Yanev & Cox (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 411 | Case summary

Yanev & Cox (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 411 | Case summary | Zoe

[31]

X (the child) is 12 years old and has endured significant trauma during her short life. The child has been diagnosed with foetal alcohol syndrome disorder (FASD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD) level two, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At four years of age, she was the subject of child exploitation material (CEM) produced by her father, for which he later pleaded guilty.
The paternal grandparents effectively raised the child from about age four until she was removed from their care pursuant to an order made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) on 8 December 2023 and placed in the care of her mother. The paternal grandparents refused to believe their son was guilty of the heinous crimes of possessing and making CEM under their roof and were perceived to be unable to protect the child. The household into which the child was placed with her mother exposed the child to further serious risks of harm.
The family is well known to the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (Child Safety).
Although I remain concerned for the child's safety in the mother's household, there is no viable alternative but to leave the child with the mother. With great assistance from the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) (who only replaced the previous ICL on 20 May 2025), I have fashioned a parenting order that I can only hope will provide sufficient protections for the child.
Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the paternal grandparents, the child values her relationship with them and for that reason I will order that she continue to spend time with them albeit under supervision. The father will have no time or communication with the child.
I intend these reasons to be provided to Child Safety and, while I have no doubt this case is far from the worst case they see, I respectfully request that they monitor the child from time to time. The child is currently visible in the community which affords a level of protection, but she is very vulnerable. The child attends school and participates in various outside activities and the mother appears to be making an effort to ensure the child continues to receive the significant medical and allied health support she has been assessed to require.

[37]

Before turning to the issues that will inform the making of a parenting order, it will be helpful to set out some background.
Ms Yanev (the mother) is 34 years of age having been born on [redacted] 1991. The mother is not employed. The mother receives a parenting payment, Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B, a carer's allowance, and rental assistance, the total of which is about $1,810 per fortnight. The mother has been diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for which she is prescribed anti-depressants.
The mother is married to Mr D. They commenced a relationship in or about 2017 and married on [redacted] 2021. They have one child together, G, born on [redacted] 2022. G had significant health problems shortly after her birth. She is required to attend regular checkups to monitor her health. Other than the child the subject of these proceedings, who was born on [redacted] 2013, the mother also has two other children. Q was born on [redacted] 2009 and R was born on [redacted] 2010. Q and R have the same father, namely, Mr S. Q and R live with Mr S and the mother contends that she has not seen them for about three years. Contrary to that evidence, I note that during a consultation with Dr T, paediatrician, on 26 June 2024, the mother said she was in contact with her sons. The mother said that the last time she saw Q and R, R punched her in the face. Mr S' family is also well known to Child Safety.
Mr D is 45 years of age having been born on [redacted] 1980. Mr D has not been employed for about nine years. He said he had previously been employed as a shift worker at the airport. Mr D has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder and receives a Disability Support Pension (DSP) of about $600 per fortnight. During his oral evidence, Mr D said he had also suffered frontal lobe damage and had a poor memory. As already noted, the mother receives an allowance of about $156 per fortnight from Centrelink to provide care for Mr D.
Mr D has a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) plan (Exhibit 15) which provides him with various supports including to drive him to the shops (although he has a car, can drive, and receives a petrol allowance from Centrelink) and to go walking with him (although he is not physically disabled). Mr D said he was told by his plan coordinator that he had to spend the money that had been allocated otherwise he would lose it. His current plan is for three years until 4 July 2027 and provides a total support package of $101,574. It is a difficult document to understand because of the jargon used and a coordinator is paid $17,074 to, among other things, help him understand and manage his plan.
Mr Cox (the father) is 36 years of age having been born on [redacted] 1988. Despite being a Reportable Offender subject to the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Qld) (Reportable Offender Act), the father has no fixed address. He lives in a camper van and travels from place to place. He said his camper van is currently at his parents' residence. His parents' address is the one provided by him to authorities as his place of residence. The father has only ever had sporadic employment. He has been in receipt of a DSP since 2010 after sustaining a back injury and has been diagnosed with scoliosis of the spine, PTSD, Asperger's Syndrome level 2, ADHD and Attention Deficit Disorder. The father has a NDIS plan although the most recent one in evidence expired on 22 August 2024 and the total support package for twelve months was $25,634. The paternal grandmother also receives a carer's allowance from Centrelink for the father. The father apparently requires significant daily assistance including the provision of food and reminders to eat and drink and reminders to wash his hair and beard.
The father has no other children as far as he is aware. He acknowledges he may have an older son to an earlier relationship, though he has never had contact with the child or undertaken paternity testing.
The mother and father commenced a relationship in about 2012 and separated in or about 2017.
The paternal grandmother is 62 years of age and not employed. She contends that she is in good health. The paternal grandfather is 60 years of age and not employed. He has been on a DSP since 2000 after suffering a back injury. The nature and extent of any ongoing disability is unclear. The paternal grandparents have been married for 38 years and have lived on their 20‑acre property outside Town U since 2001. They have two sons and two grandchildren.
The mother and father lived with the mother's two older children at the paternal grandparents' property for a brief period at the end of 2012 until February 2013 when the paternal grandparents asked the mother to leave with her children because they said they could no longer cope with her neglect of them.
Shortly before or shortly after the child was born, the mother returned to live with the paternal grandparents and the father (without her other children who had apparently commenced living with their father). There was significant ongoing conflict between the mother and father and the paternal grandparents. The mother and father separated in about 2017 when the mother left the property. The child remained with the father and paternal grandparents. The mother contends she reluctantly left the child.
Despite a parenting agreement, the father allegedly withheld the child from spending time with the mother, and she commenced proceedings seeking equal shared parental responsibility and time with the child.
A parenting order was made by consent on 5 July 2022 that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility, the child live with the father and spend time with the mother every third weekend and for half of the school holidays.
The mother contends that immediately following the making of this order the father and paternal grandparents withheld medical information from her and made it difficult for her to spend time with the child. At the time, the mother was caring for G who had been born with heart complications requiring frequent hospital stays. As a result, the mother contends she felt unable to continue to interact with the father and paternal grandparents and stopped spending time with the child. The paternal grandparents contend that prior to the mother ceasing contact with the child, the mother was frequently turning up to see the child while hungover.
The father (and the paternal grandparents) made the unilateral decision to withdraw the child from formal schooling at V School and for the paternal grandmother to homeschool her. During the trial, the paternal grandmother did not impress as a person with the necessary skills to undertake that role, although no doubt she did her best.
On 9 October 2023, the mother was contacted by Child Safety and advised about an investigation involving sexual abuse of the child by the father. The mother also learnt that Queensland Police had commenced an earlier investigation of the father in December 2022 for possession, manufacture, and distribution of CEM, some of which included photos of the child.
On 6 November 2023, the mother filed an urgent application for sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her and spend no time with the father or the paternal grandparents.
On 8 December 2023, an interim order was made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with her and spend no time with the father.
On 16 January 2024, a further interim order was made continuing the previous order and providing for the child to spend two hours a fortnight with the parental grandparents supervised at a contact centre.
The supervised visits have largely occurred and seem to be of benefit for the child.
On [redacted] 2024, the father pleaded guilty to one count of possessing CEM and two counts of making CEM. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years and placed on probation for two years.
The details of the offences are set out in a statement of facts tendered during the father's sentencing hearing in the District Court of Queensland. The period during which the offences occurred was from when the father was 29 to 34 years of age. The father was found in possession (on his phone and tablets) of 37 images depicting real prepubescent children involved in a sexual act, witnessing a sexual act or where the image is focused/concentrated on the child's anal or genital region, and an additional 151 images and 52 videos that are illegal according to local legislation either by way of age or content. The content described in the statement of facts is horrific and involves very young children engaged in sexual acts with adult males, including penetration. The images of the father's own child depicted her lying on the father's bed and displaying her vaginal area. These images were located in the middle of other adult pornography and CEM on the father's tablet. The child was only four years of age at the time. The father's offending was discovered when he communicated with an undercover police officer online while pretending to be a young girl called Sarah Young.
It was observed by the sentencing judge:

[41]

It is not clear from the evidence that the CEM made by the father involving the child was shared on the internet although both the mother and Mr D have claimed it has been. It seems there may be ongoing police investigations into whether the child was sexually abused by the father (in addition to being the subject of CEM made by him). The only source of information for this possible ongoing investigation is the mother who contends this is what she was told in November 2024 by police.
During the trial, the father did not impress as someone who felt remorse for his actions. He has not completed a sex offenders' program despite it being recommended by a psychologist, Mr AA, in his pre-sentence report for the father dated 12 February 2024. The father does not see himself as a risk to the child or children generally. In my view, it is somewhat alarming that the father does not have a fixed abode and travels around in his camper van staying at various camping sites around south-east Queensland.
During early 2024, the father commenced a relationship with Ms BB. Ms BB has three young children. It is unclear when the father informed Ms BB of his criminal convictions. After the father moved in with Ms BB, her children were interviewed at their school, and it was alleged that the father had taken photographs of them in their beds. A search warrant did not locate any photographs, but the children were removed from the household by Child Safety. During a meeting on 24 April 2024, involving the father, Ms BB, and the father's probation officer, it was recorded that Ms BB presented with "very concerning comments, minimising [the father's] risk to children, and further minimising the needs for safety plans to be implemented. She stated she would choose [the father] over her children and stand by him regardless as he has 'done nothing wrong'". This information was shared with Child Safety. In October 2024, Ms BB apparently made a complaint to police about the father allegedly assaulting her causing a black eye and other bruising. The father referred to Ms BB as a narcissist and it was noted by his probation officer that he referred to other women including his brother's wife as a narcissist. It is further noted in the Queensland Corrective Services records dated [redacted] 2025 that "[i]t is evident that [the father] presents with some hostility and entrenched opinions towards women".
The mother and Mr D separated in or about August 2024 but later reconciled.
The mother changed the child's school from DD School to EE School due to her separation from Mr D, but the child remains at this school notwithstanding the mother and Mr D reconciling.

[46]

The objects of Pt VII of the Act are set out in s 60B and are to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (s 60CA of the Act).
The best interests of the child are determined by reference to the matters set out in s 60CC of the Act and include: arrangements that promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm) of the child and each person who has care of the child; any views expressed by the child; the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child; the capacity of each person who has or will have parental responsibility to provide for the child's needs; 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; and in considering those matters, the Court must consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, and any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
Section 60CG of the Act imposes a statutory imperative to ensure that a parenting order does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and empowers the Court to include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
Family violence is defined in s 4AB of the Act and means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of such behaviour include assault, sexually abusive behaviour, stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, intentional damage or destruction of property, unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet reasonable living expenses of the family member or his or her child at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support, preventing the family member from making or keeping connection with his or her family or friends, or unlawfully depriving the family member from his or her liberty, etc.
Abuse in relation to a child is defined in s 4 of the Act and includes a sexual assault or involving the child in a sexual activity in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object, or causing the child to suffer serious psychological harm, including by subjecting or exposing a child to family violence.
In cases involving allegations of abuse or family violence, a positive finding should not be made unless the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities,[2] having regard to the "inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding"[3] and proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court, "should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences".[4] Where a positive finding is not made but it is nevertheless not possible to reject an allegation as groundless, the Court is required to assess and evaluate the magnitude of any risk to the child and to determine whether the risk of harm is unacceptable.[5]
The High Court in M v M explained at p. 78, the nature of the risk (in that case involving a risk of sexual abuse) in the following terms:

[48]

When assessing the nature and magnitude of a risk posed by a parent or other person, all relevant evidence must be considered as part of the "matrix of evidence"[6] to determine whether or not the risk of possible future harm is unacceptable and, in making that determination, it is not necessary to make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities on each piece of relevant evidence (or even any), although caution is required if concluding that a risk is unacceptable where no such findings are made.[7] When assessing whether a risk is unacceptable, the Court is concerned with possibilities and not probabilities.[8] Whether a risk is found to be unacceptable is not determined according to the civil standard of proof i.e. on the balance of probabilities.[9]
When considering the parenting dispute more broadly, it is not necessary to make findings of fact on every factual dispute raised by the parties.[10] The paramount issue for the Court is to determine what order is in the best interests of the subject child in the particular circumstances of the case, and in the process of that determination the Court "cannot be diverted by the supposed need to arrive at a definitive conclusion"[11] on each and every factual dispute.
Each parent has parental responsibility (i.e. all the powers, responsibilities, and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to a child) for a child subject to any order made by the Court (s 61C of the Act).
Section 61D of the Act provides that a parenting order can deal with the allocation of responsibility for decision making about major long-term issues, being joint or sole decision making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues. Major long-term issues mean issues about the care, welfare, and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues about education, religious and cultural upbringing, health, name, and changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent (s 4).
Where an order is made for joint decision making about major long-term issues, there is a requirement to consult in relation to each such decision and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision (s 61DAA of the Act).
Although I may not specifically discuss in these reasons each subparagraph of each relevant section of the Act, I have considered all sections as required when making my determination.[12]

[60]

There was no suggestion the father was treated for his offending behaviour which is unsurprising given the father claimed he was innocent. Mr GG said in his letter that the father "presents with a confused and yet remorseful demeanour with respect of the current charges before the court" and that his "subjective impression" of the father was that he was "a man... plagued with disorder and disability, and of good nature and heart". There is no evidence that the father has at any time undertaken any therapy addressing his paedophilia.
The paternal grandmother sought to minimise the father's offending behaviour by suggesting that as it did not involve "physical" abuse it was of less significance. The heinous child exploitation images and videos downloaded and watched by the father depict physical sexual abuse of young children.
The paternal grandparents' evidence in chief is replete with accusations and criticisms of the mother from the serious to the banal and it may well be that many of the criticisms are valid. However, it is the extent to which they have shared those views with the child that is problematic. During interviews with Child Safety, the child made it clear that she could not talk about the mother in the paternal grandparents' home. The child shared negative stories about her mother that she could only have been told about by the paternal family. On another occasion the child said she hated the mother.
The Family Report writer noted that the paternal grandparents blamed the mother for almost everything that has happened. She opined that the paternal grandmother "appeared unaware of the negative impact that her family's pervasive criticisms of the mother may have on [the child]". In the Family Report writer's view, the child values her relationship with the mother and the paternal grandparents but the child "[w]ithout a doubt ... [would] find herself caught between two families that mistrust, dislike, and fail to recognise any positives in each other, placing her at considerable risk of emotional harm". By the end of the trial the mother made some concessions in favour of the paternal grandparents, e.g. acknowledging that they tried their best to care for the child and had appropriately sought out medical and allied health support for the child. The mother also agreed that the paternal grandparents should receive a copy of the child's report cards and school photographs. Further, she agreed to provide photographs of any awards or milestones achieved by the child and copies of medical reports. The paternal grandparents seemed less able to make concessions about the mother, although they made an attempt.
I am unable to be satisfied that the paternal grandparents would ensure the child had no contact with the father if she were living with them or spending time with them primarily because of their failure to ensure the father complied with his bail conditions imposed on [redacted] 2023 and their minimisation of the father's offending and the ongoing risk he poses. I am unable to be satisfied that the paternal grandparents would protect the child from their negative views of the mother or support and facilitate her relationship with the mother if she were to live with them or spend time with them given their long history of exposing the child to their negative views of the mother and their lack of insight into the damage that may cause the child.
However, as the child does value her relationship with the paternal grandparents and despite long-term supervision being problematic e.g. the child may become bored in the unnatural setting, on balance I consider that it is in the child's best interests to spend time with the grandparents, but it will need to be supervised at a contact centre. The contact centre at which the supervised visits are currently occurring have indicated a willingness to provide long-term supervision. It would be preferable for the visits to occur away from the contact centre in a more normal environment and to occur for four hours each third weekend. The paternal grandparents said they would like the child to see her cousin and great grandmother. If the contact centre is agreeable, I see no reason why one additional family member at a time could not join the supervised visits on occasion. Obviously, this would not include the father.

[75]

Dr MM supported assistance being provided to the child under the NDIS. It seems this was the intended focus of his letters.
The child received support under a NDIS plan from OT, Mr PP, employed by W Mental Health Services, during three sessions on 2 September 2019, 24 September 2019, and 21 October 2019. The child was six years of age at the time and the OT reported that the child "is currently learning to master buttoning skills, scissor skills and actively involved in improving her gross motor skills". The OT noted (from information apparently received from the father and paternal grandmother) that the child "likes to watch her tablet while having food". The OT opined that the child may benefit from physiotherapy given the information received that she had difficulty with lower limb muscle strength.
In a report from Ms QQ, psychologist,[14] dated 24 January 2020, and entitled 'NDIS functional assessment', Ms QQ confirmed that the child had been a client of W Mental Health Services in Town RR since August 2017. In that time, the child had seen Dr KK six times, Ms SS, psychologist, six times, Ms QQ eight times and Mr PP six times with further appointments booked for the child with both Ms QQ and Mr PP. It was further noted that the child had also seen a speech therapist, Ms TT and an exercise physiologist, Ms UU and that the child was also attending swimming lessons. The content of the letter also refers to the fact that the parents were involved in court proceedings and Ms QQ letter is complimentary of the father and paternal grandparents as "very supportive and proactive in following through with recommendations and interventions" for the child. Ms QQ referred to various clinical psychometric scales that had been administered to the child which suggested that the child had "significant difficulties in the area of visual motor coordination, speed and concentration". The scores also suggested "a very likely probability of Autism". Ms QQ recommended continued support from a speech therapist, psychologist, exercise physiologist, and OT.
A report from Ms QQ dated 18 January 2022, was obtained by the father for the purposes of the previous court proceedings between the parents of the child. It is a very partisan report in that it offers conclusions about matters occurring in the mother's household about which Ms QQ could have no independent knowledge. Nevertheless, Ms QQ opined that at that time the child "lack[ed] social and emotional reciprocity, awareness of personal space, perspective taking, executive functioning abilities, sensory sensitivities and cognitive and developmental delays".
In a report from Dr KK dated 21 January 2022, obtained by the father for the previous court proceedings, Dr KK noted that the child had originally been referred to her by Dr LL for assessment regarding possible autism. Dr KK was informed by both parents (who were present during the initial consultation in 2016 together with the paternal grandparents) that they both had been diagnosed with autism and that there was a family history of autism on both sides of the child's family. Assessment was carried out in two one-hour sessions in or about 2016. Three one-hour sessions occurred over 2016 to 2018 to "provide [the child's] parents and paternal grandparents with information regarding [the child's] specific ASD, ADHD, and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome profile". Dr KK also saw the child in a one-hour appointment on 12 October 2019 and noted that the child had also been seeing Ms QQ on a regular basis. Dr KK stated that from the information received regarding the child's history and from her own observations made in 2016, the child's presentation was "consistent with DSM5 criteria for ASD, Level 2, ADHD, combined presentation, and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. ASD, ADHD and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome are permanent, life-long neurodevelopmental conditions and there is no chance of full recovery". In Dr KK's opinion, the child's developmental age was approximately three to four years below that of children her chronological age and the child required "intensive care and intervention to improve her prognosis". Dr KK has had no direct involvement with the child since 2019.
It is apparent that while living with the father and paternal grandparents, the child attended swimming lessons for several years and was engaged in horse riding.
In 2022, she also saw a dietician in relation to reported difficulties with chewing.
The child had physiotherapy with Ms VV from WW Physiotherapy for about 34 sessions in 2022/2023 funded by NDIS. Ms VV opined that the child presented with "significantly low muscle tone and poor core strength, tightness throughout her legs, leading to contractures, reduced ability to perform more complex mobility tasks including running and jumping and weakness and poor endurance in multiple muscle groups".
Dr MM provided a further letter of support to the father and paternal grandparents for NDIS funding dated 28 July 2022, in which he stated that the child had the following DSM-5 diagnoses which he asserted have been confirmed via clinical assessment:

[77]

In another letter from Dr MM dated 27 January 2023 to Dr ZZ, he stated that he reviewed the child with the father and paternal grandparents on 24 January 2023 and confirmed the diagnoses to which he added "difficulties with chewing" and conveyed the request of "the parents" (but it was not a request from the mother) for the child to return to homeschooling. It appears that Dr MM was asked to provide a letter of support for the father and paternal grandparents, and he did so.
Ms QQ supported the father and paternal grandparents in returning the child to home schooling in an email dated 18 January 2023. An order had been made by consent on 5 July 2022 requiring the child to attend mainstream schooling. The child missed 89 school days in 2022 and the school raised concerns about the child's lack of attendance. Notwithstanding the order, the father and paternal grandparents re-enrolled the child in homeschooling in 2023.
In a letter dated 20 November 2023 from Ms AB employed by the AC Clinic addressed 'to whom it may concern', Ms AB described her role as an "advocate" for the child and recommended the child have 82 hours of speech pathology at a cost of $15,907 over a 12 month period. She identified the child's difficulties as "moderate receptive language difficulties", "moderate expressive language difficulties", "severe social communication difficulties" and "severe feeding difficulties" (emphasis removed).
A lengthy report from Ms AD, OT, dated 15 November 2023 (amended 22 November 2023), identified difficulties for the child (largely based on information provided by the paternal grandmother although observations were also made in a clinical setting) in the areas of self-care, fine motor skills, gross motor skills, cognition, social development, and emotional regulation. Ms AD recommended 48 hours of occupational therapy over 12 months at a cost of $9,311. It was noted that the paternal grandparents reported "significant carer burnout at the time of assessment". The letter refers to the child having been referred to Dr CC for advice "regarding Pathological Demand Avoidance replacing [the child's] diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder" and further noting that the child had previously see Dr AE, paediatrician (Dr AE, a staff specialist paediatrician at the AM Hospital, authored a letter 'to whom it may concern' dated 26 July 2022 stating only that the child has diagnoses for FASD and ASD level 2).
In a referral letter from Dr AF to Dr CC dated 11 October 2023, she noted that the paternal grandmother raised concerns that the child may have Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Pathological Demand Avoidance, conditions that the paternal grandmother said she had looked up on the internet. The paternal grandmother informed the doctor that she had sought NDIS funding but had been rejected. Interestingly, Dr AF noted that on the three occasions she had seen the child she "always quietly sits in the consultation room and plays with her tablet without making a sound, she responds well and correctly to my questions and is always cooperative whenever I need to perform a physical examination".
Dr CC responded by letter to Dr AF on 21 December 2023 stating that she had seen the child that day in the company of the paternal grandparents (I can only assume this is an error as the child was removed from the grandparents' care on 9 December 2023). Dr CC refers to previous diagnoses by others and information provided by the grandparents. Dr CC does not include any of her own observations of the child before indicating her support for ongoing NDIS funding for the child.
On 26 June 2024, the mother took the child for a consultation with Dr T, staff consultant paediatrician, as an outpatient at the AG Hospital. The records note that the mother "freely admits she was drunk a lot all through the pregnancy". The mother reported that the child had been diagnosed with ADHD and ASD level 2 but that she did not think the child had these issues. The mother was concerned about the child's "over friendliness to strangers, [particularly] men", and sexualised behaviours. The mother said the child hurts G and that she wanted to go back to the father and paternal grandparents. The issues raised by the mother were noted to be whether the child had ASD or FASD and whether her symptoms were more likely to be related to trauma. During her assessment of the child, Dr T described the child as "[v]ery engaging - no features of ASD".
On 27 June 2024, Ms AH, OT, attended the mother's home for an assessment of the child. Ms AH noted that the child was "very en[g]aged" with her and wanted to make a new friend. The child answered all questions and was "very sociable". The child's presentation caused the OT to query the child's ability to recognise risk and considered the child may be socially vulnerable.
The child continued to see Ms AH throughout 2024.
During a consultation with Dr AJ, a paediatric registrar at the AG Hospital, on 28 October 2024, the mother said she was concerned about the child's behaviour at home which involved sexual promiscuity and defiant behaviours.
Ms AH's assessment on 5 December 2024 noted that the child's "challenges with proprioception, fine motor skills, and receptive language require ongoing support".
The history of interventions for the child suggests that whether particular diagnoses are accurate or not, the child is vulnerable and requires ongoing medical/allied health supports.
The child attended DD School for semester 1 in 2024. In her report card, the child's behaviour is described as "excellent" and that "[w]ith continued support and guidance, she has the potential to succeed academically". The child's results indicated that she was "still developing" in all subjects other than the arts and health and physical education where she was assessed as having "developed the required conceptual understandings". It is said that the child has the "ability to work well with others and enjoy positive friendships". The child was absent for 16.5 days.
The child has attended EE School since 16 August 2024. She has been absent for 33 days up to 9 May 2025, all of which were explained, though not necessarily justified. On six additional days the child was absent for part of a day. I note from those records that the mother informed the school that the child was absent on 23 and 24 April 2025 because the child's sibling (presumably G) was having surgery and that the child was absent on 25 March 2025 because G "ended up in hospital all night". There is no evidence from the mother to explain what surgery G had in April or why she ended up in hospital in March (the incident involving her accidental ingestion of Mr D's antipsychotic medication was supposedly last year).
The child's semester 2 report card indicated some improvement in her academic performance particularly in science and Japanese where she attained a B achievement for each.
It is essential for the mother to ensure that the child attends school every day other than when there is a legitimate reason.

[78]

Dr KK conducted a clinical assessment of the mother in 2016 in six one-hour sessions over a period of five months. She opined that the mother presented with "features and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of ASD, Level 2, as well as possible Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) with clinically significant depression and anxiety symptoms. [The mother] also underwent a WAIS-IV assessment to clarify some cognitive difficulties she was having. This assessment found that her cognitive ability falls in the borderline range (FSIQ=76, 5th%ile)". It was her opinion that her conditions would have a "substantial impact on [the mother's] everyday functioning" and would "reduce [the mother's] emotional, mental, and physical resilience and her ability to cope with daily stressors, particularly unpredictable situations, which often arise when raising young children".
Ms AH's records for an appointment with the child on 22 August 2024 note the mother's admission of feeling "overwhelmed by her current situation" and that "it became evident that [the mother] experienced some difficulty in answering questions and completing the assessments independently".
During a consultation with her GP, Dr AK, on 16 September 2024, the mother sought domestic violence counselling and help with depression, anxiety, and PTSD. She told Dr AK that she was living in "domestic violence housing". This would indicate that the mother's separation from Mr D was for longer than "about a month" as claimed by the mother and Mr D. As earlier noted, the mother told the contact centre on 8 August 2024 that she missed a visit because she had recently separated from Mr D. The Court was also informed on 31 January 2025 that one of the issues for determination was how the mother's lack of transport would influence her ability to attend necessary appointments "given she is no longer in a relationship" with Mr D. The mother was legally represented at that time. The mother claimed that this information was mistaken.
I find it difficult to place much reliance on the mother's evidence or Mr D's evidence. They both gave the impression that they would say whatever was expedient.
During the same consultation with the mother in September 2024, Dr AK noted the mother's depression score was 30 - extremely severe, anxiety 32 - extremely severe and stress 28 - severe. The mother was prescribed Pristiq 50 mg tablet once daily.
During a consultation on 20 September 2024, Dr AK provided the mother with coping strategies to deal with panic attacks.
Having regard to the mother's depression and anxiety, her borderline IQ, and her minimisation of family violence by Mr D, her ability to protect the child is compromised.
It is however of some comfort that the mother left Mr D in August 2024 and that he later consulted with Dr AK. The mother has also followed up with medical and allied health practitioners for the child and has maintained the child in mainstream schooling although with too many absences.

[79]

Mr D has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder for which he has been in receipt of a DSP for many years.
In a letter from Mr D's psychiatrist, Dr AL, dated 6 September 2019, supporting his continued eligibility for a DSP, he said that Mr D had been consulting him since June 2018 and is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder with "ongoing psychotic features - auditory hallucinations, paranoid thinking patterns and delusions" and that he "has been violent when stressed and when unwell" and "has been suicidal in the past". Despite having appropriate and adequate treatment, "he is still symptomatic".
During his oral evidence, Mr D denied experiencing any auditory or visual hallucinations for a "long time". He said he did not know what delusions were. Yet during his consultation with Dr AK on 21 March 2025, it appears he complained of delusions and visual hallucinations and again on 2 April 2025, while denying any hallucinations, it appears he complained about delusions.
Mr D is prescribed antipsychotic medication which he is required to take daily. He said he kept his medication in a secure place but admitted that G had taken his antipsychotic medication last year and had to be hospitalised. Mr D admitted to driving that evening despite having taken his medication which he admitted caused drowsiness. He admitted that there have been other times when he has driven after taking his medication. The mother is reliant on Mr D to drive her and the children. The mother obtained a learner's permit late last year but there is no evidence that she is likely to obtain a driver's license anytime soon.
Mr D is not currently seeing a psychiatrist and if he is seeing a psychologist, as claimed, there is no evidence from that person.
It seems Mr D has been non-compliant at times with his antipsychotic medication. As the father's paid carer, the mother contended that she supervises Mr D taking his daily medication. However, it became clear from the evidence of Mr D and his mother, that the mother does not supervise him doing so, rather she just asks him if he has taken it.
Mr D has an admitted history of cannabis abuse. During his oral evidence, Mr D also disclosed a history of other drug abuse including "ice" (crystal methamphetamine) which he claimed to have last used when he was in his twenties. However, he later conceded that he used "ice" again for "about six months" after he broke up with a previous partner, Ms H, in 2015 (when he would have been about 35 years old).
The mother left Mr D in about early August 2024 "due to domestic violence", according to the records produced from the contact centre. During her oral evidence, the mother denied their separation was due to family violence. She said that she gave Mr D an ultimatum to cease smoking cannabis, or she would leave. She contends that she left for about a month before reconciling with him. The mother said that Mr D had been smoking cannabis "most of the time", "on and off", "since 2017", and that at the time of their separation Mr D was spending about $150 per week on cannabis. The mother contended that she reconciled with Mr D after he stopped using cannabis and agreed to get help.
Contrary to the mother's evidence, Mr D claimed he only smoked cannabis once or twice a week and spent only $25 on the purchase of cannabis each week. He denied smoking cannabis since reconciling with the mother in September 2024 save for two occasions when he used "a small amount" (according to a written statement signed 28 May 2025 - Exhibit 8). During his oral evidence, the father said the last time he smoked cannabis was at Christmas time 2024 when he had "a couple of joints".
However, Dr AK's consultation notes for 21 March 2025, record Mr D informing the doctor that he was experiencing cannabis withdrawal and had "smoked earlier today".
During her oral evidence, and notwithstanding an earlier denial, the mother admitted that she had complained to Dr AK about Mr D's financial and mental abuse and described him as controlling however she downplayed the seriousness of the abuse. When she and Mr D separated in August 2024, Mr D threatened to hang himself. The mother was so concerned she called the police and ambulance. Mr D denied that he intended to kill himself. He said it was an attempt to stop the mother leaving him.
Mr D has been accused of family violence by a former partner, Ms H, the mother of his other child, J, who is now aged about 12 years, and whom he has not seen for years as Ms H and her children have "disappeared". Ms H accused Mr D of rape which he denies. He does admit that he faked a suicide attempt to stop Ms H ending their relationship. He even sent her photographs of what he pretended were his cut and bloodied wrists. Mr D admits to using food colouring as fake blood. He admits that Ms H was distraught. Mr D admits that Ms H obtained two protection orders against him. On one day he sent her 93 text messages. Mr D sought to downplay the seriousness of his history of family violence.
Mr D poses a serious risk of harm to the child given his mental illness, use of illicit substances, and exposure of the child to family violence including coercive and controlling behaviour.

[80]

Under an existing order, made on 8 December 2023 (amended on 13 December 2023) the mother is restrained from bringing the child into contact with her two older children, Q and R, and her brother, Mr P.
Mr P came to police attention after allegations were made that he had taken sexual photographs of young children. The allegations involved one or both children, Q and R, and other children including a young female child. The allegations included that Mr P had shown pornographic images to young children. Additional allegations were made that Q had engaged in harmful sexualised behaviour with other children. Criminal charges did not eventuate because the complainant child was said to suffer from autism and had been questioned by family members before the complaint was made to police. These are serious allegations and while I can make no findings that any such behaviour occurred, the allegations themselves raise the prospect of Mr P being a risk. Mr P was not a witness in the mother's case so there is no evidence of any denial or explanation for the allegations.
The mother contends that she has not seen Q and R for three years (although that may or may not be accurate). The mother contended that the last time she saw her older children, R had punched her in the face. She represented that she had no intention of having contact with them.
The mother dismissed the allegations against her brother solely because he denied them. The mother contended that she had not spoken to her brother since August 2024 and the child had not had contact with him. However, both Mr D and his mother gave conflicting evidence about this, suggesting that Mr P had briefly been at a Christmas function last year where the child had been.
Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made against the mother's older children and her brother, the unsatisfactory evidence before the Court relating to these issues, the mother's dismissal of risk, the vulnerability of the child, and the fact that the mother represented that she had no intention of having contact with these persons, I propose to continue the injunctions against the mother bringing the child into contact with these three persons.

[82]

Doing the best I can to understand the mother's position in relation to the many allegations made against her by the paternal grandparents and father that she neglected and abused her older children, it seems the mother generally denies the allegations.
The Magellan report (Exhibit 2) records a notification from 11 March 2013 in which the mother was accused of "trash[ing]" her mother's home resulting in police taking eviction proceedings; not bathing her children; not feeding her children; not protecting the children from sunburn which was so severe they ended up in hospital; putting her children in a cupboard while she had sex; failing to clean up after her children's defecation causing maggots to infest the carpet etc. On 25 July 2013, Child Safety concluded their involvement without substantiating the allegations because the children were then living with their father and the mother was then living with the father and his parents.
A child concern report was recorded by Child Safety on 18 February 2018 after allegations were made that the mother had refused to return the children to their father; one of the children was taken to hospital after being badly sunburnt; the mother failed to feed the children; the mother was living with her mother and violent brother who suffered from mental illness; and the mother was abusive and aggressive to the children. Child Safety assessed that the information did not meet the threshold for a notification as no information was provided to indicate that the mother was not meeting the children's basic necessities of life and it was determined that as the mother was living with her mother this would provide additional monitoring.
A child concern report was recorded by Child Safety on 27 September 2022 after allegations were made that when the mother's brother, Mr P, was living with the mother and Mr D, he took Q aged 13 and a six year old from next door into a room and made them do sexual acts to each other and that Q had been engaging in sexualised behaviour and potentially harmful sexual behaviour. It was noted that the information had been reported to police and that as Mr P was no longer living with the children there was no indication that he was having "frequent unsupervised contact with the children in [the mother's] home".
There have been 15 child concern reports recorded by Child Safety in relation to the mother's older two children since 2011. The concerns were summarised as relating to the following:

Yanev & Cox (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 411 (20 June 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (101 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)