FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Arendse & Pilkvist [2025] FedCFamC2F 533
File number: MLC 9802 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION Date of judgment: 1 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Where the issue for decision was parenting orders for a 6 year old child– Where in 2022 the child’s brother who was then 6 years old was killed in a car accident in which the Father was the driver – Where the Father was sentenced to over one year imprisonment to be served in the community following a plea of guilty to criminal charges resulting from the car accident
FAMILY LAW – Re Andrew – Where the Mother suffers from PTSD and linked disorders as a result of the child’s death – Whether there was an unacceptable risk of physical or emotional harm to the child if he spent time with the Father – Whether the child spending any time with the Father would cause the Mother to suffer psychological degradation so as to impair her parenting capacity and deleteriously affect the child – Whether severing the child’s relationship with the Father had the potential to damage the child’s future development
FAMILY LAW – How competing considerations should be weighed – Held no unacceptable risk of direct physical or emotional harm to the child of him spending time with the Father – Held nonetheless the risk of a significant impact on the Mother’s parenting and therefore the child resulted in an order for no time being in the child’s best interests – Where the discernible impact on the Mother’s parenting could not be mitigated by the child’s time with the Father being supervised.
FAMILY LAW – Orders made for the Father to be able to correspond by gifts and cards after a moratorium of 12 months so as to provide an opportunity of the child re‑establishing a relationship with the Father
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss. 91, 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss. 60CA, 60CC, 65DAAA, 69ZT, 69ZX
Cases cited: A & A (1998) 22 Fam LR 756; (1998) FLC 92-800
Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23
Bant v Clayton (2015) 53 Fam LR 621; [2015] FamCAFC 222
Bielen & Kozma [2022] FedCFamC1A 221
Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146
Bruce & Bruce [2023] FedCFamC1F 936
Cole & Rudzik [2024] FedCFamC1A 103
Cottey & Backe (No. 2) [2020] FamCAFC 206
Dajani & Dajani [2025] FedCFamC1A 28
Darmadi & Binjori (2023) FLC 94-136; [2023] FedCFamC1A 29
Donaghey & Donaghey [2011] FamCA 13
Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094
Fitzwater v Fitzwater (2019) 60 Fam LR 212; [2019] FamCAFC 251
Franklyn & Franklyn [2021] FamCAFC 112
G v G [1985] FLR 894 at 897–898
Gavare & Ulrich [2024] FedCFamC2F 275
Isles v Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97
JG and BG (1994) FLC 92-515
Keane & Keane [2021] FamCAFC 1
Kellerman & Kellerman [2024] FedCFamC1A 126
Knopf & Knopf [2024] FedCFamC1F 359
Lainhart & Ellinson (2023) FLC 94-166; [2023] FedCFamC1A 200
Continue reading Arendse & Pilkvist
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Arendse & Pilkvist [2025] FedCFamC2F 533
- Case
- [2025] FedCFamC2F 533
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether there was an unacceptable risk of physical or emotional harm to X if he spent time with his father, and whether such contact would cause Ms Pilkvist to suffer psychological degradation, thereby impairing her parenting capacity and adversely affecting X. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the potential damage to X's future development from severing his relationship with his father against the mother's concerns. The court found that while there was no unacceptable risk of direct harm to X from spending time with his father, the risk of significant impact on Ms Pilkvist's parenting capacity was significant and could not be mitigated by supervision. Consequently, the court ruled that it was not in X's best interests to have unsupervised contact with his father. However, to facilitate a potential re-establishment of the relationship between X and his father in the future, the court ordered that the father could correspond with X by cards, letters, gifts, and photographs after a 12-month moratorium.
The court's reasoning was that the father's criminal conviction and sentence, while not posing a direct threat to X's physical or emotional wellbeing, could still adversely affect Ms Pilkvist's mental health to the point where her ability to parent X effectively would be compromised. The court considered the potential long-term effects on X of losing contact with his father, but determined that the immediate risk to the mother's capacity to parent outweighed this consideration. The orders reflect a balanced approach, aiming to protect the child's immediate welfare while leaving the door open for a future relationship with the father, contingent on the mother's capacity to support this without detriment to X's wellbeing.
Orders
Orders of the court
MLC 9802 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
MR ARENDSE
Applicant
AND:
MS PILKVIST
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CHAMPION
DATE OF ORDER:
1 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Decision-making
1. Ms Pilkvist (the Mother) have sole decision-making responsibility about major long‑term decisions in relation to X, born in 2018 (X).
Live with order
2. X live with the Mother.
Spend time with order
3. Unless otherwise agreed between the Mother and Father in writing, X spends no time with Mr Arendse (the Father).
Contact orders
4. Except as set out in orders 5–13 below, X have no contact with the Father.
5. The Father notify the Mother within 7 days of any change to his email address or telephone number.
6. The Father is entitled to receive copies of school reports for X from X’s school and may provide a copy of these orders to X’s school as evidence of that entitlement.
7. The Mother keep the Father informed of any change of X’s address.
8. The Mother notify the Father as soon as is practicable in the event of any serious medical emergency involving X or if X is diagnosed with a serious and ongoing medical condition.
9. The Mother provide the Father with photographs of X not less than four times each year in March, June, September and November of each year.
10. The Mother facilitate X sending correspondence in form of cards, letters, gifts, and photographs addressed to the Father whenever X expresses the desire to do so.
X’s contact with the Father
11. After 1 May 2026 (12 months following the date of these orders) the Father may communicate with X as agreed in writing by the parties and, in the absence of agreement, by correspondence in the form of cards, letters gifts, and photographs addressed to the Mother (Correspondence) on no more than four occasions each year.
12. The Mother provide the Correspondence to X.
13. The Mother facilitate X reading any Correspondence.
Provision of orders to professionals
14. The Mother may provide a copy of these orders to any school, extracurricular activities or sporting activities attended by X.
15. The Mother and the Father may provide a copy of these Orders and reasons for judgment to X’s treating medical or allied health practitioners.
16. The Mother and the Father may provide a copy of these Orders and reasons for judgment to their treating medical or allied health practitioners.
Independent Children’s Lawyer
17. The Independent Children’s Lawyer will meet with X as soon as is practicable to explain these reasons for judgment and orders.
18. After the Independent Children’s Lawyer has complied with order 17 above, the Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged.
Discharge of orders
19. All extant orders are discharged.
20. Except to reserve the parties’ position as to costs, all extant applications are dismissed.
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.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.