Attar & Mansoor - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1110

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Attar & Mansoor [2022] FedCFamC2F 1110

File number(s): PAC 825 of 2020

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 23 August 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting - final parenting hearing - best interest of children - Orders made

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC, 60CA, 61DA, 102NA

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 279

Date of last submission/s: 27 July 2022

Date of hearing: 25-27 July 2022

Place: Parramatta

The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Havenstein

Solicitor for the Respondent: Forshaw Lawyers

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr Hill

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Brian Samuel & Associates
ORDERS

PAC 825 of 2020

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR ATTAR

Applicant

AND:
MS MANSOOR

Respondent

AND: INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

23 August 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the children W born in 2018, X born in 2009, Y born in 2008 and Z born in 2013.
2.For the purposes of Order 1:
(a)The Mother must inform the Father by email within at least 14 days before making any significant long term decisions;
(b)Any response from the Father must be provided to the Mother in writing by email within 7 days of receipt of the Mother’s information;
(c)The Mother must consider the Father’s views in exercising her parental responsibility before making any final decision.

3.The children live with the Mother.
4.The children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms as follows: -
(i)Each fortnight from after school on Thursday to Sunday at 6pm;
(ii)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parents in writing;

(b)During the first half of each of the short NSW school holiday periods at the end of terms 1, 2 and 3;
(c)During the summer school holidays week about with the Mother in the absence of agreement between the parties;
(d)In the event that Father’s Day does not fall on a weekend when the children would otherwise spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders from 10am to 5pm on Father’s Day;
(e)In the event that Mother’s Day falls on a weekend when the children would spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders the children’s time with the Father is to be suspended on Mother’s Day between 10am and 5pm;
(f)On the children’s birthdays by agreement between the parties and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children on the children’s birthday for no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the child’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(g)Should the children’s birthday fall during the Father’s time with the children that the Mother shall spend time with the children no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the children’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(h)On special religious occasions such as Eid by agreement between the parties in writing and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children as follows:
(i)Eid El Fitr: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day;
(ii)Eid El Adha: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day;

(i)Telephone and FaceTime communications with the children by agreement between the parents in writing and in the absence of such agreement between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesdays;
(j)At any such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parties in writing.

5.In order to give effect to the above Orders the Father shall collect the children from their schools, or on non-school days from the Mother, at the commencement of the children’s time with the Father, and the Mother shall collect the children from the Father at the conclusion of the children’s time with the Father.
6.WITHOUT ADMISSION the parties be restrained from the following:-
(a)Denigrating the other within the presence or hearing of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(b)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with any or all of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(c)Physically disciplining the children; and
(d)Communicating with each other through or via any and each of the children.

7.The parents shall each communicate with each other in a civil and courteous manner at all times.
8.The Mother continues to engage with her treating psychologist and follow all recommendations and reasonable directions of her psychologist including the taking of prescribed medication and attendance at counselling and or therapy until such time the Mother is discharged from this service or no longer required to engage with this service.
9.Within 14 days of the date of these orders the Father shall return to the Mother the Mother’s birth certificate, citizenship certificate and personal documents currently in the Father’s possession.
10.That:
(a)Until further order the Mother and the Father, by themselves, their servants or their agents are restrained from removing or attempting to remove the children, Y born in 2008, X born in 2009, Z born in 2013 and W born in 2018 from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(b)The Marshall, the Deputy Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said child from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(c)Until further Order the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children's names on the airport watch list, also known as the PACE Alert System, at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia;
(d)The Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the said children on all flights leaving any international airport in all states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia;
(e)The Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 Attar & Mansoor has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
Introduction

This final parenting hearing relates to the children Y born in 2008, X born in 2009, Z born in 2013, and W born in 2018.
On 18 March 2020 interim parenting orders were made providing, inter alia, that the children live with the Mother and spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 10am on Saturday until 6pm on Sunday, for half of each NSW school holiday period and by way of FaceTime or telephone twice per week.
On 14 August 2020 the above Orders were varied, inter alia, providing that from the commencement of term 4, 2020, the children spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 8.30PM on Friday until the commencement of school on Monday, and that telephone and FaceTime communications between the children and the Father occur between 6PM and 7PM on Wednesday in the absence of agreement.
Presently, the children continue to live with the Mother and they spend each alternate weekend with the Father during school terms from Friday after school until Monday morning (3 nights each fortnight).
The Father was legally unrepresented at trial, despite the Court having made an Order under section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (which Order would have entitled the Father to apply for legal representation under the Commonwealth family violence and cross examination scheme). He sought final parenting Orders set out in his proposed Minute of Orders, inter alia, as follows:
1.That the children live with the Mother.
2.That the children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms as follows: -
(i)Each alternate weekend from 7pm on Friday until the commencement of school on Tuesday;
(ii)Each other week from the conclusion of school on Tuesday until the commencement of school on Wednesday, and that the Father will be responsible for the pickup and the drop off at such times;
(iii)In addition to the previous order for the child Y born in 2008 and X born in 2009 who both are in high school this year to be picked up from school by the Father each Wednesday and delivered back to school on Thursday morning just to have some extra focus on her studies with the Father;
(iv)The previous order shall apply on each consecutive child Z born in 2013, W born in 2018 once they start to attend high school;
(v)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parents in writing.
He also sought, inter alia, an equal sharing of school holiday time with the children, and sought to spend time with the children on their birthdays, the parents’ birthdays, and block overnight time during Islamic religious holidays. He sought an order for equal shared parental responsibility relating to major decisions to be made for the children.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) sought final parenting orders, inter alia:
1.That the Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the children W born in 2018, X born in 2009, Y born in 2008 and Z born in 2013.
2.For the purposes of Order 1:
(a)the Mother must inform the Father by email within at least 14 days before making any significant long term decisions;
(b)any response from the Father must be provided to the Mother in writing by email within 7 days of receipt of the Mother’s information;
(c)The Mother must consider the Father’s views in exercising her parental responsibility before making any final decision.
3.That the children live with the Mother.
4.That the children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms as follows: -
(i)Each alternate weekend from 10am until 5pm on Saturday and Sunday;
(ii)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parents in writing;
(b)During the first half of each of the short NSW school holiday periods at the end of terms 1, 2 and 3 for day times only from 10am to 5pm;
(c)During the summer school holidays for half of each NSW summer school holiday period as agreed to by the parents in writing for three blocks of 5 days from 10am to 5pm;
(d)In the event that Father’s Day does not fall on a weekend when the children would otherwise spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders from 10am to 5pm on Father’s Day;
(e)In the event that Mother’s Day falls on a weekend when the children would spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders the children’s time with the Father is to be suspended on Mother’s Day between 10am and 5pm;
(f)On the children’s birthdays by agreement between the parties and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children on the children’s birthday for no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the child’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(g)That should the children’s birthday fall during the Father’s time with the children that the Mother shall spend time with the children no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the children’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(h)On special religious occasions such as Eid by agreement between the parties in writing and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children as follows:
(i)Eid El Fitr: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day.
(ii)Eid El Adha: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day.
(i)Telephone and face time communications with the children by agreement between the parents in writing and in the absence of such agreement between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesday.
(j)At any such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parties in writing.
5.In order to give effect to the above orders the Father shall collect the children from the Mother at the commencement of the children’s time with the Father and the Mother shall collect the children from the Father at the conclusion of the children’s time with the Father.
6.That it be a condition of the children’s time with the Father pursuant to the above orders that the Father shall be present during the time that the children spend with the Father and the Father shall supervise the children at all times when they are in his care.
7.That WITHOUT ADMISSION the parties be restrained from the following:-
(a)Denigrating the other within the presence or hearing of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(b)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with any or all of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(c)Physically disciplining the children; and
(d)Communicating with each other through or via any and each of the children.
8.The parents shall each communicate with each other in a civil and Courteous manner at all times.
9.That the Mother continues to engage with her treating psychologist and follow all recommendations and reasonable directions of her psychologist including the taking of prescribed medication and attendance at counselling and or therapy until such time the Mother is discharged from this service or no longer required to engage with this service.
10.That within 14 days of the date of these orders the Father shall return to the Mother the Mother’s birth certificate, citizenship certificate and personal documents currently in the Father’s possession.
11.That:
(a)Until further order the Applicant and Respondent, by themselves, their servants or their agents are restrained from removing or attempting to remove the children, Y born in 2008, X born in 2009, Z born in 2013 and W born in 2018 from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(b)That the Marshall, the Deputy Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said child from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(c)Until further Order the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children's names on the airport watch list, also known as the PACE Alert System, at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia;
(d)The Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the said children on all flights leaving any international airport in all states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia;
(e)The Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.
The Mother’s proposals were initially contained in her Minute of Orders which provided, inter alia, that the Mother have sole parental responsibility for the children, that the children live with the Mother and spend time with the Father during school terms each alternate weekend from Friday 6pm until Sunday 6pm.
However, at the commencement of oral submissions, the Mother adopted the ICL’s above proposed Orders.
The Mother relied upon her Notice of Risk filed 18 March 2020, her Affidavit filed 2 December 2021, and the Family Report dated 6 April 2021. She relied upon her Case Outline filed 22 July 2022.
The Father relied upon his Affidavits filed 20 February 2020 and 14 August 2020, and the Affidavit of his witness Mr B filed in Court on 25 July 2022.
The ICL relied upon the documents referred to in his Case Outline filed 4 July 2022 and that Case Outline.
The Exhibits were as follows:
(1)Exhibit A: Father’s Affidavit sworn 10 August 2020;
(2)Exhibit B: Termination of Islamic Marriage Certificate;
(3)Exhibit C: Family Report and Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum;
(4)Exhibit D: ICL Tender Bundle.
Evidence
In the determination of this case the Court has had regard to all of the documentary evidence referred to above, together with the oral evidence of the parties, lay witness Mr B, and the Family Report writer. Throughout these Reasons the Court will refer to a number of facts taken from that evidence. Any such reference should be regarded as a finding of fact unless a contrary intention is clear from the context. In determining disputed questions of fact the Court is required to assess the evidence on the balance of probabilities. In order to limit the size of this judgment not all factual issues will be addressed. However, those that are relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered either in this section or whilst addressing the section 60CC factors (see below). Evidence referred to under the section 60CC considerations shall, in the event of any conflict with the evidence referred to in this section, take precedence.
The Father’s Affidavits
The Father was born in Country C in 1979 and is aged 43 years.
The Mother was born in 1986 and is aged 35 years.
The maternal grandparents live in Australia.
In Australia, the Father completed an advanced diploma in engineering in 2006.
In Australia, the Father has worked in various employments, and from about the end of 2009 to date, he has worked in hospitality. He has established a food business in Suburb D.
The Father met the Mother in about 2006. He went to see her at an employer she was working at.
During the parties’ relationship, the Mother related to the Father how her parents had treated her. The Father hugged and assured the Mother that she was not a baby and said to her, “You’re not a baby, you are an adult. You have a big mind, you can make decisions and you can do everything yourself.”
The parties separated in about January 2020.
The psychological assessment report of the Mother from the School of Psychology, University of NSW, conducted when the Mother was aged 16 years and 8 months, occurred by reason of a referral for a vocational assessment to aid in determining suitable employment for the Mother. The report referred to the Mother attending a mainstream secondary school in a special class for children who had learning difficulties. The Mother left school at age 14. After leaving school the Mother did volunteer work at a kindergarten for 12 months. The Mother reported she would like to pursue a career in either childcare or in retail. The report recommendations stated, inter alia, that the Mother clearly has good interpersonal ability. It stated that the Mother’s level of intellectual functioning may limit her employment and educational opportunities. The report stated the Mother may be best suited to a vocational program.

The Father completed a Triple P Positive Parenting Program on about 21 October 2019.
The Mother’s Affidavit filed 2 December 2021
The parties were married in about 2007.
During the parties’ relationship, the Mother was the primary carer of the children. Her care of the children included the Mother giving them their medication if they were sick.
The Father assisted the Mother with the care of the children when he was not working.
The Mother has a close bond with the children and she understands that they also love the Father. The child Z in particular has a close bond with the Father.
The Father opened a business called ‘Company E’ in Suburb D in about late 2019. During the Christmas school holidays in 2019 and early 2020 the Father was mainly working. The Mother took the children out during the day. She recalls during the school holidays there were only a few occasions where the Father spent time with the children.
During the parties’ relationship they argued a lot; most of their arguments were about money or about the children.
After the child X was born the Mother told the Father that she wanted to go on the pill. The Father told her that she was not allowed to go on the pill. He said, “this is haram (against Islamic law) and you will go to hell.”
During the parties’ relationship when the Mother wanted to go to her parent’s or sibling’s home on the weekend the Father would tell her words to the effect, “You don’t need to go to your parents, you should stay home and clean and be useful.”
The Mother recalls wanting to go to the gym and wanting to put the children in a childminding centre at the gym and the Father became angry and told the Mother that the children were not allowed to go to a childminding centre. The Mother was not able to go to the gym unless the Father was home to look after the children.
The Father would hover over the Mother when she was at home and would not let her do things on her own or would tell her that she was doing things wrong such as cleaning or cooking.
In about 2015 the Mother recalls three different occasions during the parties’ arguments about money or the children when the Father had tried to grab her arm or hold her down. The children were in the home during these times.
A week prior to separation the parties argued in the home. The Mother told the Father that she would be leaving the home with the children and that she had found a new place to live. The Father said to the Mother, “if you go you will cop it.”
At separation the Mother took the children to rent a three-bedroom home in Suburb F. The Mother has one bedroom, Y and Z share a room, and X has his own room, and W sleeps in a cot in the Mother’s bedroom.
Y and X attend F High School. Z attends F Public School.
The Mother was unable to continue paying for the school fees for G School and there is presently $7,000 in school fees owing in arrears.
The children have settled well at school and day care.
Since about February 2020 the Father has telephone time and FaceTime with the children at least once a week.
The Mother does not feel like she can communicate with the Father without an argument taking place.
The maternal grandparents, the Mother’s sister and her brother live close to her and provide the Mother with support and assistance if she needs anything.
The Mother was diagnosed as having an intellectual disability as a child. The Mother asserts that this does not affect her everyday living.
The Mother previously worked as a childcare worker in a childcare centre in Suburb H in about 2005/2006. She did her childcare training at Suburb J and would take night courses so she could work during the day.
The Mother suffered from anxiety and depression during her relationship with the Father. She was seeing a psychologist during the relationship from about 2017 and she continues to see her psychologist in Suburb K. Since Covid she has telephone sessions with her psychologist on a fortnightly basis.
The Mother has been facilitating changeover since March 2020.
The Father has on a number of occasions told Y to send the Mother text messages changing the changeover location. In about April 2020 the Father asked Y to send the Mother text messages saying that the Father would like her and the other children to stay with him until 6:30pm until the end of Ramadan.
The Mother has asked the Father to communicate with her by email instead of through the children. The Mother has previously sent the Father text messages but he does not respond to the Mother.
The Father continues to refer to the Mother as “wife” when he sends her emails or messages. His messages will usually start by saying “Dear Wife.”
On about 6 May 2020 the Mother enrolled the children into Arabic school.
In May 2020 the Mother completed the Up to Parents online parenting course. The course taught the Mother to focus on the children’s needs and strategies to remain committed and focused on the children during separation.
The Mother has enrolled and commenced the Keeping Contact Program with L Families in about July 2020 and she engaged with the program for some time. The Mother also enrolled in 123 Magic and Emotion Coaching which course commenced online in November 2021 and her last session was on 13 December 2021.
The children have a family doctor; the Mother takes them to this Dr regularly.
Prior to lockdown the children would have difficulty sleeping on a Monday night following a visit with the Father. The two eldest children would sleep after school and W would be unsettled at day care. The child Z would come home from school very emotional, and she is usually emotional when she is overtired.
The Mother had a half-yearly parent/teacher interview to speak with the children’s teachers in about May 2021.
Y and Z are doing well in school. Z is doing well in her reading group. X is also doing well but does have difficulties concentrating in class. The Mother intended to get a tutor for the children, in particular for mathematics, but for lockdown. In the meantime the Mother has continued to touch base with the children’s teachers. Y and X are very athletic and enjoy playing soccer. Z also plays soccer.
The Mother asserts that she is currently aware that on Monday and Tuesday the Father does not work. She asserts that she would be agreeable for the Father to have an extra overnight from Monday after school to Tuesday morning during school terms. She asserted that this would provide for the children to spend an extra day with the Father on a day that he was not working.
The Mother asserts that the children are settled at school and she and the children go through their homework and home readers each night.
The Mother has commenced working as a transport worker . She does not work long hours and limits her shifts to the weekends when the children are with the Father.
The report of GP Dr M dated 17 March 2020, states, inter alia, that the Mother has been known to his medical practice since February 2012. He has treated the Mother as a GP since March 2019. He states that in this time he has not had any concerns about the Mother’s ability to parent and care for the four children. He states that the Mother has been coping with caring for the children on her own since the parties’ separation.
The psychologist’s report of Dr N dated 7 March 2021, in relation to the Mother, states, inter alia, that he had sessions with the Mother from May 2019 to October 2021, a total of 10 sessions, for the purposes of preparation of a psychological assessment in relation to the Mother. The psychologist states that he has practiced as a psychologist for over 25 years.
The Mother reported to the psychologist, inter alia, that the Father had two jobs during their relationship and worked 9am to 5pm three days per week in a shop and the Father worked evenings daily, from about 6pm until 2am or 3am.
The Mother reported to the psychologist that the Father tries to put her down and make her feel very low and like she does not have a say and she is not the parent and that the Father is just the parent.
Under the heading “Summary/Opinion”, the psychologist stated, inter alia, that the Mother demonstrated the ability to identify the basic needs and skills to care for the children. This included being able to maintain a consistent routine for the children, provide stability and security. It was noted in the assessment that the Mother provides the children with “love, cuddles, affection and routine”. The Mother had advised the psychologist that she was a woman driven by cultural and spiritual customs and family, trust and friendship are highly regarded. She has a stable and supportive family that assist in supporting her and her children emotionally and financially. The Mother stated that she is a loving and caring Mother, and has always enjoyed taking care of the children. The Mother had demonstrated the ability to identify her children’s practical and emotional needs, and had expressed realistic and appropriate notions of parenting.
Oral evidence of parties
The Father
The Father gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of his oral evidence.
The Father stated that he continues to rent the former family home at O Street, Suburb K. He stated that he stores goods of his own there and also has one of his employees (from his business) living there with her family.
The Father stated that he lives in an apartment above his business, the address being L Street, Suburb D. His business address is L Street, Suburb D. He stated that his shop lease expires in three years and that this lease started in 2013. He stated that the shop lease has been renewed every two years.
The Father was cross-examined by the Mother.
The Father stated that he works in and manages his business and that he has engaged three or four employees to work there. He stated that the business was open mostly seven days a week, with the hours being from 5pm to 11 pm, with the closing time sometimes being 11:30pm on weekends. He stated that he could take off time from work at any time for the children.
The Father stated that his apartment above the business has two bedrooms. He started living there in about February 2022. He stated that usually the child W sleeps with him in one-bedroom in which he has a king-size bed. He stated that sometimes another child will also sleep in his bed.
The Father stated that the youngest child W sometimes falls asleep in a pram in the business.
The Father stated that most of the time he is with the children when they are spending time with him.
He stated that sometimes the children fall asleep on a couch in the business.
He stated that sometimes Y cares for W (when the children are spending time with the Father), sometimes the Father cares for W, and sometimes an employee will do so.
The Father’s attention was drawn to paragraph 91 of the Family Report wherein Y was recorded as stating that the Father tells the children to sleep at 10pm, 11pm, 12 midnight or 1am. The Father stated that these late night hours only occur during the school holidays.
The Father stated that when he was busy in the business, on school days, some of the children would go to bed at 9:30pm, some children at 10pm, and some children at 10:30pm.
The Father stated that sometimes the children are upstairs in the apartment when he is downstairs in the business. He stated that when this occurs it may be for a couple of hours. He stated that when this occurs he ensures that the older children are in charge.
The Father stated that since Covid, no customer is allowed to walk into the business. He stated that he will only allow takeaway in the future.
The Father stated that there are external stairs to the apartment from the business. The Father stated that there are CCTV cameras surrounding the shop.
The Father stated that he preferred that the children attend private schools. He stated he was not happy with the public schools. He stated that the children are falling behind now. He confirmed the children presently attend public schools.
The Father stated that he would prefer to help the children with their schoolwork as opposed to paying a tutor.
The Father stated that he had spoken to the children about what time they would like to spend with him. He stated that he has spoken to them about what is fair to them and to him as a parent. He stated that he told the children that they should state their opinion to the ICL as to whether they wanted to stay more with the Mother or the Father.
The Father stated that he does consider that the Mother has a limited parenting capacity for the children in some topics but not everything. It was put to the Father that he was of that view because he thinks the Mother has intellectual disabilities with the Father responding that maybe that was the reason.
The Father confirmed his view, previously stated to the Family Report writer, that the Mother was significantly limited in her capacity to carry out basic household tasks and chores.
The Father’s attention was drawn to the psychologist’s report of Dr N annexed to the Mother’s Affidavit. The Father stated that he accepts that the Mother can identify certain needs of the children however the children’s homework and medicine needs are very hard for the Mother. When asked whether he agreed with the contents of the Family Report writer’s opinion in paragraph 146 of the Family Report, the Father stated that the Mother could not care for the children’s needs relating to medicine and prescriptions, identifying expired foods, keeping knives and medicines in a safe place, and was critical of the Mother for leaving the children with third parties.
The Father stated that the parties are still married and not yet divorced religiously (Islamic religion). The Father did not dispute that he still refers to the Mother as his wife when communicating with her other than through verbal communications. The Father stated that he has clarified with the children that the Mother is still his wife in order for the children to learn that separation of the parties is different to a divorce between them.
When questioned as to paragraph 112 of the Family Report, the Father confirmed that the Mother will always be his wife as long as no divorce happens.
The Father stated that he was aware that the Mother had sought a religious divorce through a Mufti in the Islamic faith however he was not aware that this issue had been finalised yet.
The Father confirmed that there is about $1,215 outstanding in formal child support payments to the Mother. He stated that he bought some stuff for the children including groceries and clothes.
The Father confirmed that communication with the Mother has recently been poor. He states that when the parties start to talk about something the Mother starts to raise her voice and there is a lack of communication.
It was put to the Father that Y was looking after the children (when they were spending time with the Father) and the Father responded by stating that he was helping her. He stated that he was teaching her to care for the children and how to be a Mother.
It was put to the Father that he was helping Y to learn to be a housewife with the Father responding that he was just teaching her how to bathe a baby and how to cook.
It was put to the Father that when he was working in the business he relies on Y to care for the children. The Father responded, “not all the time”. He stated that he was up and down from the business to the apartment all the time and that if the children need something they will come down to him.
The Father stated that the child W could not open the apartment’s doors because the key for the doors was hanging at the back of a door and out of his reach.
The Father stated that his extended family live in Country C. He has parents and siblings who live there. He had travelled to Country C in 2012 and 2014 with the family. He stated that if the children would like to go to Country C he would have no problem.
The Father stated he parks his car behind the business. He stated that there is a laneway next to the business however the children have never left the apartment and walked along this laneway.
The ICL cross-examined the Father.
The Father stated that two of the children sleep in his bed with him. He stated that he has a bed for the child Z however she does not sleep in it but rather she sleeps in the Father’s bed or in a bed with her sister. He said he has a bed for Y but it was not assembled yet. He stated that no child likes to sleep on their own but rather they like to share a bed.
The Father stated that he moved to Suburb D because it was convenient to the children and close to his work. As to the children’s convenience, the Father stated that he has lots of food available in his business as well as drinks, that the children are close to their Father’s workplace, and the Father is available all the time for the children. He said it was also closer to the children’s schools at Suburb F.
The Father stated he has not done any homework with the children on weekends. He stated he won’t ask the children to do homework on weekends as it should be done during the school week, and he wouldn’t want to upset them on weekends by asking them to do it then. However he stated that he asks the children maths questions when they are with him.
The Father stated he has concerns as to how the children are performing at school and stated that X has already failed one subject.
The Father stated that over the last two years he had not voluntarily put money into the Mother’s bank account. However, he stated that he had given the children money.
It was put to the Father that he leaves the children in his apartment unsupervised, to which the Father responded that he is “up and down”. He stated that it happens occasionally that he leaves the children unsupervised in the apartment, however, he has everything secured and locked.
The Father stated that the apartment has two bedrooms, a bathroom with a laundry within it, and a lounge room.
The Father was asked whether he accepted any responsibility for the parties’ separation. He said his responsibility was very minor. He stated that he had asked for everything to be perfect but he acknowledged that not everything can be perfect.
In re-examination, the Father stated that he prefers to operate his own business where he can be flexible (in his work hours). He asserted that formal child support for the children had been wrongly assessed initially and that a total of $965 had been taken from him wrongly. He disputed that he owed $1,215.
The Father was later permitted by the Court to give further oral evidence.
The Father stated that Exhibit B was, in his view, not a divorce certificate.
The Father stated that he had told the Mother that he was proposing to move his residence to an apartment above the business. He told her that it was more convenient to the children and his work.
The Father stated that there were four sets of lights on the external stairways linking the business and the upstairs apartment.
The Father asserted that the Mother favours Y over the other children and gave an example that the Mother had recently purchased an iPhone for Y which cost $1,200 whilst the other children got nothing.
The Father stated that if he is able to get more time with the children he will consider moving back to live in the leased property at Suburb K.
It was put to the Father that he is wholly resistant to there being a religious divorce to which he responded, “that’s what our faith is asking us to do.”
Mr B
Mr B had provided a short Affidavit containing one paragraph on the first day of the hearing. He gave oral evidence and was cross-examined briefly. He used to be married to the maternal grandmother but had separated from her. He had instituted Court proceedings against the Mother’s brother. The last time he had seen the Mother was two years ago. He doesn’t get on with the Mother and he is no longer in a friendly relationship with her.
Mr B stated that he last saw the children with the Father two weeks ago during the school holidays. He went to the business at 7:30pm. The three youngest children were eating in the business and the eldest child was upstairs. He stated that he had seen the Father helping the children with their homework about a year ago in their house.
The Mother

The Mother gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by the ICL. The Father was not permitted to cross-examine the Mother by reason of the Court’s previous section 102NA Order and noting again that the Father did not have legal representation at the trial.
The Mother stated she now lives with the children at Suburb P in a townhouse.
The Mother stated that her residence has four bedrooms and each child has their own bed. She stated the child W sleeps in her bed. She stated that the child Z sometimes sleeps in her bed.
The Mother stated that she is a transport worker for Employer Q and she works mostly when the children are at school.
She stated that the child W attends childcare three to four days per week from 9:30am to 2pm.
She stated that Y was in Year 9, X was in Year 7, and Z was in Year 4.
She stated that she has not yet seen the Father’s apartment.
She stated that Y has told her that the children go to sleep at the Father’s apartment at 10pm to 11pm.
The Mother stated that she picks up the children from school. She states that when she picks them up on a Monday from school the children fall asleep in her car during the 20 minute drive home.
The Mother was asked why her proposed parenting Orders included the proposed Order that the children spend fortnightly time with the Father, during school term times, from Friday after school until Sunday at 6pm. The Mother stated that the children were sleeping very late on a Sunday night when spending time with the Father. She stated that Y has pressure placed upon her to look after the children when they are spending time with the Father. She stated that when the Father sleeps in Y has to feed, toilet and prepare breakfast for the children. She stated that the children are on their iPads and telephones and they get very bored.
The Mother was asked whether the children were in the apartment when the Father was in the business. The Mother responded by stating that Y had told her that W goes down to the business while she was on her own upstairs. She stated that Y had told her that W would go downstairs to the business with the other children but Y would stay upstairs.
The Mother stated that she does not speak to the Father very much; she stated the Father doesn’t respect her and tries to put her down. She stated the Father calls her “wife” and the Mother feels upset.
The Mother was shown and identified a document from a Mufti referring to termination of an Islamic marriage. She stated that she did not show or inform the Father of this document.
The Mother stated that she does transport work for Employer Q three times a week and that she has flexibility in this employment.
The Mother stated that W was now toilet trained and only wears a nappy when he sleeps.
The Mother stated that she takes the children to the Father’s business on the fortnightly Friday during school term times.
The Mother stated that she no longer smacks the children. She stated that she tells the children not to misbehave; that it is not right. She stated that when X misbehaves with his PlayStation she will tell him that he is not getting back on it. She stated that if the children do not listen to her then she will not buy the children what they want.
The Mother stated that the bruise on Z’s eye (as annexed to the Father’s Affidavit being Exhibit A) was caused by that child jumping over a gate.
The Mother stated that she would give the children medicine if they were sick or send medicine with them (if they were going to spend time with the Father). She stated that the children do not have regular medicine.
The Mother confirmed that she did have severe depression and anxiety in 2020 but that she had gone to see her doctor (for treatment).
The Mother stated that she sees a psychologist at Suburb F every month. She stated that she takes magnesium each day for stress and which she obtains from a naturopath.
The Mother stated that the children have a good relationship with the maternal grandparents. She stated she has a brother and the children have a good relationship with his wife.
The Mother stated that the children play soccer through the R Sports Club at Suburb S.
The Mother was asked what a typical Wednesday looked like in her household after the children arrived home from school. She stated that they got home from school at about 4pm. She stated the children change their clothes, they eat or may get ready for prayer, or watch TV. They have a shower. They read a book and go to sleep at about 8:30pm. She said that Y does her homework at school. She stated that the other children’s homework is reading.
The Mother stated that the children still have telephone time with the Father and enjoy it. However she stated that the Father just asks questions of the children.
The Mother stated she now has no issues with self-care activities. In relation to assessing the correct dosage of medication (for the children), she stated that she used to ask the Father, and then she asked her family. Now she is able to do it herself. She can read English. She is able to consult with doctors if she needs to.
The Child Inclusive Conference
This conference was held on 28 July 2020 with the parents by Ms T, Family Consultant. The three eldest children were interviewed in person on 30 July 2020.
Mr Attar indicated that there was conflict between himself and Ms Mansoor during their relationship because she wanted to go out whereas he thought she should stay home and “look after [the children’s] studies, look after the house” and go out “maybe once a week”.
Mr Attar denied that he stopped Ms Mansoor from visiting friends or family but said that he tried to tell Ms Mansoor that there should be “specific days” that they could visit family and friends. He stated that their differing views regarding this was the “main issue between us”.
Ms Mansoor stated that Mr Attar’s behaviour made her concerned for her safety and reported that he had tried to “grab my hand a couple of times”. She stated that this was in order to “put [her hand] down” when she was talking to him; this was unable to be clarified further with her. Ms Mansoor reported that Mr Attar was psychologically abusive towards her. She provided the examples that he told her that her parents “didn’t raise me properly”, that “I don’t know how to raise the kids”, and that “I have, like, a little mind, like a kid mind”.
Mr Attar said that he works from 5pm until 11pm but that he has three employees that he can rely on in order for him to remain at home to care for the children.
Mr Attar stated that there is no communication between him and Ms Mansoor and that Ms Mansoor has blocked his number from contacting her.
Y provided an accurate account of the current arrangements for her and her siblings. She said that she does not like staying with Ms Mansoor for two weeks and Mr Attar for two days and stated that she “want to stay with my dad a bit more”. Y suggested that the time she spends with Mr Attar on alternate weekends increase to include Friday night so she and her siblings “have two nights there”. When Y was asked about positive aspects of the current arrangements, she stated that she thinks the current arrangements are “not fair”.
Y said, when asked, that she thinks Ms Mansoor wants the current arrangements to continue; she stated that she would not like this, reiterating that the current arrangements are “not fair”. Y said that Mr Attar “wants us to stay with him more” and that he “always talks about it”. She reported that, when they are due to return to Ms Mansoor, Mr Attar tells the children that he does not want them to go and that he wants the children to spend more time with him. When Y was asked how she would feel if she were to live primarily with Mr Attar, she said “I think I like how it is now” and that she is “used to stay with my mum for now” and “I don’t know how it would feel if I stayed with my dad more than my mum”.
Y stated that Mr Attar is “funny”, “works a lot”, and is “sleepy”. She said that she does not know which days Mr Attar works but that he “works less” on the days the children spend time with him. Y reported that she and her siblings either wait in the car while Mr Attar is working, “if it’s just something quick”, but that they visit his work with him if he is going to be “one or two hours”. She indicated that she is responsible for caring for W, who “walks outside sometimes”, while Mr Attar is working. In regards to Mr Attar being ‘sleepy’, Y reported that “every time we’re at home” Mr Attar has a shower and then “goes to his bed” and sleeps. She also indicated that Mr Attar sleeps while W, and sometimes Z, have a nap. Y said that she and X “just play with the stuff that’s, like, around us” or watch their iPads while Mr Attar sleeps. Y reported no negative attributes regarding Mr Attar and nothing that concerns her about him. She said that, as discipline, Mr Attar “gets upset with us and doesn’t talk to us probably for about 20 minutes”.
X provided an accurate account of the current arrangements and said that he does not really like the arrangements for him during school terms “because I spend less time with my dad”. He said that he likes the arrangements for school holidays. X confirmed that he wants to spend more time with Mr Attar than he does currently but said that he does not have any views about the amount or frequency of time.
X identified that a positive attribute of Ms Mansoor is that “she mostly lets me play on the PlayStation” but said that he has to “get off the screen time” at 7:30pm. He stated that this rule is not implemented at Mr Attar’s home, only at Ms Mansoor’s.
Z engaged in brief discussion regarding her interests and education. She identified that her family consists of her parents and siblings and she reported that she spends time with Mr Attar alternate Saturdays and Sundays. Z stated that positive aspect of the current arrangements is that Mr Attar “lets us go to Kmart and buy whatever I want”; she said that she purchases “art stuff”. Z identified no negative aspects of the current arrangements.
Z indicated that her parents do not have a positive co-parenting relationship and stated that Ms Mansoor does not enter Mr Attar’s home at changeover. She said that she feels “sad because my mum doesn’t like my dad but my dad still likes my mum”; she reported that Mr Attar “told me” this. Z also stated that Ms Mansoor tells her not to say anything about her or the house to Mr Attar during telephone calls. She said that she feels “sad” about this because Mr Attar is “not allowed to know anything”. Z reported that Mr Attar does not ask questions about these topics but said that he sometimes asks “how’s your mum”.
When Z was asked about her views, she stated “I want to stay with my dad for a little bit more” and suggested an extra day. She said that she would feel “happy” with such arrangements because Mr Attar would “let us go somewhere again”, like Kmart. Z subsequently identified that “my dad wants us to stay for an extra day” and that he had told the children this. She said that she feels “kind of happy” that Mr Attar told her because “he wants us to stay for an extra day and we want to stay at his house for an extra day”.
Ms Mansoor stated that the children are doing very well in school and that X had recently received a Principal’s Award. She identified that she holds some concern regarding X’s psychological wellbeing, specifically that he is “emotional” and has an “anger problem”; she said that X has told her that he “can’t control his temper”. Ms Mansoor said that she talks to X “nicely” when he is angry and tells him that he has to control his temper and he has to “breathe in and out”.
Under the heading Future Directions, the family consultant stated, inter alia, that each of the children expressed a preference to spend increased time with Mr Attar and this appears to be consistent with the children’s reported relationships with Mr Attar. However, concerns were identified regarding Mr Attar having influenced the children’s views, at best inadvertently, by exposing the children to his own views. This raises concerns regarding the children being exposed to parental conflict and regarding Mr Attar’s ability to prioritise the children’s needs above his own.
Additionally, concerns were raised regarding Ms Mansoor exposing the children to parental conflict. It is therefore recommended that the parties engage with the Keeping Contact program, as run by L Families, in order to reduce the children’s exposure to parental conflict and limit the likely detrimental impact of this on the children’s psychological wellbeing.
The family consultant stated that the parties are in dispute regarding Ms Mansoor’s cognitive and psychological functioning, specifically whether, or not, she is capable of meeting the children’s needs. A parent having an intellectual disability or mental health condition does not necessarily result in an impaired parenting capacity such that they cannot meet their child/ren’s needs to an adequate standard.
The Court accepts the evidence of the family consultant.
The Family Report
The Family Report writer was Ms U, family consultant, and her report is dated 6 April 2021.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the contents of the Family Report.
The Family Report interviews were held in March 2021.
The Family Report writer stated that Mr Attar lives alone in the former family home in Suburb K. This is a long-term rental property. Mr Attar owns a business in Suburb D. The business is open every day from 5–11pm and Mr Attar has several employees. It is understood that Mr Attar works most days, during the afternoon and night.
She stated that as per Orders made by Judge Newbrun on 18 March 2020, the children live with Ms Mansoor. As per Consent Orders made on 14 August 2020, the children spend time with Mr Attar each alternate weekend from Friday night until Monday morning and via telephone/video call between 6pm and 7pm each Wednesday.
As to alleged family violence, the Family Report writer stated Mr Attar alleged that Ms Mansoor regularly smacks the children, causing bruising and also raises her voice at the children. Mr Attar alleged that Ms Mansoor was physically violent towards him during their relationship. Ms Mansoor alleges that Mr Attar was psychologically abusive towards her throughout their marriage and continues to have difficulties dealing directly with him.
The Family Report writer stated that Ms Mansoor has a history of difficulties with her mental health.
The Father was interviewed.
Mr Attar proposed that the children should have a change of residence to living with him. He stated that the children should come back to living in their former family home and spoke about how close the house is to the shops and their school. Mr Attar repeatedly spoke about the proximity of his home to amenities.
Mr Attar repeatedly emphasised that he was not spending enough time with the children. He also said multiple times, that the current arrangements were “not fair” for him or the children. Mr Attar said that he would like to spend time with the children during the week because he wants to be involved in doing their homework.
Mr Attar said that he would be opposed to Ms Mansoor moving to Suburb V, as she is proposing. He said that the distance between the homes would be too great. Mr Attar said “of course” he would remain living where he is if the children’s residence did move further away from him and spoke about how convenient his current property is to amenities and said that the house holds memories of the children’s childhood.
Mr Attar alleged that during his relationship with Ms Mansoor, she would shout at the children every day and smack each of the children around two to three times per week. Mr Attar said that he did not report this behaviour to any agencies or authority because it was a “family matter”. He said that the behaviours always occurred in the context of disciplining the children.
The Mother was interviewed by the Family Report writer.
The Mother said that it is extremely difficult to compromise with Mr Attar.
Ms Mansoor said that she is “pretty happy” with the current Orders and seeks for them to continue. She said it provides a good routine for the children. Although she reported that the children go to bed at 11pm on a Sunday night, when with Mr Attar, and are very tired when she collects the children from school on a Monday. She alleged that Y falls asleep in class on a Monday. Ms Mansoor expressed concerns about the children spending further midweek time with Mr Attar, due to the lack of routine and Mr Attar taking the children to his business.
Ms Mansoor said that she always delivers the children to Mr Attar’s residence at the beginning of their time and collects them from Mr Attar at the conclusion of their time. She said she does all the driving because Mr Attar is busy running his business.
Ms Mansoor said that she sends W to family day care “so he can learn”, because he gets “bored” at home and so that she can have some time to rest. She was asked about her thoughts on W spending some time during the week with Mr Attar and said “I would prefer him with me” but it was suggested that a possibility would be for Mr Attar to spend time with W as an alternative to family day care and she said, “I would have concerns about that”. Ms Mansoor reported that Mr Attar does not actually care for W but relies on Y to care for him. She also said that Mr Attar wakes up late in the mornings and is busy with his business.
Ms Mansoor said that Mr Attar was physically violent towards her by placing his hand on top of hers and moving it down. She said that he did this on a “couple” of occasions and that she believed he did it to make her listen to him and/or make her remain where she was rather than moving away. Ms Mansoor alleged that there was one night when Mr Attar locked her and the children in the house whilst he went to work, after they had a disagreement. She said that the children were not aware that this had occurred.
Ms Mansoor said that Mr Attar would not shout at her but would make her feel less than him. She recalled that Mr Attar used to tell her that her “mind is small”, that she was like a “little kid” and did not know how to look after the children. Ms Mansoor said that she finds it very uncomfortable that Mr Attar still calls her “wife”. She said that she feels uncomfortable because they are separated but also commented that even if they were in a relationship, she would prefer he called her by her name rather than “wife”. Ms Mansoor said that she believes Mr Attar says it to “upset” her.
Ms Mansoor said that she “lightly” smacks the children on their legs when they are not listening to her. She reported that it did not hurt or injure the children. She further explained that it was more a “tap” that she gives the children and not a “smack”. Ms Mansoor conceded that she does “raise” her voice to the children.
Ms Mansoor said that she had learning difficulties at school and had dropped out of school in Year 9. However, she said that she can read and had done an English and Art course since leaving school. Ms Mansoor was participating in the Family Report interview via video call in her kitchen and it looked clean and tidy on that occasion. However, at a later point in the interview, Ms Mansoor said that Mr Attar “used to do everything” and that now she is not with him she had worked out how to do things on her own, although she acknowledged that it had been a big adjustment for her.
Ms Mansoor said that she continues to see her psychologist, Dr N, on a regular basis. She said that Dr N helps her with “stress” and encourages her to engage in self-care activities.
Ms AB (Maternal GrandMother) said that the children are currently well cared for by Ms Mansoor. She said that the children are always clean and get to school. Ms AB also added that Ms Mansoor has a rule that the children need to change out of their school clothes when they arrive home. Ms AB also said that Ms Mansoor managed to arrange to find herself her rental property, the house is always clean and the grass mowed. Ms AB said that she strongly disputes Mr Attar’s assertion that Ms Mansoor’s level of functioning is very low. She said that one of the maternal aunts supported Ms Mansoor a lot when she first left Mr Attar but that she is now quite independent and is no longer reliant on the maternal aunt. Ms AB said that she spends time with Ms Mansoor and the children approximately three times per week.

Mr Attar said that he is willing to communicate with Ms Mansoor but that she will not communicate with him. He said that if he sends her an email she does not respond and that she blocks his phone calls.
Ms Mansoor said that she finds it difficult to communicate with Mr Attar. She said that he always makes it sound like she does not know how to deal with the children, like she does not know anything and he knows everything.
Ms Mansoor said that if she needs to communicate with Mr Attar she would prefer to do so via email or text message rather than phone calls.
Ms Mansoor advised prior to the observation session that she could not come into contact with Mr Attar. On the day of the observation sessions, she appeared genuinely anxious about inadvertently coming into contact with Mr Attar.
Mr Attar said that the children’s bedtime at his home is around 10pm on a school night and 11pm or 11:30pm on a weekend. He said that W sometimes stays up later than this playing with him. Mr Attar said that the children’ bedtime at Ms Mansoor’s residence is 8:30pm or 9pm but that they often do not fall asleep until 9:30 or 10pm. He was critical of Ms Mansoor for forcing the children to go to bed at the allocated bedtime.
Ms Mansoor said that in her household the television goes off at 7:30pm, when they then commence dinner and that the children go to bed around 8pm and go to sleep around 8:30 to 9pm.
Ms Mansoor said that none of the children have any significant health or developmental issues. She said that the older three are at school every day and are going well at school. She said that she is in regular email contact with the children’s school teachers to check how they are going. Ms Mansoor agreed that Mr Attar had been heavily involved with the children’s homework until he stopped doing so about three months before the separation. She explained that Mr Attar was good at helping with their homework, although commented that he puts a lot of pressure on the children academically.
Mr Attar said that he takes the children to his work “most of the time” and said he takes them there to eat food and insisted multiple times that the children want to go to his work and enjoy it. Mr Attar explained that some of his staff help with caring for the children when they visit.
Mr Attar did not answer the question when asked about Y’s relationship with Ms Mansoor, but rather spoke about how all of the children are scared of Ms Mansoor because she “screams” and “smacks” them.
Ms Mansoor commented that Z likes to spend time with her maternal aunts.
Y described being scared about moving schools but said that she is now well settled at Suburb F High School and has more friends that she had at G School. Y indicated that she has a preference to remain at her current school. Y said that she is coping well with her school work.
Y reported said that she loves playing soccer and she smiled as she spoke about it. Y said she plays on a Tuesday and Thursday but was unsure if she would play the soccer games on the weekend or a weeknight.
Y said that they go to Mr Attar’s business each Friday night and each Saturday during the day and at night but only sometimes on a Sunday. She said that she takes care of W when they are at the business. Y said that they make their own dinner when they visit the business and described it as “a bit fun and a bit boring”. Y said that when they are at the business at night they stay until around 11pm or 12 midnight. She said that W sleeps in his pram at the business and she walks him around in the pram to get him to sleep.
Y appeared reluctant to engage in a discussion about what her preferred living arrangements were. However, she was happy to provide a rating for a variety of different arrangements. Y rated the current ‘live with’ and ‘spend time’ arrangements a seven or eight out of ten (with 0 being not good at all and 10 being really good). She rated an arrangement whereby she lives primarily with Mr Attar and spends every weekend with Ms Mansoor as a four or five out of ten. She said the benefit of such an arrangement would be that she spends more time with Mr Attar. She said that a disadvantage would be living far away from school and that she would sometimes be late to school because Mr Attar “tells us to sleep” at 10pm, 11pm, 12 midnight or 1am. Y said that Mr Attar has asked her about moving back to G School but that she had not answered him because she thought he would be upset with her answer. Y was asked what she would think of spending less time with Ms Mansoor than she currently does and she said “I think I feel more comfortable with my Mum” compared to Mr Attar. Y said she was “not sure” how she would feel about spending one additional night with Mr Attar compared to now, but rated such an arrangement as a five or six out of ten.
Y said that she takes care of W when they are with Mr Attar. She said that of everyone there she changes W’s nappies the most and also said that she supervises W when he is in the shower.
Y rated the tidiness of Mr Attar’s house a three out of ten (0 being the least tidy and 10 being the tidiest) and Ms Mansoor’s house an eight and a half out of ten.
Y said that if she was ever going through a difficult time, it was unlikely she would speak to either one of her parents but said if she did speak to one of them it would more likely be Ms Mansoor. Y said that Ms Mansoor is an “alright” listener and Mr Attar is a “good” listener but that he would “react” to the issue and want to fix it.
X said he has made some good friends at Suburb F Public School. X said that he likes history and sport but that he finds his school work hard and that twice a week he goes to the Learning Support Office for some extra support.
X said that he plays soccer for the R Sports Club. He said they train on a Tuesday and Thursday and play on a Saturday.
X said when they spend time with Mr Attar, they go to Mr Attar’s business. He said that they make food and he is allowed to get food out of the oven and cut it. X said that on a Sunday he and his siblings spend the day with Mr Attar, although he explained that if one of Mr Attar’s employees is sick they all go into the business. He explained further that they tend to go to the business during the day on a Sunday. X said when they go to the business with Mr Attar, Z sleeps on the couch and he and Y look after W. He conceded that he would prefer if they spent a bit more time with Mr Attar at his house rather than the business, however, did not appear that comfortable saying this.
X volunteered that he is “always bored” at Ms Mansoor’s house. However, he said Ms Mansoor is good at “taking care of us”, not letting them play technology too long, putting them to bed early (he indicated this is around 8:30/9pm) and making afternoon tea.
X said, “my Dad still loves my Mum” and explained he knows this because Mr Attar “always” talks about Ms Mansoor and always asks if she is well. He also added that Mr Attar says that he “loves” Ms Mansoor and also that she will “always be his wife”.
Z said that when she spends time with Mr Attar they go to Kmart and go to the business with Mr Attar every day. She said that at Mr Attar’s work they make dinner and sometimes help Mr Attar. Z also said that on occasion they go to McDonald’s for ice cream. She said that sometimes they stay at the business until closing time and that she falls asleep on the couch. Z said that they do not spend any time with family or friends when in Mr Attar’s care.
Under the heading “Evaluation”, the Family Report writer stated, inter alia, that it appears that Y, X and Z have been heavily exposed to Mr Attar’s views about the parental separation and the Orders, yet they do not appear to have been exposed to the same from Ms Mansoor. Therefore, a view, such as that articulated by Y, that opposes the dominant narrative that the children are being exposed to can give the Court more confidence that it is the view of the child and not just an expression of what they have been told. Y was able to speak in a balanced manner about her parents and living arrangements and is of a more mature age and stage of development, therefore it is recommended that significant weight is placed on her views.
It was recommended that limited weight be placed on the X and Z’s specific views as it would appear that they have been influenced by Mr Attar’s views, a desire to please him and the concept of fairness. Furthermore, she stated that there are a number of factors which suggest that an equal shared care arrangement such as that suggested by X and Z is contraindicated for this family and should be prioritised over specifically articulated views. X and Z’s views, did indicate that they want to spend time with both parents and that each parent offers them different things and this should be taken into consideration when final orders are being made.
The family report writer stated that reports of Ms Mansoor smacking the children also appeared to be in the context of attempts to discipline the children. The children’s comments about Ms Mansoor smacking them, did not appear particularly consistent in regard to the pattern, frequency and location of the alleged smacking. If Ms Mansoor is smacking the children in the manner that Mr Attar and the children report then it is possible that the bruising would come to the attention of the children’s school and family day care. There was no information contained in the subpoena material from the Department of Communities and Justice to suggest that any mandatory reports have been made in regard to the children sustaining bruising. This assessment did suggest that Ms Mansoor may have limited capacity managing the children’s challenging behaviours and this may make her more vulnerable to using discipline techniques that are not in the children’s best interests. Ms Mansoor is likely to benefit from attending a parenting course with a focus on helpful behaviour management techniques such as 1 2 3 Magic and Emotion Coaching (information about upcoming courses can be found on >
The family report writer stated that her assessment raised significant concerns about Mr Attar’s capacity to focus on the children’s needs above his own. Mr Attar demonstrated significant difficulties speaking about the children without talking about himself or turning the focus of the conversation to the parental separation or a criticism of Ms Mansoor. Mr Attar’s difficulties focussing on the children’s needs is likely to negatively impact on his parenting and limit his capacity to be a sensitive and adaptive parent. Mr Attar was attentive towards the children during the observation session and he does appear to have a somewhat close relationship with all four children, however, the dynamics in his relationships with the children is not necessary always positive. Mr Attar’s over dramatic behaviour towards the children and declarations of missing the children appears to be eliciting similar responses from the children that are likely to cause them to feel excessive grief about their time away from him, guilt if they enjoy their time away from him and upset about the perceived injustice of the current arrangements. His behaviour may also invite the children into loyalty conflicts and the feeling of needing to align with one parent which may damage their relationship with the other parent. On interview, Mr Attar spoke about Y being less interactive with the family and rather than being able to identify that this may be developmentally typical for a teenager, he attributed the behaviour to problems in Y’s relationship with Ms Mansoor. Y and X were very clear that they had a strong preference to remain at their current school and not return to G School, however, Mr Attar’s discussion about the children’s schools did not have any focus on the children’s feelings or the difference between his preferences or theirs. The parenting style demonstrated by Mr Attar raised concerns about his capacity help the children with their own emotion regulation, sense of self and differentiation as they age.
The family report writer stated that the reports contained in Mr Attar’s Affidavit dated 20 February 2020, from when Ms Mansoor was 9 and 16 years old, reported low cognitive ability but are not evidence that Ms Mansoor is not currently capable of self-care, household chores or care of the children.
The family report writer stated that there was no information obtained in the course of this assessment to indicate that Ms Mansoor cannot care for the children’s basic needs. It would appear that Ms Mansoor has arranged suitable housing for the children, the children’s home environment is clean, Ms Mansoor has enrolled the children in schools and day care and there were no reports to suggest that the children were late to school or not attending school. X reported that he receives support in his education from the learning support unit at his school, therefore, it would appear that his learning needs are being attended to. Other than the allegations of Ms Mansoor having difficulties with disciplining the children, the veracity of which is a matter for the Court, there were no other current concerns raised about Ms Mansoor’s capacity to meet the children’s needs.
The family report writer stated that Mr Attar and Ms Mansoor have not demonstrated a capacity to provide consistent rules, routines and expectations in both households. Furthermore, Mr Attar and Ms Mansoor have not demonstrated a capacity to effectively co-parent the children since the separation. If the Court accepts Ms Mansoor’s account of family violence then it is likely to be in Ms Mansoor’s best interests if she is not expected to attempt to have the frequency of interaction with Mr Attar that would be required to execute an equal shared care arrangement or close to. W is not of an age or stage of development whereby living in a shared care arrangement, with parents who have limited capacity to communicate and co-operate together to meet his needs, is in his best interest. However, both parents do appear to have strengths, can offer the children different things and are valuable in their lives. Ideally the children would have the benefit of both parents being involved in making major decisions about their lives and Mr Attar may be a support to Ms Mansoor if there are decisions that require a higher level of cognitive functioning.
The family report writer stated that the information obtained in her assessment suggests that the children are being exposed to the parental conflict, primarily from Mr Attar but at times from Ms Mansoor. Mr Attar also appears to be undermining the Court Orders to the children by giving the impression that there is flexibility around the Orders. Mr Attar’s reaction to Z’s request to spend extra time with him after the observation session was an example of how Mr Attar’s reactions to the children have the potential to undermine their relationship with Ms Mansoor. This assessment raises concerns that ongoing exposure to the parental conflict may have a negative impact on the children’s wellbeing and relationships with Ms Mansoor. It is positive that the family are in the process of engaging with the Keeping Contact Program run by L Families so that they can ensure that they change how they speak to the children about the other parent and work together to comply with Court Orders. Based on the information available at the time of writing this, it would appear the children having unlimited access to communicate with Mr Attar would place undue pressure on them and it is recommended that there continue to be set times when the children spend time with Mr Attar via telephone or video call.
The family report writer stated that Ms Mansoor alleges that Mr Attar was psychologically abusive towards her during their relationship, including locking her and the children in the home on one occasion. She alleges that he constantly put her down and made her feel inadequate. Mr Attar’s narrative on interview about Ms Mansoor’s intellectual disability impressed as disrespectful and critical. His comments appeared to provide some support to Ms Mansoor’s allegations. Ms Mansoor further made allegations about Mr Attar being overarchingly controlling, including financially controlling and controlling about how Ms Mansoor spent her time. The way Mr Attar’s described the time Ms Mansoor bought an air conditioner and her desire for them to visit her family once a week gave the impression that there may be some veracity to Ms Mansoor’s allegations. X’s report that Mr Attar says he loves Ms Mansoor and that she will always be his wife, raise a concern about Mr Attar’s capacity to respect Ms Mansoor’s right to end their relationship and his sense of ownership of Ms Mansoor. Ms Mansoor’s account of Mr Attar’s behaviour of her raises concerns about his capacity to provide warm, consistent, reflective parenting that acknowledges the children’s needs above his own. As detailed above, this assessment has identified some issues in his interactions with the children in this regard. Furthermore, if Ms Mansoor has been the victim of the alleged family violence then it may undermine her parenting capacity to have to interact with Mr Attar significantly more than she does.
The family report writer stated that given what Mr Attar can offer in regard to supporting the children’s learning and X and Z’s articulated desire for more time with him, the Court could give some consideration to Mr Attar spending one afternoon a week/fortnight with the children from after school until around 6:30/7pm to provide the children with the experience of Mr Attar collecting them from school, assisting with their homework and giving them dinner. This would be contingent on Mr Attar making an undertaking that he is available to spend time with the children and would not be at work. If the Court was not minded to provide the children with this additional face to face time then an additional telephone/video call per week could be considered.
The family report writer stated that Mr Attar seeks additional time with the children. However, the accounts provided by the children and Mr Attar suggested that the majority of the children’s time with Mr Attar was spent at Mr Attar’s business, which appeared to significantly limit the actual caregiving provided to the children by Mr Attar and by all accounts resulted in the children going to bed at times that are not developmentally appropriate nor consistent with their sleep needs. This assessment raised the concern that if the children spend additional time with Mr Attar it may not be time spent together but more time spent at Mr Attar’s business. The children spending extended periods of time at the business may not be in their best interest due to the late nights, the lack of supervision and the pressure it places on Y and possibly X to care for the younger children. It is not appropriate for the children to be sleeping in prams or the couch at the business as part of their regular spend time arrangements. If Mr Attar is working, he is not particularly physically or emotionally available to the children. Y and X suggested that spending too much time at the business was not their preference, if they continue to spend extended periods of time at the business rather than quality time with Mr Attar, it is likely to start to have a negative impact on their relationship and desire to spend time with Mr Attar. The Court might consider Orders being made that restrict the amount of time the children spend at the business. Whilst Mr Attar continues to need to work the hours that he appears to be working he does not appear to be in a position to provide additional care to the children.
The Family Report writer stated that at the time of writing the Family Report there did not appear to be sufficient information to suggest that a change of residence is in the children’s best interests. Mr Attar does not appear to be in a position whereby he is available to provide significantly more care to the children, as the children are already spending an unacceptable amount of time at his workplace when they are in his care. Given Mr Attar’s work commitments and attitude towards children’s bed times, it would appear that any increased time the children spend with him may be best arranged in the day time. It would appear that the children will benefit from Orders that continue to limit Mr Attar and Ms Mansoor’s need to come into contact and try to negotiate arrangements for the children. Depending on each parent’s capacity to engage with and benefit from the Keeping Contact program it will influence Mr Attar and Ms Mansoor’s capacity to navigate shared parental responsibility.

On the balance of probabilities, the Court does not accept the Father’s allegations that the Mother was violent towards him during their relationship.
The Court, for the purposes of its Reasons which follow, now refers to its discussion of proposed Orders above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration which would facilitate the maintenance and enhancement of the children’s meaningful relationship with the Father, with such proposed Orders including an Order that the children spend time with the Father during school term times on a fortnightly basis from after-school Thursday to 6pm Sunday.
The Court observes that until the commencement of oral submissions of the final hearing, the Mother was content for the children to spend regular overnight time with the Father, having been informed by Y as to aspects of her time spent with the Father, albeit the Mother sought a reduction from three overnights each fortnight during school term times to two overnights each fortnight (so as to avoid the children getting to bed late on the Sunday night when spending time with the Father and being tired at school on the following Monday), and was prepared to seek holiday time Orders whereby the children spent overnight time with the Father.
The Court finds that the Father, when the children are spending time with him (and again such time is, inter alia, from Friday evening until Monday before school during school term times), does regularly leave the children alone in the apartment above the business when the business is open in the evening, albeit supervised by Y (or a business employee) and usually for short periods. The Court finds that the Father, on occasion, may leave the children unsupervised in the apartment whilst he is in the business in the evening for up to a couple of hours.
The Court finds that the children do get to bed late on the fortnightly Sunday night when they spend time with the Father during school term times and they experience significant tiredness the next day at school; the Court accepts the Mother’s evidence in this regard. Further in this context, the eldest child Y’s significant complaint in relation to spending increased time with the Father, as expressed to the Family Report writer, was getting to school late because of the late bedtimes which would occur in the Father’s care.
Should the Court make the Father’s proposed Orders relating to the children and the Father, having the effect of significantly extending the children’s time with the Father, particularly during school term times, there is a significant risk that:
(a)the Father will not make himself substantially available to care for the children during such extended time with them but rather will choose to spend a not insignificant part of his evening time working in his business;
(b)Y (or a business employee) will be required to further supervise the 3 younger children rather than the Father, and Y may be required by the Father to undertake excessive domestic tasks;
(c)the children will not go to bed at an age-appropriate time particularly during school term times;
(d)the Mother will need to communicate with the Father to a greater extent with the real risk of the parties experiencing conflict to the detriment of both the Mother and the children. And further in this context, the Mother may well experience detriment to her wellbeing because of the Father’s disrespect of the Mother (in this regard, the Court accepts the Mother’s evidence and refers to the evidence of the family report writer in this context) including the manner in which the Father refers to the Mother as his “wife” in non-verbal communications with her;
(e)the Father will, at least during school term times, place undue pressure on the children academically, including in relation to the completion of homework; the Court accepts the evidence of the Mother and family report writer in this context;
(f)the children’s stability of routine in the Mother’s primary care (including after school routines, evening bed-times, and at least Y and X having their own beds) will be adversely affected.
The evidence of the family report writer is consistent with the above views of the Court.
The Court has considered whether the ICL and the Father’s proposed Order, “That it be a condition of the children’s time with the Father pursuant to the above Orders that the Father shall be present (or “substantially present”, per the Father) during the time that the children spend with the Father and the Father shall supervise the children at all times when they are in his care” will likely minimise any of the risks discussed immediately above. The Court is of the view that such proposed Order will not so minimise any of such risks; the Court has no confidence that the Father would likely comply with such proposed Order in light of his inability to comply with the interim parenting consent Order of 14 August 2020 in similar terms. The evidence of the family report writer is consistent with these views. And further, the Court observes that for the Mother to check whether such proposed Order was being complied with by the Father she would be required to regularly interrogate the children which would be potentially stressful for both herself and the children and potentially divide their loyalties to the parents.
The Court is not persuaded that the means of access between the business and the upstairs apartment being external staircase poses a significant risk of harm to the children; there is adequate lighting, there had been no accidents to date on the stairs and no significant complaints have been made by the Mother historically in relation to them.
The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.
Section 60CC(3) - Additional Considerations
(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
The Court gives significant weight to the views of Y, as expressed to the Family Report writer, in particular her views in respect to the parents and living arrangements. The Court does not attach any significant weight to the views of the other younger children. This position of the Court is consistent with the evidence of the Family Report writer.
(b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
The Court refers to its discussion above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
The children have positive relationships with the maternal grandparents and maternal aunt.
(c) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity; to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child
Post separation, the Mother has been usually making major long-term decisions (in particular schooling decisions) for the children, with the Court observing that she did not consult the Father in relation to certain children leaving G School. The Court observes that the older children are now content with their schooling arrangements.
(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
Both parties appear to have maintained the children whilst they were in each parties’ respective care post separation. The Father has previously paid formal child support although he is currently in arrears.
(d) The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of his or her parents; or any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations.
(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
Not applicable.
(f) The capacity of:
(i) each of the child’s parents; and
(ii) any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child);
to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
The Court refers to the evidence of the Family Report writer in relation to the Father in particular at paragraph 144 of the Family Report; the Family Report writer had stated that her assessment raised significant concerns about the Father’s capacity to focus on the children’s needs above his own. She gave as an example the two eldest children’s strong preference to remain at their current school and not returned to G School however the Father’s discussion about the children’s schools do not have any focus on the children’s feelings or the difference between his preferences or theirs. The Family Report writer had stated that the parenting style demonstrated by the Father raised concerns about his capacity to help the children with their own emotion regulation, sense of self and different station as they age. The Court shares these concerns of the Family Report writer.
The Father, compared to the Mother, probably has a superior cognitive capacity to supervise the children’s homework. The Father will have the opportunity to so assist the children when spending time with them and in this regard the Court refers to its discussions as to proposed Orders under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
The Mother probably has such capacities, subject to the Court’s discussions above in relation to the likely superior cognitive capacity of the Father to supervise the children’s homework.
(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
The Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations and additional considerations.
(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
Not applicable.
(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents
The Court refers to its discussions above, in particular under the primary considerations.
(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family
The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter
Not applicable.
(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
The Court is of the view that the Court’s proposed Orders, as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children, as compared to the ICL’s proposed Orders. In this context, the Court refers to its discussions above under the primary considerations, in particular the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant
It will be in the best interests of the children to make the ICL’s proposed Orders relating to the children spending time with the Father on special religious occasions, as opposed to the Father’s proposed Orders in this respect, and in this regard the Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
It will be in the best interests of the children to make the ICL’s proposed Orders relating to the children having telephone or FaceTime communications with the Father on Wednesdays, as opposed to the Father’s proposed Orders in this respect (Tuesdays and Thursdays); firstly, the children have had an established routine of having telephone and/or Face time communications with the Father on Wednesdays (see the Court’s interim parenting orders, by consent of 14 August 2020) and taking into account the Mother’s evidence relating to the children’s routines whilst in her care; secondly, the Court takes into account the Mother’s evidence that substantially during existing telephone calls between the children and the Father he just asks questions of the children; and thirdly, the Father will be afforded an opportunity to assist the children with their homework and studies face-to-face (which is preferable to the Father potentially seeking to assist the children with their homework and studies over the telephone or FaceTime) on the fortnightly Thursday after school when they are spending time with him.
It will be in the best interests of the children to make the ICL’s proposed Airport Watch list Orders taking into account the parties previous travels to Country C with the children, and the existence of the Father’s extended family all in Country C. Should the Father travel to Country C with the children and fail to return the children to Australia in a timely fashion, the Mother would likely experience significant legal difficulty in causing the children to be returned to Australia; Country C is not a party to the Hague Convention. The Father made no submissions to the Court objecting to these proposed Orders.
Parental responsibility
Should the Court make an order, as proposed by the Father, that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, effectively requiring the parties to reach agreement, in a timely fashion, relating to major long-term decisions to be made for the children relating to their care welfare and development, there is a significant risk that the parties will experience conflict in endeavouring to reach such agreement, and to which the children would be exposed to their detriment.
Further, it is likely that such conflict will lead to the Mother experiencing significant stress and anxiety and thereby a reduction in her parenting capacity for the children. The parties’ ability to communicate with each other in a productive fashion is very limited. The parties do not regularly communicate face-to-face or even verbally over the telephone. The Mother prefers not to communicate regularly with the Father because she apprehends, not unreasonably, that the Father will demean her as he has done historically; in this context, the Court also refers to its discussions as to family violence and controlling behaviour by the Father towards the Mother under the above need to protect primary consideration. And further, the Father continues to hold significant misgivings as to the Mother’s parenting capacities which the Court assesses to be unreasonable; in this context the Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
The ICL’s proposed order that the Mother have sole parental responsibility relating to the making of major decisions affecting the children is subject to his proposed Order 2 that prior to making such a decision:
(a)the Mother must inform the Father by email within at least 14 days before making any significant long-term decision;
(b)any response from the Father must be provided to the Mother in writing by email within seven days of receipt of the Mothers information;
(c)the Mother must consider the Father’s views in exercising her parental responsibility before making any final decision.
Such proposed Order 2 will enable the Father to provide his views to the Mother prior to her making any significant long-term decision in relation to the children.
Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, it will be in the best interests of the children that the Court make the following Orders:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility in respect to the children W born in 2018, X born in 2009, Y born in 2008 and Z born in 2013.
2.For the purposes of Order 1:
(a)The Mother must inform the Father by email within at least 14 days before making any significant long term decisions;
(b)Any response from the Father must be provided to the Mother in writing by email within 7 days of receipt of the Mother’s information;
(c)The Mother must consider the Father’s views in exercising her parental responsibility before making any final decision.
3.The children live with the Mother.
4.The children spend time with the Father as follows:
(a)During school terms as follows: -
(i)Each fortnight from after school on Thursday to Sunday at 6pm;
(ii)At such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parents in writing;
(b)During the first half of each of the short NSW school holiday periods at the end of terms 1, 2 and 3;
(c)During the summer school holidays week about with the Mother in the absence of agreement between the parties;
(d)In the event that Father’s Day does not fall on a weekend when the children would otherwise spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders from 10am to 5pm on Father’s Day;
(e)In the event that Mother’s Day falls on a weekend when the children would spend time with the Father pursuant to these orders the children’s time with the Father is to be suspended on Mother’s Day between 10am and 5pm;
(f)On the children’s birthdays by agreement between the parties and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children on the children’s birthday for no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the child’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(g)Should the children’s birthday fall during the Father’s time with the children that the Mother shall spend time with the children no less than 2 hours if the child’s birthday falls on a weekday and from 10am until 2pm if the children’s birthday falls on a weekend;
(h)On special religious occasions such as Eid by agreement between the parties in writing and failing agreement the Father shall spend time with the children as follows:
(i)Eid El Fitr: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day;
(ii)Eid El Adha: the children to stay with the Father from 10am to 5pm the first day;
(i)Telephone and FaceTime communications with the children by agreement between the parents in writing and in the absence of such agreement between 6pm and 7pm on Wednesdays;
(j)At any such other times and dates and for such other periods as agreed to by the parties in writing.
5.In order to give effect to the above Orders the Father shall collect the children from their schools, or on non-school days from the Mother, at the commencement of the children’s time with the Father, and the Mother shall collect the children from the Father at the conclusion of the children’s time with the Father.
6.WITHOUT ADMISSION the parties be restrained from the following:-
(a)Denigrating the other within the presence or hearing of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(b)Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with any or all of the children or permit or authorise any third party from doing so;
(c)Physically disciplining the children; and
(d)Communicating with each other through or via any and each of the children.
7.The parents shall each communicate with each other in a civil and courteous manner at all times.
8.The Mother continues to engage with her treating psychologist and follow all recommendations and reasonable directions of her psychologist including the taking of prescribed medication and attendance at counselling and or therapy until such time the Mother is discharged from this service or no longer required to engage with this service.
9.Within 14 days of the date of these orders the Father shall return to the Mother the Mother’s birth certificate, citizenship certificate and personal documents currently in the Father’s possession.
10.That:
(a)Until further order the Mother and Father, by themselves, their servants or their agents are restrained from removing or attempting to remove the children, Y born in 2008, X born in 2009, Z born in 2013 and W born in 2018 from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(b)The Marshall, the Deputy Marshall, all officers of the Australian Federal Police and of the police forces of the states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia are requested to give effect to these Orders and to take all necessary steps to restrain either party from removing or attempting to remove the said child from the Commonwealth of Australia;
(c)Until further Order the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Secretary of the Ministry of Immigration take all necessary steps to immediately place the said children's names on the airport watch list, also known as the PACE Alert System, at all points of arrival and departure in the Commonwealth of Australia;
(d)The Australian Federal Police maintain an airport watch of the said children on all flights leaving any international airport in all states and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia;
(e)The Australian Federal Police and the Police Forces of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia assist in the implementation of, and give effect to, these Orders.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and seventy-nine (279) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun.
Associate:
Dated: 23 August 2022

File number(s):	PAC 825 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
Date of judgment:	23 August 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – parenting - final parenting hearing - best interest of children - Orders made
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss 60CC, 60CA, 61DA, 102NA
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	279
Date of last submission/s:	27 July 2022
Date of hearing:	25-27 July 2022
Place:	Parramatta
The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Havenstein
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Forshaw Lawyers
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr Hill
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Brian Samuel & Associates

PAC 825 of 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR ATTAR Applicant
AND:	MS MANSOOR Respondent
AND:	INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

order made by:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:	23 August 2022