 'bikie club' and that Mr F had been riding Mr GG's motorcycle.
5. She admitted that to her knowledge, the 'bikie club' think that she and Mr K stole the $50,000. She denied any involvement, saying that although Mr K had gotten himself involved in cocaine with Mr F, he did so without her knowledge and she only found out later. She was not sure if Mr K still owed the $50,000, saying unconvincingly that he had repaid them some money but she was unsure as to the current debt (if any).
6. The mother vacillated about being "worried" that members of the 'bikie club' might come after them. In my view, she clearly was worried about them as evidenced by her proposal to live no further north than Suburb M for the purposes of having unsupervised time with X. In this respect she relied upon some advice set out in an email of 5 April 2025 sent by Detective Senior Constable JJ (Qld Police) to Mr K in relation to safety precautions: [26]

Changing your name would have no impact on this case and ultimately would be a decision for you if you think it would assist in preventing them from finding / looking for you. I think the best thing you can do is limit contact with anyone that is speaking to both sides as I have previously said. Unfortunately someone like [Ms Mott]'s father may inadvertently disclose information about what you guys are up to that could then be shared with [Mr F]/ [Ms E].

I think the risk is greatly reduced if you remain interstate and do not have contact with any of these people. Changing names is an additional risk mitigation, but that is a decision for your family.

1. The mother said that Mr F was in custody and, according to the latest Police advice, he would remain in custody for some time into the future. He would also be subject to various conditions when released.
2. The mother accepted that her association with Mr K had put X in danger and said that their relationship was "touch and go at the moment...but we have a 6 month old son". The mother said that Mr K's parents lived close by so that, if necessary, Mr K could stay away during her time with X, although this was not her preference and she said X would find it "confusing".
3. The mother accepted that her relationship with her sister and Mr F also put X in danger but said there were protective measures in place, including the 'no contact' DVOs and that she had moved an hour away from Region C to an undisclosed address known to Police. She also said if she calls 000, Police have arranged for her call to be treated as a priority.
4. Mr K, who had been interposed as a witness in the first tranche of the hearing, did not provide his own updated affidavit nor was he called in the second tranche of the hearing. As for the charge of 'fraud' the Police had brought against him, the mother explained that it related to him borrowing money from a pawn shop while using some hired camera equipment as security.

1. Although the outcome of these proceedings very much turns on issues of 'safety', I will begin by addressing the other relevant considerations first because they are informative as to the best outcome for X.
2. There is no doubt that X loves both her parents and thinks very highly of them; from her perspective she does not want or need either of them to change. X is now well settled in the father's primary care. She describes Ms G as "a good mum". She calls the Mother "mother" and Ms G "mum" as it makes it easier for her. From Ms G's perspective X is also very much a part of their family. X also has a relationship with "H" and her two (2) younger half-siblings, though the opportunity for a relationship with her paternal half-sibling is much greater than her opportunity for a relationship with L. Until recent events, X also seems to have had a good relationship with Mr K.
3. If X had her way, the parents would live close by to each other. But such an outcome is not proposed by either parent.
4. I agree with the report writer that, going forward, X needs safe and secure parenting experiences free from parental conflict and competing adult interests.
5. X has had some upheaval in her life, with developmental and behavioural challenges. Since coming into the father's primary care, he and Ms G have provided her with substantial medical and allied health supports including enrolling her in various programs including: the 'Q' Program for sexualised behaviours referred to earlier; and the KK Program which provides early intervention for children aged 5 - 8 who are exhibiting emerging conduct problems such as defiant, aggressive and disruptive behaviour. They have provided for her general healthcare needs, including dental care and psychological support. They have resolved her issues with faecal soiling and encopresis. They have supported her to attend school and to keep her on a healthy, constructive developmental pathway. In short, while X took some time to adjust to the move to City B given her past experiences and disruption, the father and Ms G were able to provide her with that support and X is now well settled in their care.
6. While the father and Ms G could legitimately be criticised for not doing enough to promote the mother/daughter relationship at times, their concerns about the mother were ultimately vindicated by recent events - including the mother's own deliberate failure to disclose relevant information. For this reason, I will refrain from being any more critical of the father and Ms G than might otherwise have been the case. I also consider that, whatever challenges there may have been, it is to the credit of both parents (and Ms G) that Facetime communications have been regular which, in my view, helped sustain the mother/daughter relationships despite the distances involved. Notably, both parents agree that this communication should continue.
7. The father's belated concession that the parents have joint parental responsibility was appropriate. It reflects a willingness on his part to work with the mother and, to be fair, although some of his AppClose communications have been problematic, there has also been plenty of workable, effective communication too. Both parents have gone on to undertake the 'Circle of Security' Program and I echo the report writer's observation that, whatever the parents' differences, they have managed to support X to have a loving relationship with both parents. [27] The regular Facetime communications have been an important part of that success.
8. I am satisfied that it is in X's best interests that the parents share parental responsibility and decision-making as they both have input to offer X and I consider that they will be able to make joint decisions. Moreover, X's safety requires significant restrictions on the mother's time with her, and in that sense an order for shared parental responsibility is protective of the mother/daughter relationship as it gives X the message that the mother is and remains her important 'other' parent.

1. There are some question marks in relation to the mother's mental health and long-term emotional stability. She can be emotionally volatile. In her Family Report interview she said that she had a history of anxiety and depression and was at that time being assessed for borderline personality disorder through a GP and a Psychiatrist although in the witness box she said this had since been ruled out. Overall I consider that her mental health is manageable provided the mother is vigilant to safeguard her mental health and seeks support as needed; her evidence that she is seeing a psychologist is a protective factor. On its own this issue is a concern but it would not warrant orders for the mother to have strictly supervised time with X.
2. I am concerned about the incidents of family violence between the mother and Mr K in 2023 and their subsequent attempts to rewrite history and minimise same. The mother's attempt to retract her Police complaint for the purposes of the parenting proceedings means that if there were any subsequent events of violence between them, then they may not have been reported to Police. To be clear, I cannot and do not make a positive finding that there has been any subsequent family violence but the spectre of that risk remains.
3. However, the overwhelming safety concern that I have relates to the events of late 2024 and early 2025.
4. On any view, the mother's "updating" affidavit was grossly misleading in what it omitted. This was a deliberate choice, consistent with other omissions. The full truth can never be known, and ultimately there are a great many unknowns about what really happened, including doubts about:
   • what Mr K did nor did not do in relation to the cocaine and the $50,000;
   • what knowledge the mother had about it (and when);
   • whether the mother herself had any involvement (and when);
   • what other threats (if any) may have been made.
5. The violent event in the nightclub involving Mr F and Mr K throws up other questions; how she and Mr K ended up in a toilet together is mysterious and they may have been taking drugs but again I cannot make a positive finding. Overall, I have the strong strong impression that there is a lot more to these events than the mother is willing to tell.
6. To be clear, it is not possible, nor do I make, positive findings about the matters set out in the bullets in [122] above and the matters in [123] above. But what is clear is that Ms E, Mr F and various 'bikies' believe that the mother was somehow involved in it. Her own mother may potentially think so too. [28] I consider Mr F and his 'bikie' associates to be dangerous people and a threat not only to the mother and to Mr K but also to X. Ms E is also dangerous. Their belief that the mother is involved is sufficient on its own to give rise to serious safety risks to X, which are relevantly unacceptable in the event the mother were to have unsupervised time, even in northern NSW. I also note the mother's evidence that her work was Brisbane-based and that she still intended to continue in her current job.
7. In closing submissions, Mr Whelan contended that it had been a "chaotic 6 months" between the two (2) tranches of the hearing. He submitted that it was a 'safety case', referring to the 'bikies', the gun, the threats and the misleading omissions from the mother's affidavit material. He submitted that the mother's proposed environment was an unknown and that she could not be trusted. He submitted that NSW may be better than Queensland from a safety standpoint but that moving over the border did not amount to effective risk mitigation. He questioned whether the mother's safety was contingent on Mr F remaining in custody. Ultimately his submission was that protecting X was paramount and the risks to her were too great for any outcome other than strictly supervised time in the City B region.
8. Mr Duane emphasised the 'best interests' principle, the mother's selfless actions in placing X with the father and Ms G in 2022 and the unhappy contrast between the parents' attitudes to fostering a relationship with the other. He urged a sober, logical and objective risk analysis and that the court not be led into 'hysteria' by the involvement of outlaw motorcycle gang members and urged the court not to hold the mother responsible for the actions of others. He said the mother had acted protectively to the extent she could. He said that the court needed to consider the exact risks posed by the mother having unsupervised time with X, contending that the problem in the case was "the bikie" [Mr F] and not the mother or Mr K. He said that Mr F had not threatened X as such. He contended that the potential risk to X was from Mr F or his associates talking to, or 'roughing up' Mr K and that, overall, the risks to X were in fact quite limited. He urged the court not to 'overstep' in terms of the findings that were available, and not to 'punish' the mother or X or create a 'drastic' outcome that is unnecessarily restrictive particularly given the close and loving relationship that exists between them (noting also her half-sibling L).
9. In a nutshell, Mr Duane contended that the risks come down to Mr F's behaviour, not the mother's behaviour. He contended that a careful analysis of risk was necessary, and that while the incident involving Mr F and X was "highly inappropriate and undesirable", it had been a one-off event. He contended that some degree of risk to X is acceptable and that it involves an intuitive assessment by the court which takes into account the family relationships. He contended that X's safety was promoted by the mother living interstate in NSW, by Mr F being in prison and by, if necessary, Mr K being absent for visits. He said that the prospect of X being exposed to guns was remote, that Mr F had a self-interest in avoiding going back to gaol, and that the DVOs in place provided further protection. He contended that if supervision was necessary, then it to be provided by a service like D Contact Service, who provide supervision in community settings rather than in a restrictive environment like a contact centre. Essentially he contended that the court could craft different orders to strike the appropriate risk/benefit outcome for X.
10. With respect, both counsel make valid points. There is a degree of risk involved in life and in this case the benefits to X having a relationship with the mother are an important consideration. Facetime communication is good but there does need to be some physical contact too, particularly between X and L.
11. The problem for the mother however is that, in short, the risks in this case are risks to her life and to the life of Mr K. X cannot be exposed to such risks. Outlaw motorcycle gangs are known not to respect authority. Mr F certainly doesn't; he was on probation at the time he made death threats towards Mr K and when he physically assaulted Mr K in the nightclub. Ms E does not respect authority either, as evidenced by what she told Police about the DVO application.
12. In short, the mother and Mr K have made enemies of dangerous people, no doubt including violent criminals. This is not 'hysteria' on the court's part; it is a commonsense conclusion supported by Police advice to live interstate and by their actions in establishing a 'priority' 000 call response for the mother. Police are taking the matter seriously and the court must too, particularly where there are so many 'unknowns'.
13. I consider that for the foreseeable future it is going to be necessary for X to spend supervised time with the mother in the City B region as anything else would be unsafe and would expose X to unacceptable risk of harm. It is impossible at this stage to forecast a time when unsupervised time would be safe, but I accept that it may become safe some time (likely years) down the track. Regrettably for X, this is the best the court can do at this stage. I do however accept Mr Duane's submission in favour of community-based supervision rather than the strict confines of a contact centre. Given the distances involved and the limited time that will be ordered, community-based supervised time would be an adequate response to the risk.
14. I will not positively restrain Mr K from attending visits given their limited nature and the fact that he is L's father. His attendance will enable a more 'natural' experience for X without meaningfully elevating the risks or rendering them unacceptable.
15. Lastly, I turn to the sexual allegations in relation to the maternal grandfather ("Opa").
16. To begin with, these are vague and both parents agree that X has a good or even great imagination. The father also conceded that at times X tells lies, or says strange things that are plainly untrue, agreeing with Mr Duane that he has to take some things X says "with a grain of salt".
17. The maternal grandfather himself is a 63 year old retiree who formerly worked as a professional. He has no criminal convictions and has recently re-partnered. In his affidavit he vehemently denied sleeping naked with X, making her go into an underground room or any attempted abduction at a shopping centre. He deposed that the allegations against him had taken a toll on his mental health. He said he last saw X at Christmas when the mother and Mr K brought her around to visit. Notably, although he was available for cross-examination the allegations X had allegedly made about him were not even put. Nor was any allegation put to him about X taking photographs of her vagina on her Vtech watch while in his care. Instead, he was asked about the risks to X posed by Ms E, Mr F and Mr K - and he accepted that there were risks.
18. The 'high water mark' of the evidence of possible sexual abuse was that X did display sexualised behaviours which have since been remedied. There are many possible explanations for her behaviours.
19. No findings can be made against the maternal grandfather and, moreover, I do not consider that he poses an unacceptable sexual risk to X. But the issue is largely academic, because the risks posed by the mother make supervised time with her inevitable, and, unless the father agrees otherwise, the maternal grandfather will only be able to see X in that setting too.

1. For these Reasons the court makes the orders set out at the commencement herein. They are largely modelled on the father's proposed orders but also include various orders the mother had sought. To the extent that any orders have not been specifically canvassed herein, they are self-explanatory and otherwise in X's best interests.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-eight (138) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Betts.

[1] See the Family Report, paragraph 68 (exhibit 2)

[4] See the video of 19/06/20 which shows the parties in front of the mirror with the father standing behind the mother with his arms wrapped around her. See also paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Family Report (exhibit 2) in which the father admits to a resumption of the parents' relationship, describing it as "a grey area".

[7] Family Report, paragraph 60 (exhibit 2)

[10] See for instance the father's message of 1 January 2024 which concludes "Always an insightful encounter [Ms Mott], thank you." In the witness box he did not know what 'insightful' meant; Ms G had clearly written it.

[11] Exhibit 9, which also forms part of a bundle of documents comprising exhibit 13

[25] Exhibit 13, specifically page 47 of exhibit "E" for identification

[27] Family Report, paragraph 72 (exhibit 2)

[28] Based on paragraph 108 of the mother's Statement to Police.