Azimi & Faez - [2025] FedCFamC2F 233

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Azimi & Faez [2025] FedCFamC2F 233

File number(s): PAC 2159 of 2023

Judgment of: JUDGE NEWBRUN

Date of judgment: 25 February 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Best interests of children – orders made.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CD

Cases cited:
Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637

Jollie & Dysart [2014] FamCAFC 149

Tibb v Sheean (2018) 58 Fam LR 351

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 164

Date of hearing: 3 – 5 February 2025

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Provera

Solicitor for the Applicant: Western Sydney Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Elachkar

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sadek Lawyers Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Hill

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Gonzalez & Co
ORDERS

PAC 2159 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR AZIMI

Applicant

AND:
MS FAEZ

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE NEWBRUN

DATE OF ORDER:

25 FEBRUARY 2025

ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Orders of 23 November 2020 be discharged.
2.The mother have sole decision making for long-term issues relating to W born in 2011, X born in 2012, Y born in 2014 and Z born in 2015 (“the children”).

Time with
3.Subject to Orders 4 to 8 below, the children spend time with the father as follows:
(a)Each Sunday from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(b)On special occasions:
(i)In years ending with an even number, on the first day of Eid from 1.00pm to 5.00 pm;
(ii)In years ending with an odd number, on the second day of Eid from 1.00pm to 5.00 pm;
(iii)On each of the children's birthdays, if a school day from the conclusion of school (or otherwise 3.30 pm) to 5.30 pm if the children are not spending time with the father and if a non-school day, for a period of three hours as agreed between the parties in writing or otherwise from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm;
(iv)On the father's birthday if a school day from the conclusion of school (or otherwise 3.30 pm) to 7.00 pm if the children are not in the father's care and if a non-school day for a period of three hours as agreed between the parties in writing or otherwise from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm;
(v)On Father’s Day from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(vi)On other occasions as agreed in writing between the parties.

Supervised time
4.The father's time with the children pursuant to these Orders be under the supervision of S Contact Centre or an alternative professional supervision service and be conditional upon:
(a)the father first completing a Men’s Behaviour Change Program;
(b)the father complying with Orders 6 and 7 below.

5.The children W and X spend supervised time with the father only in accordance with their wishes.
6.For the purpose of giving effect to Order 4, the mother, within seven (7) days of being notified by the father that he has completed a Men’s Behaviour Change Program, notify the father of a nominated professional supervision service.
7.Within twenty-eight (28) days of being notified of the nominated professional supervision service the father do all acts and things necessary to complete an intake assessment with that service.
8.The father shall meet the costs of the nominated professional supervision service.

Travel
9.Pursuant to section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the mother may obtain and renew Australian travel documents for the children without reference to the father.
10.The children’s names be removed from the Family Law Airport Watchlist.
11.The mother be permitted to travel internationally with the children for up to four weeks per calendar year and the father’s time with the children be suspended during such periods of international travel.

Other
12.The father’s time with the children be suspended to allow the mother to spend time with the children on Mothers’ Day from 1.00 pm to 7.00 pm.
13.Both parents are restrained from physically disciplining the children.
14.Both parents are restrained from speaking to the children about any aspect of these proceedings or discussing with the children any conflict between the parents.
15.Each parent shall refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and each party will use their best endeavours to ensure that no third party makes critical comments about the other party in the presence or hearing of the children.
16.The mother authorises the children’s school to provide the father, at his expense if any, with a copy of all school reports for the children.
17.The parties keep the other parent advised of their contact telephone numbers and advise the other party of any changes to their contact telephone number within seven days of such change occurring.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
INTRODUCTION

This final hearing relates to the children W, born in 2011, X born in 2012, Y born in 2014 and Z born in 2015. The children are aged 13, 12, 10, and 9.
The applicant father was born in 1967. He is aged 58 years.
The respondent mother was born in 1977. She is aged 47 years.
The parties married in 2009 in Country C.
Previously, the Court made final Orders on 23 November 2020, providing, inter-alia, for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for the children’s healthcare decisions and for the parents to assume equal shared parental responsibility for other matters affecting the children. In addition, the children were to live with the mother and spend time with the father once a week during school term times supervised by a paternal relative.
The father’s contact with the children ceased in July 2022 and since then the children have not spent any time with him.
The father commenced the current proceedings on 2 May 2023, seeking for his time with the children to be reinstated.
Interim orders were made by consent on 15 May 2024 permitting the mother to travel to Country C for one month. It was also agreed that the father would spend supervised time with the children on two occasions.
PROPOSALS
The father seeks orders as set out in his Amended Initiating Application filed 8 January 2025; inter-alia, he seeks orders that on a fortnightly basis the children live with the mother for 9 days and with the father for 5 days.
The mother seeks orders as set out in Exhibit A; inter-alia, she sought orders effectively confirming that the children continue to live with her (see the live-with order in her favour, Order 4, of the Court’s final parenting Orders of 23 November 2020), that she have sole parental responsibility for the children, and that the children spend time with the father, in particular each Sunday from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm (and on special occasions) under the supervision of S Contact Centre or an alternative professional supervision service.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer (the “ICL”) seeks orders as set out in his Case Outline; inter alia, that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
The father relied upon:
(a)His affidavits filed 24 December 2024 and 30 January 2025;
(b)Amended Initiating Application filed 8 January 2025;
(c)His Case Outline filed 30 January 2025; and
(d)Family Report of Dr T dated 6 March 2024.
The mother relied upon:
(a)Her affidavit filed 24 January 2025;
(b)Her Case Outline filed 30 January 2025;
(c)Family Report of Dr T dated 6 March 2024;
(d)Child Impact Report of Ms U dated 26 October 2023;
(e)Amended Response to Final Orders filed 29 January 2025.
The ICL relied upon:
(a)Family Report of Dr T dated 6 March 2024;
(b)Child Impact Report of Ms U dated 26 October 2023;
(c)Case Outline filed 31 January 2025.
The following documents became exhibits:
(a)Exhibit A: Mother’s proposed minute of order seeking final orders;
(b)Exhibit B: Items 3, 4, 5 referred to on the front page of the father’s tender bundle being pages 68 to 96, 97 to 104, 105 to 121 in that tender bundle;
(c)Exhibit C: Pages 2 and 4 of 17 of the Department of Communities and Justice subpoena material;
(d)Exhibit D: Pages 4 to 15 of the mother’s tender bundle;
(e)Exhibit E: Family Report of Dr T dated 6 March 2024;
(f)Exhibit F: Pages 4 to 17 of the mother’s tender bundle;
(g)Exhibit G: Child Impact Report dated 26 October 2023;
(h)Exhibit H: Court’s judgment of 23 November 2020.
EVIDENCE
In determining this case, the Court has had regard to all the written evidence referred to above together with the oral evidence given. 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, and the Court will not set out the entirety of the evidence. Evidence of the parties relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered either in this section or whilst addressing the section 60CC considerations (ie section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”)) (see below). In the event of any conflict between the evidence in this section and evidence referred to under the Court’s discussion under section 60CC, the latter evidence shall take precedence.
In oral evidence, whilst the father’s demeanour was satisfactory, he impressed as being determined to present his side of the story and often spoke over the cross-examiner before the question had been completed. On occasion, the Court reminded the father to focus on the cross-examiner’s question and answer that question responsively. Of particular relevance was the father’s divergences in the oral evidence he gave at the previous final parenting hearing held in 2020 when set against his oral evidence at the subject final hearing in February 2025. For example, at the previous final parenting hearing he admitted he can get upset and raise his voice, he admitted having called the mother a “bitch” in front of a teacher and the children in September 2017, and he admitted having called the mother a “dirty pig” in the presence of the children. Whereas at the subject final hearing in February 2025, the father denied denigrating the mother to the children, denied ever verbally abusing the mother such as calling her a “dirty pig”, could not recall having called the mother a “bitch”, and denied having a bad temper. Accordingly, the Court approaches the father’s evidence with some significant caution.
In oral evidence, the mother’s demeanour was satisfactory and she sought to give responsive answers to questions asked of her. Overall, the Court found the mother to be an honest and most satisfactory witness.
The father’s evidence
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the father’s affidavit and oral evidence.
The father states he last saw the children in about July 2022. Nor has he spoken with the children over the telephone.
The father states that the mother “lies very easily”.
The father states the mother has kept the children from seeing the father for “no actual reason”.
The father states that he has previously instructed his solicitor that he does not want to have to see the children in a supervised setting, and in this regard he does not believe that this would benefit the children. He states that there is no reason why his time with the children should be in this kind of setting considering the parties’ entire family were living together after the final hearing (final hearing held in August 2020 with final judgment being delivered on 23 November 2020).
The father stated that he officially made a report to the NDIS about the mother, stating that the mother has been “deceptive and fraudulent with the money of the people she is supposed to be helping”.
The father deposes that he presently lives alone and is quite capable of looking after himself.
The father stated he is aware that the child Z has autism. He stated Z does not have ADHD. He stated that the child Y does not have autism. He agreed that he had told the Family Report writer that the mother had fabricated the diagnoses of Y and Z to take advantage of the NDIS.
The father stated that in 2022 he was diagnosed with a medical condition; he stated that he doesn’t need treatment but rather it is a lifestyle issue. He said that in 2018/2019 he was diagnosed with depressive anxiety disorder; he stated that in 2021 he obtained treatment, having seen Dr V at Suburb L five or six times. Later he stated he hasn’t been obtaining any treatment since 2022.
The father stated that he receives NDIS funding for certain support work provided to him including assistance with showering, washing clothes, cleaning, and shopping.
The father was asked whether he has trouble lifting heavy items to which he replied that he cannot raise his left arm up.
The father denied that he couldn’t care for the children physically.
The father agreed that the mother had sent him emails, to which he replied, in 2022/2023. He agreed that in some of those emails the mother sought confirmation as to who was supervising his time with the children. The father agreed that he had replied to the mother that he did not need supervision because previously he had never needed supervision when spending time with the children. The father stated his present belief that he does not need supervision when spending time with the children. He stated that he would prefer not to see the children supervised, stating that he is not a criminal.
The father confirmed that after the interim Orders of 19 May 2024 he had seen the children for one hour at W Venue, Suburb AA, with the children’s support worker being present. He later stated that he had taken the children home from that venue because the children had started playing outside and there was a busy road. He had not communicated that decision to the mother.
The father confirmed that he had remarried recently. His new wife does not live with him. He stated that she comes and goes from Country BB. He stated that in 2024 she came to stay with him five times, for 2 to 4 weeks at a time. He stated that if he was to call his new wife tomorrow she would come as she has multiple visa entries. He stated that presently, with all the commotion of these proceedings, he has no current plans for his new wife to come out.
The father denied denigrating the mother to the children. He denied ever verbally abusing her such as calling her “bitch, dog, dirty pig or a thief”. A short time later he stated that he could not recall calling the mother a “bitch” and stated that the parties use to call each other names possibly in the presence of the children.
Counsel for the mother asked the father about an incident involving the mother feeding Y spoiled rice, wherein the father initially denied that he swore at the mother in front of Y. When directed to his discussion of the incident with the Family Report writer, the father then confirmed that he had said to the mother “why don’t you fucking eat it instead of feeding it to my son”.
As to the child W stating to the Family Report writer that the father says terrible things, swears and has road rage, the father denied this. The father denied having a bad temper.
The father stated that after the Court’s Orders of 23 November 2020 he had spent time with the children up until about March 2022, and for this purpose he had slept at the mother’s house.
The father agreed that he had complained to the NDIS regarding the mother. He stated that he told them there was nothing wrong with Y. He stated that he asked for a copy of the children’s NDIS.
The father confirmed that communication with the mother broke down after about mid-2022.
The father stated that neither himself nor the mother complied with the Court’s Orders of 23 November 2020 regarding the father’s time with the children being supervised. He stated that he didn’t need supervision in the first place and he has never had supervision before.
The father stated he had never had any of his siblings supervise his time with the children.
The father was cross-examined as to a police record relating to an incident in early 2023 wherein the father allegedly notified the mother in an email that he was going to do something that would ‘[not] have a good ending’. The father initially did not recall having sent that email to the mother but then stated that he “probably would have if it is on email”. The father agreed that the mother could have perceived the email as threatening.
The father denied smacking Y.
The father stated that he would not be prepared to spend time with the children at a contact centre.
The father was asked to comment on the eldest child W telling the Family Report writer (paragraph 83) that she felt unsafe around the father, to which the father responded that this child feels unsafe because of what the mother tells her.
The father was asked whether he thought it was important to listen to the children if they stated that they did not want to spend time with him, to which the father responded in the negative stating that it was all coerced.
The father stated that he has a mobility aid which he uses occasionally.
The mother’s evidence
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the mother’s affidavit and oral evidence.
The mother stated that a second visitation did occur between the children and the father at W Venue at Suburb AA on 26 May 2024 with the children’s support worker present.
The mother was asked why she failed to comply with the Court’s Orders of 23 November 2020. She stated that at the time, it was COVID, the father had complex health issues and the mother made exceptions. She stated she had empathy for him.
The mother confirmed that she had a woman, Ms J, assisting her with care of the children in 2020. The mother described this assistance as day care. The woman came Monday to Friday for 5 to 6 hours each day. She no longer assists the mother. She ceased assisting in about 2022.
The mother stated that her parents returned to Country C where they live in early 2024. They had been living with the mother and children when in Sydney. They had come to see the children.
The mother stated she has re-partnered and there has been a marriage.
The mother stated she has three businesses. Two businesses relate to community services, and one business relates to other services (in which her present husband is involved).

The mother confirmed that the children have reported to her things that they claim the father had done. The mother had accepted what the children had told her in this regard.
The mother stated she had not accepted what the child Z had alleged against her father because she was present. The mother had spoken to the school principal after this child had reported the alleged incident (that the maternal grandfather had slapped, screamed and chased Z) at school. The mother stated that the child had never been alone with her father. The mother stated that the child’s support worker had been with him.
The mother stated that the most severe form of autism is level 3 which Y and Z had been diagnosed with. The mother confirmed these boys do exhibit behavioural problems and their communication skills are affected. Z occasionally runs away. Y is like that as well. The mother stated that these boy’s supervision and care creates a level of high demand.
The mother stated that the child W is doing well at school.
The mother stated that the child X has some behavioural problems. She has Oppositional Defiance Disorder (“ODD”). She could be a difficult child to supervise. She later stated that this child has received therapeutic support for this condition in the past but not presently.
The mother denied being verbally and physically violent towards the father during their relationship. She denied harshly disciplining the children.
The mother conceded that she had yelled and screamed at the children in the past, “like any mother”.
The mother confirmed her view that the child Z can make up things for attention as part of his disability.
As to the mother’s mental health, the mother stated that she has had difficulties with anxiety and depression. She has been prescribed medication (two months ago) and has been seeing a counsellor for three to four years on a weekly basis.
The mother confirmed that her primary care of the children is challenging and that the children require significant supervision. In this context, it was put to the mother that it was stressful for her when she is with the children in a public place, to which the mother responded that it was up and down and it “depends”.
The mother confirmed that she is reliant on the child W to help her. As to the meaning of the word “parentified” in relation to this child (see paragraph 66 of the Family Report), the mother told the Court that it meant, for example, “to clean her room”. As to this child being the mother’s “backbone”, the mother stated that this child understands boundaries and she is being there (providing support) for her siblings. The mother acknowledged that perhaps this child takes on too much, in that she feels responsible for her siblings and she is very protective of the mother. The mother disputed that this child was taking on the responsibilities of a parent. The mother confirmed that this child was seeing a counsellor and had been doing so for about two years. In this context, she stated that the child had been withdrawn and was suffering from anxiety. She refers to this child having friends. The mother stated that there were no problems in her relationship with this child.
The mother stated that during COVID the father had been living with herself and the children for about 2 to 3 months for about three days each week during this period. He had access to the children during this time. The mother denied that the father slept at her residence for regular periods from early 2021 to March 2022. The mother in her trial affidavit had stated that she had always been present during the times that the father stayed at her home during the above period and would personally supervise his time with the children. In that affidavit she had stated that she had allowed the father to stay at her home with the children intermittently as a result of the COVID lockdowns which heavily restricted movement between households. She had stated that due to the lockdown restrictions banning travel from one local government area to another, the father could not otherwise arrange for his visits with the children to be supervised, and this was the only alternative.
In relation to the mother having allowed the father to live at her home with the children between about March 2021 to June 2021, the mother further explained that she had felt sorry for the father at this time, and again referred to the COVID movement restrictions. She stated that in hindsight she would not have allowed the father to live in at her home because she had seen the impact of that decision and she stated that the result of that experience was not positive.
The mother stated she married again in 2024. She stated that her new husband helps with the care of the children. She stated he was a father role model. She referred to her new husband taking the children to training. He goes shopping with the male children. She stated that her new husband had been an amazing support.
The mother stated that the eldest child sees a counsellor weekly after school, and the mother takes her there. The mother stated that the child X sees a general practitioner (“GP”) and used to go to a counsellor. The child Y has, inter alia, speech therapy and behaviour therapy and the therapists come to her home. The child Z also has appointments with his therapists and his appointments are back to back with Y’s appointments.
The mother stated that the three eldest children state they wish to spend no time with the father.
The mother was asked what the impact on the children has been since not having spent time with the father. The mother stated that the children are more regulated, more stable, they listen more, their memory is better, and their behaviour is more controlled. She stated that even the therapist notices that the children can focus more when the father is not around.
The mother stated that she has done the Positive Parenting Program (“PPP”) course and she completed a post separation parenting course a couple of years ago.
Child Impact Report
This report was prepared by Court Child Expert, Ms U, (hereinafter referred to as the CCE) and was dated 26 October 2023. The parties were interviewed on 25 September 2023, and interviews with the children in person were held on 27 September 2023.
The CCE stated that the father was dismissive of the children’s diagnoses, and whilst he did acknowledge Z’s Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) diagnosis, he stated that Y did not have ADHD and he thought there was nothing wrong with him. The CCE stated that during the interview the father reiterated his view multiple times that there was nothing wrong with the children.
The CCE stated that all the children stated that they were enjoying school, as well as sport.
The CCE stated that the two female children both presented as mature and verbally expressive, and they were clearly able to describe feelings, wishes and events.
The CCE stated at paragraph 13, inter alia:
13.[W] outlined that her father and paternal aunt were having inappropriate conversations about their mother and calling her names in her and her siblings’ presence which made her feel very uncomfortable. [X] described the incident in July 2022 and how her father had instructed her what to tell the attending police, stating that what he asked her to say was a “lie”. The aftermath of this event and [X] grappling with the thoughts after being asked to do something that she since realised was wrong, have made her very anxious and she also stated that she had been having suicidal thoughts. She stated that she is able to talk openly with her mother and also with her psychologist about her thoughts and feelings.
The CCE stated at paragraph 14:
14.[Y] and [Z] described feeling fearful of their father, expressing that they were worried that he would smack them if they misbehave. [Y] stated he was having “butterflies in his stomach” when spending time with his father and he did not like it if his father yelled or swore in his presence. [Z] stated he would “feel hurt” due to his father smacking him and pulling his ear. He also outlined that he would feel “sad and angry” should the court decide that he is to spend time with his father.
The child W told the CCE that she would prefer not to spend time with the father, however she would do so to support her younger siblings, should the court decide that they are to spend time with him.
The CCE stated at paragraph 16:
16.[X] expressed that she does not wish to spend time with her father stating that it makes her scared and “brings anxiety to my life”. When asked if it would useful if these visits would be supervised, [X] replied that in the past, the visits were supervised by members of her father’s extended family, but she did not believe that this made any difference, as extended family members and their father had spoken badly of her mother in the presence of her and her siblings. [X] also stated that the drop-off by her father was especially stressful as he would “yell” and “swear” at their mother.
The CCE stated that the father denied all of the mother’s allegations of family violence.
The CCE stated at paragraph 24 inter-alia:
24.The pattern of family violence allegedly perpetrated by [Mr Azimi] is coercive and controlling in nature and indicates significantly high levels of risk to the mother and children.
…
Children who are exposed to family violence display similar stress levels as children who themselves were a direct target of the family violence. It is significant that all four of the children detailed witnessing and/or being subjected to violence themselves. To add, they all also expressed feelings of fear and stress in their father’s presence. Although it is outside the scope of this report to determine the substance of each parent’s account, it is noteworthy that the mother and the children’s replies are all aligned and they described the same events and scenarios, each in their own words. Considering [X]’s strong reactions and suicidal thoughts following the incident in July 2022, this event undoubtedly had a profound impact on her and caused her significant stress and anxiety. To add, the children all displayed behaviours and described feelings consistent with exposure to family violence. [Mr Azimi] does not seem to acknowledge the experience and feelings of the children, and this may indicate that there would be ongoing risk to the children, should they spend time with their father.
The CCE stated at paragraph 37, in relation to the father:
37.Throughout the interview, when asked about the children, [Mr Azimi] instead spoke about his relationship with [Ms Faez] and his grievances with the same. On multiple occasions, the Court Child Expert had to repeat questions several times or steer the conversation back to the children. To add, [Mr Azimi] denied the diagnoses of [Y] and [Z]. The above indicates that [Mr Azimi] struggles to hold a child focused conversation and it raises a concern in how he would be able to support the children considering that he is not acknowledging their diagnoses or see a need for their support services.
Family Report
The author of the Family Report dated 6 March 2024 was Dr T, Reg 7 Family Consultant (hereinafter referred to as the Family Report writer). She interviewed the family on 19 February 2024.
The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the Family Report.
The Family Report writer observed that the children are currently spending no time with Mr Azimi.
The Family Report writer at paragraph 25 stated:
25.[Mr Azimi] presented as softly spoken and victimised. He demonstrated difficulty in answering questions directly and remaining focussed, perhaps linked [medical condition]. He often curtailed discussions where he may be confronted with culpability. With more challenging questions, [Mr Azimi] became irritated and at times relied on devolving back to his central narrative relating to [Ms Faez]’s abusive nature. His views were rigid, and he was unreceptive to scaffolding from the writer seeking to encourage consideration of alternate views or perspectives. [Mr Azimi] expressed a desire for a relationship with the children and to spend consistent time together, though struggles to differentiate the children’s needs from his own.
At paragraphs 28 to 31 the Family Report writer stated, inter alia:
28.By [Mr Azimi]’s account, [Ms Faez] is the genesis of his intermittent time with the children. [Mr Azimi]’s narrative is that [Ms Faez]’s actions are vindictive, controlling and an attempt to harm him, ‘she gets delight out of hurting me’. He supported his view by referring to [Ms Faez]’s false domestic violence allegations, having ‘used’ him to gain citizenship, and influencing the children against him.
29.Despite [Mr Azimi]’s pervasive, negative narrative of [Ms Faez] evident throughout his interview, he presented with layers of incongruence. At times he provided descriptions of his love and admiration for [Ms Faez], while also making statements such as ‘there was no love’ and ‘I was duped’.
30.Persistent throughout [Mr Azimi]’s account was a perception that he is being ‘duped’ by those around him, including (but not limited to) [Ms Faez].
…
31.[Mr Azimi] was critical of [Ms Faez]’s parenting and decisions, and was unable to recognise positive aspects of her care.
At paragraphs 33 to 37 the Family Report writer stated, inter alia:
33.[Ms Faez] presented as insightful and child-focussed, albeit with some apparent parental overwhelm. She presented a clear narrative of the cycle of violence she experienced with [Mr Azimi]. [Ms Faez] reflected a desire for [Mr Azimi] to be a reliable, safe and supportive father to the children, though she had little confidence in his ability to do so. She expressed feeling aggrieved and disappointed with the current family circumstances, which has perhaps led to exhaustion and a vulnerability to undesirable parenting behaviours such as yelling and hitting.
…
35.Post-separation, by [Ms Faez]’s account ‘there was so much evidence against him’ from the school, counsellors and his correspondence that led to her gaining primary care. She spoke of agreeing to [Mr Azimi]’s time with the children being supervised by a member of the paternal family as she wished to facilitate a meaningful relationship, however that she no longer agrees with this decision, ‘I realised that it was wrong. All his family is abusive. They [the children] weren’t protected from psychological abuse’.
36.[Ms Faez]’s perception of [Mr Azimi] was characterised by disappointment and hurt, ‘After all these years he still can’t be accountable for his actions… He has done so much to hurt us’.
37.[Ms Faez]’s view is that [Mr Azimi] does not hold a genuine interest in the children, ‘His messages always come back to being about me, to criticise me. He would say he wants the whole package or he doesn’t want the kids’. Her descriptions indicate that [Mr Azimi] is instead motivated by maintaining a level of control in [Ms Faez]’s life, for example, she reported that [Mr Azimi] will not message or send the children a gift on their birthdays, but message her instead.
Under the heading “Family and Domestic Violence”, the Family Report writer stated, inter alia:
40.[Ms Faez] alleges there was a pattern of ‘extreme’ financial, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse perpetrated by [Mr Azimi] toward herself during their relationship. She provided a description of her relationship with [Mr Azimi] progressively undermining her stability and independence. She reported that [Mr Azimi] denigrated her and made demeaning comments to undermine her decisions, ‘He would always diminish what I try to do with extra- curricular activity and any supports I organise. He would just criticise me’.
41.[Mr Azimi] denies perpetrating any abuse toward [Ms Faez], and rather asserts that she has falsely made allegations in an attempt to harm him.
42.[Mr Azimi] reports that [Ms Faez] consistently became verbally and physically abusive towards himself, during and after their relationship.
…
50.[Mr Azimi] denied allegations of abuse toward the children, and attributed any disclosure from the children to [Ms Faez] to her ‘brainwashing’.
Under the heading “Mental Health”, the Family Report writer stated:
53.[Ms Faez] raised concerns related to [Mr Azimi]’s health and mental health conditions compromising his parenting capacity. She posited that he ‘fraudulently’ uses mental health NDIS and disability funding to pay for travel.
54.[Mr Azimi] spoke of ‘emotionally struggling’ and that he experiences depression, which has at times been worsened by his health conditions. He reported engaging with a psychiatrist for one session, after which he opted for self-help, ‘I asked her can you help me, and then as I was driving home I thought, if you listen to yourself, you can help yourself’.
55.[Ms Faez] acknowledged some difficulty with her mental health, related to the trauma and ongoing abuse from [Mr Azimi].
Under the heading “Parental Understanding of the Children’s Needs” the Family Report writer stated inter alia:
56.From [Mr Azimi]’s descriptions, he lacks child focus, parental attunement and the ability to identify and support the children’s needs. He presented an idyllic view of his relationship with the children, emphasising their shared affection and their love for him.
57.When asked to describe himself as a parent, [Mr Azimi] provided a response which allowed him to revert to his narrative of [Ms Faez], ‘You’re supposed to guide them – this is wrong and this is right. You have to live an ethical life. She hasn’t got those ethics. I feel sorry for her. She will maximise what she can get’.
58.[Mr Azimi] denies the validity of [Y] and [Z]’s ASD and ADHD diagnoses. He became agitated when providing his account – that [Ms Faez] has fabricated their diagnoses to take advantage of the NDIS money, ‘She is using the governments money to babysit the children while she goes out’. He posited that [Ms Faez] yelling at the children would be the cause of any behavioural concerns.
…
60.From [Ms Faez]’s descriptions, she is an attuned parent who is appropriately attending to the children’s complex needs. She actively seeks and is receptive to the advice of professionals to grow her capacity to support the children. [Ms Faez] was forthcoming in her need for help to support her children, again expressing exhaustion.
61.[Ms Faez] reported having engaged each child with psychologists, though [X] is the only child currently engaged. [Z] reportedly spends time with a support worker every day. She spoke of both [W] and [X] experiencing anxiety related to their exposure to domestic violence.
…
64.[Ms Faez] finds being the primary caregiver for the children highly challenging, ‘The therapy, health, my needs, the work I do as well – it is very difficult. With four kids it is very hard to keep up with’. She spoke of the children requiring significant supervision, which becomes stressful in public as they are hard to contain. Overall, she painted a picture of the family unit being under constant push and pull demands that she attempts to manage to the best of her ability. She acknowledged her stressors and articulated her actions to gain support as a means of creating as much security and stability as possible for the children.
The Family Report writer interviewed the children.
The eldest child W was interviewed. From paragraphs 81 to 85, the Family Report writer stated:
81.[W] presented as mature and balanced. She was assured that she does not want to spend time with her father and had considerable knowledge about the parenting dispute.
82.[W] reported that she lives with her mother, siblings and grandparents. She showed some ambivalence toward her grandparents, and noted having lived with them for 1.5 years. She shared that if she felt down, depending on the reason, she would speak to her mum, friend or her mum’s best friend. She spoke of her faith being important to her, and that the children attend [P School].
83.[W] presented expressed feeling unsafe around her father, which she struggled to understand when she was younger. She shared that she had not seen her father since July 2022, and that her last experience with him was negative, ‘He kept turning up at my school unannounced’. She spoke of abuse towards the children and her mother, listing behaviours including [Mr Azimi] hitting herself and her siblings, saying ‘terrible things’ about her mother, swearing and having road rage. She described [Mr Azimi] as being ‘scary’ and having a ‘very bad temper’.
84.[W] struggled to consider the possibility of a safer relationship with her father, but with some gentle scaffolding, listed some changes required, ‘A better person in general. Stop swearing, no violence or abuse and contribute in some way, like to my school. Help with what we need. He would need to try hard to get my trust’.
85. [W] shared that she enjoys school and spending time with her friends.

The child X was interviewed. The Family Report writer stated as follows:
88.[X] presented as a delightful young girl. She articulated incidents and patterns in [Mr Azimi]’s past behaviour which have led to her experiencing him as a source of fear and drive her resistance/refusal of him, though she did appear slightly conflicted regarding a future relationship with her father. She expressed worry that [Mr Azimi] would try to hug or touch her during observations, which she did not want.
89.[X] expressed pride in her academic achievements and that she has many friends. She spoke of experiencing her mother positively, ‘She is good. She takes care of us’, and that she is ‘much better’ since separation from [Mr Azimi], ‘Before we could tell she was angry but she couldn’t express it. Now she seems happier’. She shared that if she was upset, she would talk about ‘big things to my mum and little things to my sister’.
90.[X] described experiences which she found scary from her father, including yelling, screaming at [Ms Faez], a short temper, denigration of her mother and hitting her younger brothers. She shared that her father had called her mother a ‘bitch’ and similar, and though she had asked him not to, ‘he doesn’t listen’. She recalled an incident where the police attended her father’s home due to a verbal altercation including the paternal family. She shared feeling that ‘everyone is happier’ since time with her father ceased.
91.[X] reported that her mother had asked if they wished to speak to their father, to which [X] responded ‘we don’t want to’, indicating some extent of alliance between [X] and [W] in their rejection of [Mr Azimi]. When asked what [Mr Azimi] would need to do differently, [X] responded, ‘Everything about him. He would need to change his whole personality’.
92.Though [X] expressed that she would feel ‘too much anxiety’ spending time with her father at his residence, she had some openness to seeing her father at a contact centre, ‘I would see dad at a supervised centre, I would be doing it for me. I don’t want to see him but I could if I had a choice. I wouldn’t mind seeing him just to play with him’. Overall, her responses exampled her ambivalence – a common feature of insecure attachment.
The child Y was interviewed. The Family Report writer stated as follows:
95.[Y] presented as a sweet young boy, albeit shy and anxious. He was unable to recall much of the parents relationship, and was unsure of why they are not together, however was assured that he did not wish to see his father.
96.[Y] spoke of school going well and liking his teacher. If he was worried about something or one of his siblings he would speak to his mother, or if worried about someone at school he would speak to [W].
97.[Y] shared that he hadn’t seen his father ‘for a long time’. He advised he does not wish to speak to or see him, ‘He makes me uncomfortable.’, and when asked why, spoke of his aggressive behaviours, ‘He is rude to my mum. Swearing at her’. He shared that his father would ‘smack me if I did something wrong’, whereas his mother would give him paper to write what he did wrong, and he might be grounded. He spoke of his mother encouraging him to speak to his father, ‘My mum says that I should talk to him if I miss him, but I don’t’.
The child Z was interviewed. The Family Report writer stated as follows:
99.[Z] presented as an energetic young boy and experienced difficulty sitting still. [W] attended his interview with him for support.
100.[Z] appeared curious about his father and felt positively about spending time with him.
101.If [Z] wanted to talk to someone, he would speak to [W], ‘If I am worried about having a secret – [W] is like my diary’.
Under the heading Evaluation, the Family Report writer stated, inter-alia:
108.The children each presented as sweet young children with their own unique strengths and challenges. Information gathered at interviews, observations and the available material suggests that they have likely been exposed to high levels of conflict between their parents, particular the older children ([W], [X] and [Y]).
…
110.[Y] and [Z] each have complex needs (ASD and ADHD) which necessitate substantial support. Research in this field finds that children with these diagnoses generally require substantial support, experiencing more difficulties with emotional regulation, verbal and social communication, and adaption to routine disruption. [Ms Faez] presented as a competent parent in supporting their complex needs, albeit experiencing parental overwhelm. Continued engagement with the children’s NDIS supports is a protective factor here for reducing the [Ms Faez]’s sense of over-responsibility, and which is also to [Y] and [Z]’s benefit. [Ms Faez] may consider engaging herself with a mental health practitioner to support her wellbeing while caring for four children with many complex needs.
111.[W], [X] and [Y] each displayed a resist/refuse dynamic with [Mr Azimi]. They each disclosed feeling fearful of [Mr Azimi] and exampled highly concerning behaviours, though it would not be uncommon that such disclosures are driven to some extent by a desire to minimise exposure / avoid having to navigate the parental conflict and the additional pressure on their primary caregiving context with [Ms Faez]. While [Mr Azimi] posits that their resistance behaviours are a response to [Ms Faez]’s influence, this dynamic can also arise where children have been exposed to parental conflict - and it is apparent that this has occurred. It may also be a response to several other factors, including the children’s exposure or alleged experience of domestic violence and abuse, their vulnerability, and their responses to the separation and parental conflict consistent with their cognitive development levels. It should also be noted that if the children have been exposed to abusive treatment by [Mr Azimi], the resist/refuse dynamic may instead be a reasonable and adaptive response to their experiences. Overall, and while this resist/refuse dynamic is still present, it may be useful for the children to engage with an appropriate mental health practitioner to explore reintegration or reconciliation, process any exposure to conflict or abuse, and facilitate global healthy child adjustment and coping mechanisms.
…
113.[Ms Faez] presented as a dedicated and attuned parent, who is meeting the bulk of the children’s needs. [Ms Faez]’s narrative reflected her commitment to safeguarding the children from [Mr Azimi], though this appears to have pressured her capacity to meet the children’s needs. It seems that in response to overwhelm in caregiving for the children, [Ms Faez] may become exasperated and her parenting behaviours are stressed. Engagement in a Parenting Under Pressure or alike, course may assist here.
114.[Mr Azimi]’s interview indicated his parental capacity is likely compromised by his difficulties in separating his needs from the children and child-focused thinking. He seemed to underestimate the significant challenges for the children if his proposal is accepted and they spend significantly increased time in his care, in the context of their current highly fractured and fearful relationship. He struggled to identify the children’s current and ongoing developmental needs, and denied the accuracy of their diagnoses and support needs. This, coupled with his lack of parental attunement and insight, gave the writer little confidence that he would be able to competently attend to the children’s developmental, emotional and attachment needs if they were in his care unsupervised. [Mr Azimi] may benefit from engaging in individual therapy for the purpose of receiving coaching on understanding children's development and on interacting with the children in an age appropriate and positive manner. If he has not engaged in a parenting program such as a Circle of Security program, completion of this is recommended.
As to risk factors, the Family Report writer stated, inter alia, as follows:
116.From [Ms Faez]’s descriptions, her relationship with [Mr Azimi] after moving to Australia was denoted by coercively controlling domestic and family violence, including [Mr Azimi]’s perpetration of multiple forms of abuse. [Ms Faez]’s description of [Mr Azimi]’s behaviours may be considered congruent with many survivor accounts of coercively controlling family violence. However, with minimal contact between the parents and the AVO in place, continued risk appears to have been appropriately mitigated.
117.From [Mr Azimi]’s perspective, the parents’ relationship was predicated on duplicity, and [Ms Faez]’s abuse of both himself and the children was significant. He asserted that [Ms Faez] has made false allegations in an attempt to hurt him and impede his relationship with the children, though this narrative is contrary to the structural history, whereby he did not elect to spend time with the children for an extended period (albeit by his account due to [Ms Faez]’s continued abuse) and additionally, [Ms Faez]’s desire for him to have increased time with the children if safe. Though his account was concerning, the presentation of the children, his incongruent descriptions of his experience, lack of attunement and diagnosis of [a medical condition] indicate that perhaps his account is a less accurate representation.
…
119.Overall, it seems prudent to adopt a precautionary principle whereby risk is acknowledged and the bolstering of protective factors is considered. These protective factors may include reducing any need for interactions between the parents, a focus on increasing parenting skills, and robust safety planning. [Mr Azimi]’s engagement in a Men’s Behaviour Change Program may also assist in providing him increased insight. However, consultation with his treating physicians seems prudent in terms of gaining an understanding of his capacity to take on information and apply.
120.[Ms Faez] raised concerns that [Mr Azimi]’s parenting capacity is impacted by his [medical] diagnoses and mental health. From his interview, it did appear that [Mr Azimi]’s reasoning and concentration was impacted to some extent. Supervised time would effectively mitigate risk here. Unsupervised time, if ordered, ought not occur without a thorough understanding of [Mr Azimi]’s health position and the impact of his diagnoses.
In relation to “Parenting Arrangements”, the Family Report writer stated, inter alia, as follows:
121.Broad ranging social science research affirms that children tend to have better outcomes when they have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents wherever possible. Therefore, it is prudent to consider how the children can safely spend time with their father to re-establish a meaningful relationship without significant risk to their wellbeing, worsening the resist/refuse dynamic, or placing stress on [Y] and [Z] with too significant of a disruption in routine, in the context of their diagnoses.
122.Supervised time would provide avenues for the children to spend time with [Mr Azimi] in a safe, professionally supervised environment. It would provide [Mr Azimi] small blocks of time to re-integrate with the children and refresh his parenting abilities. In the context of the family violence allegations, the parents may also feel more comfortable facilitating time at a contact centre, and it would reduce the potential that the children are exposed to further parental conflict. However, contact centre time is limited and can be expensive. Contact centres are also generally a short-term step for children to spend time with the other parent. Ideally, [Mr Azimi]’s time may start in a contact centre and then gradually increase to supervised visits outside of a contact centre as the children age, protective measures are implemented, and his relationship with the children improves. Though premature at this stage to outline recommendations for same, depending on the progression of supervised time this will likely need to be revisited.
123.The children have not spent time with [Mr Azimi] since July 2022. In the context of their fearfulness and resist/refuse dynamic, it appears likely that any involuntary requirement for [W] and [X] to spend time with [Mr Azimi] would intensify and further entrench their refusal. Rather, arrangements will be best placed as child-led and voluntarily, as this will provide [W] and [X] the opportunity to become curious about their relationship with their father and observe time occurring with their siblings in a safe and predictable manner. The same applies for [Y] who will likely follow the lead of his older siblings. It will be critical here that [Ms Faez] remains supportive, but perhaps not insistent, on their attendance at supervised time, via gentle prompting as to whether they wish to attend.
In relation to parental responsibility, the Family Report writer stated as follows:
124.The parents have not had communication for a period of years now, and each continue to have significant animosity toward the other. It appears likely that the parents’ interactions have crossed over into mutual aggression at times. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that the parents would be willing or capable of adopting a post separation relationship characterised by respect, that can tolerate/accept differences of opinion, or that is resourceful enough to recognise areas of struggle without blaming or shaming. Equal and shared parental responsibility risks exposing the children to further conflict, and entrenching the children’s fearful perception of their father. Further, [Mr Azimi] does not appear to currently have the capacity to separate his needs from the children’s, which would foreseeably cause ongoing dispute across parenting decisions. Finally, domestic violence research flags the potential that any interventions which seek to improve the level of communication and co-parenting between parents can also function to increase the risk of harm to the non-offending parent and child. It is the writer’s view that sole parental responsibility will better serve the children’s needs.
The Family Report writer made recommendations, inter alia, that the mother have sole parental responsibility, that the children live with her, and the children spend time with the father each Sunday from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm supervised by a contact Centre, and that the two eldest female children elect whether they wish to attend the allocated time with the father. She recommended that the father engage in Men’s Behavioural Change, Parenting Orders and Circle of Security programs. She recommended that weight be given to both the two eldest female children’s expressed wishes.
The Family Report writer gave oral evidence. The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of that evidence.
The ICL’s counsel cross-examined the Family Report writer.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to the Father completing a Men’s Behaviour Change program:
MR HILL:And changing topic, at paragraph 129 of your report, you report – you state that the father should engage in a men’s behaviour change, parenting orders and .... programs, and ideally on a one on one basis and in person where possible. The last part, do you mean, in relation to men’s behavioural change course, more of a one on one approach to that course?
WITNESS:Yes. Given that he – how he presented in the interviews, I thought one on one would be more useful for him and less confusing that there were many people talking and that one might be more appropriate, ideally.
MR HILL:And do you say that those preconditions, or those things that you suggest Father do, that they should occur before he spends time?
WITNESS:Yes.
The Family Report writer was questioned as to the possibility of parentification of the eldest child by the mother, and this evidence was given:
HIS HONOUR: I will just pause there. Taking into account those matters of concern that you expressed in paragraph 66 relating to this possibility of parentification relating to [W], if you assume for the moment that those dynamics are in fact happening do you see that as a reason to seriously consider the father spending unsupervised time with these children to lessen this dynamic occurring or not?
WITNESS:No. No.
HIS HONOUR: And why do you say that?
WITNESS:I say that in the – if – if in – if the court finds that the father was behaving in a manner that looked like family violence and coercive control, it’s really typical in those kind of contexts that oldest children will support the mother as they both become victims with the same perpetrator. It’s not unusual that they step up, become older than they would otherwise be, and support and assist. And the issues that have perhaps created this dynamic or made it more likely to occur is if the court accepts that the father was – often created a lot of issues and stress in the family that compromised Mum’s parenting capacity along with having to parent three other children who did have high needs.
The Family Report writer was questioned as to the weight to be attached to the views of the children and this evidence was given:
HIS HONOUR:          Can you state briefly – in forming your ultimate recommendations, what weight did you give to the views of each separate child, in particular, their views as to relating to the father?
WITNESS:I gave them – I did give them weight, and I thought they made credible statements about their concerns and worries. I – they weren’t – they did not sound like they had been coached. They appeared – particularly, the older daughter, [W], was particularly earnest in her view. She was concerned about it, it .... so I gave it weight, yes. In the context of all of the interviews and the material available to me, I had no reason to not take on board their views.
HIS HONOUR:          Well, firstly, the views in this context of [W], when you say you gave her views in relation to the father weight are we talking about some weight, significant weight or otherwise?
WITNESS:Significant weight.
HIS HONOUR:           Can I ask the same question in relation to [X]?
WITNESS:[X], equally, I gave her significant weight. The two younger ones sounded – probably less weight. [Z] is very young and seemed sort of unaware of a lot of, I think he had been buffered from a lot of the experiences the older children had had. And [Y] had – I gave it some weight, but not as much as his sisters also because of his age, and nonetheless, he was very reluctant to spend time with his father. My take is that there’s – that the older girls’ accounts, particularly [W]’s and [X]’s, was – they had some genuine fear around spending time with their father and were looking to – the only way repair can occur is if that – those experiences are acknowledged, and they didn’t feel that they would ever be acknowledged. So I gave that significant weight.
The Family Report writer was questioned as to proposals to assist the mother with addressing the burden upon her of caring for the children with their various challenges and this evidence was given:
MR PROVERA: What proposals do you recommend to the court to remedy these difficulties?
WITNESS:My recommendations were that the mother engages – that – if she can have some wraparound support to assist her, caring for four children, two of which have particularly high needs, one moderate needs, that she had gained some – like, engage in – with services that are likely to offer some respite from constantly being – carrying the burden of the bulk of the care, that she attends some Circle of Security programs to learn or gain some more perspective in terms of relating. And, also, I understood she had NDIS support, perhaps engaging in a behavioural management program. Any – those wraparound supports where she gains insight, information, actual skills around managing those behaviours better, allowing her to have some respite and rest from full-time care of as well as, yes I guess having an opportunity to feel like she was connected to a community that was going to be supportive.

The Family Report writer gave this further evidence relating to her recommendation that the children spend supervised time with the father:
HIS HONOUR: Could you just elaborate to the court, Doctor, your understanding of that option, and is it or is it not an alternative recommendation to supervision by a contact centre?
WITNESS:It is an – it is – I would consider it an option that could be considered, yes. In terms of the supervised time, it had – it was a – it was a significant period of time since the children spent time with their father, and often supervised time is a – is a good way of scaffolding back that familiarity, and it assures the mother that the children are being supervised, and it – it allows for an objective viewpoint to be gathered on how that progress is being made. It also feels safer for children. It’s a good segue into otherwise unsupervised time if that’s how it proceeds. Another alternative option which – which can be adopted if there’s another adult person suitable, that that could be a useful option, particularly if the children have familiarity with that person. I wasn’t – I’m not sure how NDIS – if they agree to such arrangements like that or not, but that would be, yes, an option.
The Family Report writer gave this evidence in relation to her recommendation for supervised time between the children the father:
HIS HONOUR: Are you suggesting in that recommendation that for supervision to be removed would require some change in the father? And if ---?
WITNESS:Yes.
HIS HONOUR: And if so, what would that change in the father look like from your perspective?
WITNESS:The changes that – would be that he is able to listen to the direction of professionals and follow their directions and boundary setting, that he would perhaps be able to acknowledge the children’s views and position with an open mind and not resort to attributing it to the mother and blaming her. That will create more cognitive dissonance for the children. That he’s able to attune to their presented emotional state, so not insist that they give him attention when they’re clearly cuing that they don’t want it, that he would be able to refrain from having conversations with them that are more adult matter to discuss rather than children, that he doesn’t denigrate the mother at all in the presence of the children, that he can provide just practical things like the – he can engage the children for a period of time in a contact centre safely, he can respond to them, attend to their needs, all of their needs all at once, that he can demonstrate that there’s a capacity to maintain attention to their needs and notice them, and that when the kids become perhaps a little emotional or difficult, that he can respond in a manner that assists his relationship with them that is demonstrating problem-solving skills, that he’s patient and that he doesn’t resort to any sort of, I guess .... sorts of conversations and discipline. They would be a pretty good start.
…
COUNSEL:From your interview with the father, at present, it’s your view that he doesn’t demonstrate a parenting capacity to develop those behaviours with the tools that he currently has. Is that correct?
WITNESS:During interviews, I didn’t see much evidence of that, no.
The Court accepts the evidence of the Family Report writer, subject to any view of the Court to the contrary, whether express or implied, as discussed below in relation to s 60CC of the Act.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act which are to ensure that the best interests of a child are met, including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration: section 60CA of the Act.
The Court must have regard to the factors outlined in section 60CC of the Act before determining what is in the child’s best interests. The matters to consider are set out in subsection (2) of section 60CC.
The Court, or any other person cannot require the child to express his or her views in relation to any matter: section 60CE. Although, the Court can have regard to any views that are expressed by a child where such views are contained in a report given to the court: section 60CD(2)(a).
When making a parenting order that deals with the allocation of responsibility for making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child the Court may provide for joint or sole decision-making in relation to all or specified major long-term issues: section 61D(3).
The Court has to consider each statutory matter in section 60CC, even if express discussion is not necessary (Jollie & Dysart [2014] FamCAFC 149 at [49]; Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 at [49]; Tibb v Sheean (2018) 58 Fam LR 351 at [83]–[85]). Accordingly, the Court will discuss each factor to the extent necessary, having regard to all considerations.
The best interests of the children
Section 60CC considerations
(2)(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of: (i) the child; and (ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(2A)(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child)
(2A)(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family
The above considerations will be considered together.
Family violence orders
An interim ADVO was made following the parties’ separation, against the father for the protection of the mother. Following a contested hearing, in 2017, a final ADVO was not made. There was no ADVO (or AVO) made in July 2022 in relation to the family.
Family violence and unsatisfactory conduct
As will be apparent from the Court’s discussions below, on the basis of the evidence before the Court in these proceedings (separate from its prior final parenting judgment (see Exhibit H)), the Court will have regard to the findings in that prior final parenting judgment to assist the Court in explaining its own findings in these proceedings.
At the outset it is helpful to set out aspects of the Court’s findings from this prior judgment under the former s 60CC need to protect primary consideration:
173.The Father is verbally inappropriate with the children, and he is manipulative of them; there is an unacceptable risk of psychological harm posed to the children if they spend unsupervised time with the Father. For example, the Father denigrates the Mother in front of the children, both in the presence of the Mother and when she is not present; a significant example of the Father denigrating the Mother in the presence of the children was the Father’s behaviour at [P School in] September 2017. The Father lacks insight into the potential emotional harm caused to the children by such above behaviour.
174.The above unacceptable risk can be addressed and minimised by the children spending limited weekly daytime time with the Father, as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration, and supervised by one of the Father’s siblings […].
175.The Father has significant physical disabilities preventing him from adequately caring for the children on his own, in particular the male children. Inter alia, the Court accepts the health professional material contained in Exhibits A and B in relation to the Father’s health and treatment. The Father has, inter alia, significant difficulties with his mobility; there is an unacceptable risk of physical harm posed to the children through neglect if spending unsupervised time with the Father. This risk can also be addressed and minimised by the children spending limited weekly daytime time with the Father, as proposed by the Mother, and supervised by one of the Father’s siblings referred to above.
176.The Court has considered whether, with supervision of the children’s time with the Father by one of his siblings, the Father’s time could be more extensive and potentially embrace overnight time. The Court is of the view that such increased time would significantly increase the above unacceptable risks coming to pass even with such supervision, taking into account in particular the Father’s lack of control in relation to being verbally inappropriate with and manipulative of the children, as observed by the Family Report writer. The Court also observes, in this context, that the Father’s sisters who previously provided supervision, pursuant to the Court’s interim parenting Orders, provided such supervision in the context of daytime only time between the children and the Father. Further, there was no significant evidence before the Court to suggest that the Father’s siblings would be prepared to provide extensive supervision in the overnight context as opposed to daytime supervision.
…
178.The Father seeks orders enabling him to spend in the aggregate 5 nights each fortnight with the children, equal time with the children during school holidays, and time with them on special occasions. He seeks that such time be unsupervised. Having regard to the Court’s discussions above, again, the children would be exposed to an unacceptable risk of harm if spending such time with the Father.
179.The Court refers to the evidence of the Family Report writer which is consistent with the above findings of the Court.
180.The Court refers to the evidence relating to the Father intentionally causing his car to move forward when the Mother was trying to take one of the female children out of his car in April 2018. This conduct by the Father was unacceptable, however, the Court is not persuaded that such conduct is likely to be repeated by the Father.
181.The Mother’s care of and attention to the needs of the children has been quite satisfactory, both during the relationship and post separation. She has taken significant steps to address the physical and psychological needs of the children. She has been studying for a tertiary qualification, and with insight, she has obtained the significant assistance of very helpful and dedicated carers to help her care for the children on a day-to-day basis.
182.The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration.
In the current proceedings the mother makes allegations against the father of family violence perpetrated after November 2020. The father denies these allegations. He denies denigrating the mother to the children, and he denies verbally abusing the mother. He alleges that the mother has unreasonably influenced if not coerced the children to express adverse views against him including false allegations, and he alleges that the mother has significantly lied to the Court in respect to her allegations. The father makes allegations against the mother of parental incapacity and family violence which is significantly denied by the mother.
The Court accepts the mother’s evidence and the narratives of the two eldest children stated to the Family Report writer (Dr T) that the father denigrates the mother, has verbally abused her in the presence of the children, has sworn at the mother and exhibited a bad temper in their presence. The mother, in her trial affidavit, particularises specific instances since November 2020 when this has occurred and the Court accepts this evidence. In this context, the Court observes that this adverse behaviour of the father indicates that despite the Court’s findings of verbal denigration, swearing and losing of temper by the father in its prior final parenting judgment, his adverse behaviour in this regard has continued. The father lacks insight into the adverse effects of his behaviour upon the children and the mother; the evidence of the Family Report writer is consistent with this finding.
The Court assesses, and regards as particularly important in this case, that there is a significant risk, if unsupervised time is permitted between the children and the father, that the father will continue to denigrate the mother in the presence of the children, will verbally abuse the mother in their presence, for example at changeovers, and will exhibit a bad temper; should this risk come to pass, there is a significant risk that the children will experience emotional harm. The evidence of the Family Report writer is consistent with this assessment.
The mother alleged that the father acted adversely towards a close family friend, Ms CC, in July 2022, when this friend, at the mother’s request, went to pick up the children from the father’s house. The mother also alleged that the father had forced the child X to lie to the police when they later became involved in relation to this changeover event. The father denied the mother’s allegations. The mother’s friend was not called to give evidence. The police records in evidence in relation to this changeover incident are not of significant assistance to the Court in this context. The Court is unable to resolve this particular factual dispute.
The father, in circumstances where he had not spent time with the children since July 2022, admitted sending an email to the mother in early 2023 stating, inter-alia, that he was going to do something the next day and that it was “not going to have a good ending”. The police records in evidence in relation to this email, part of Exhibit B, state that the father told the police that he had stated this to the mother “in reference to him going to NDIS to report her for fraud and did not want to warn her of the report. He also advised that he was reporting her due to (the mother) ‘playing games’ and trying to prevent (the father) from seeing his children.” The Court infers that the mother may well have experienced significant anxiety on having read this email from the father; the father himself conceded that it was possible that the mother could have perceived his email as a threat. The Court observes that there is no evidence before the Court that the mother has ever been adversely dealt with by the NDIS relating to any allegations of fraud by her. The Court finds that the above stated contents of this email represented unsatisfactory conduct by the father towards the mother and could potentially have adversely affected her parenting capacity for the children.
The father attended the child X’s school in mid-2024 with a view to speaking to that child. The father alleged that he had been previously telephoned by a child who was a friend of X informing the father that X had been sexually touched by a former fiancé of the mother three weeks earlier. The police records in existence in relation to this issue, Exhibit D, indicate that when the father later attended upon a police station with his support worker, the father provided a video recording of an unknown female child who had telephoned his mobile phone. The police records state that the support worker, having heard the father answer the telephone call, began a video recording which captured the father speaking with the child on speaker. Ultimately, the police, having spoken to at least to the father, the mother, the eldest child, and X, formed the view that no offences had occurred and there was no need for any further action at that time. The mother contended that the father should not have gone to the child’s school, but rather should have simply contacted the police or DCJ, and that by attending the child’s school with a view to speaking to the child, this child was placed at risk of experiencing emotional harm by being unexpectedly confronted by the father; under the Court’s final parenting Orders of 23 November 2020, there was no order permitting the father to have contact with the child X at her school. The evidence, in relation to this issue, does not clearly indicate that the child in fact encountered the father at her school in mid-2024. Nevertheless, there is some force to this contention, which suggests that the father lacks attunement in relation to the emotional sensibilities of the children.
On 15 May 2024 this Court made interim orders by consent that on 19 May 2024 and 26 May 2024 the father shall spend supervised time with the children from 12.00 pm until 3:00 pm at W Venue at Suburb AA. This time took place. However, at the visit on 19 May 2024, without the permission of the mother, the father took the children back to his home for a brief period, albeit that he had informed the mother’s support worker, present at the venue to supervise the children’s time with the father, of his intentions in this regard. The father, in oral evidence, stated that at the venue some of the children started to play outside and there was a busy road and that he was concerned for their safety. The father drove the two eldest children back to his home in his car and a support worker drove his car with the two youngest children back to the father’s home. The father, particularly in light of the content of the interim orders providing for visitation to occur at the venue, should have first sought the permission of the mother before leaving the venue, and his actions suggest a willingness on his part to not follow legal boundaries.
The Court observes that at the family report interviews on 19 February 2024, despite the Family Report writer setting boundaries with the father prior to the observation session on that day (between the children and the father), including not to seek to physically touch the children unless by their initiation, was not complied with by the father. This behaviour of the father suggests a willingness on his part not to follow relevant boundaries with the children.
The Court refers to the children’s adverse views relating to the father discussed below. The children have not spent significant time with him since July 2022 (acknowledging the two visits at the venue in 2024) with the Court further observing that the father’s time with the children between November 2020 and July 2022 was irregular. As stated by the Family Report writer, the children’s relationship with the father is a fractured and fearful one. The Court has no confidence that the father, lacking insight as he does in relation to his previous adverse behaviour towards the children and the mother and demonstrating an inability to comply with relevant boundaries, could adequately attend to the children’s developmental, emotional and attachment needs if he was now to spend unsupervised time with them. The Court has no confidence that the father would comply with any request by one of the children to respect a boundary that they sought to impose between themselves and the father. This view of the Court is consistent with the evidence of the Family Report writer.
Neglect
In the Court’s prior final parenting judgment, paragraph 175 (see above), the Court had found that the father had significant physical disabilities preventing him from adequately caring for the children on his own, in particular the male children. The Family Report writer (Dr T) had referred to the father having reportedly been diagnosed with, inter-alia, a medical condition, and referred to the mother raising concerns that the father’s parenting capacity was impacted by medical diagnoses and mental health. The medical reports relating to the father dated 1 June 2022, discussed below, had referred, inter-alia, to the father’s medical conditions.
In the above circumstances, in particular where the father is seeking orders that he spend unsupervised time with the children, in opposition to the mother’s proposal that the father spend supervised time with a professional supervision service, there probably was an obligation on the father to adduce relevant health professional evidence as to his current state of physical and mental health. Yet the father adduced no contemporary health professional evidence in this regard. The father confirmed in his evidence that he receives NDIS care assistance for shopping including carrying and washing of clothes. The father stated in oral evidence that he now only uses a mobility aid occasionally, and that since he had surgery he has been experiencing positive changes to his health, however, again, this oral evidence was not supported by any contemporary health professional evidence.

The GP’s medical report relating to the father dated 1 June 2022, annexed to the mother’s trial affidavit, sets out a number of medical conditions of the father, including a depressive anxiety disorder dated 2021. The opinion of the father’s GP states, inter-alia, that the father’s condition is deteriorating and he is now having recurrent falls at home. It states that the father has been reviewed by a specialist and has demonstrated that the father has a medical condition. It states the father is currently seeing a psychologist for anxiety and depression “and currently awaiting the report”. It refers to the father’s other medical condition. The report states that if the father’s recurrent falls continue this can lead to injuries from simple falls which can complicate the father’s situation.
In the above circumstances, where there is an absence of relevant health professional evidence from the father, both as to his physical and mental health, the Court finds that there is a real risk that should the children spend unsupervised time with the father, in particular the two male children who can be prone to act unpredictably, the father will be unable to adequately care for them.
In the Court’s prior final parenting judgement, the Court referred to the disabilities of some of the children, and its finding that the father did not believe in the efficacy of mental health treatment for the children. The Court accepts the mother’s evidence that the male children have been diagnosed with ASD level 3 (being the most severe level of autism), and the child X has been diagnosed with ODD and ADHD. The Court accepts the mother’s evidence that the children Z and X, in particular, require routine medical treatments and consultations. At the final hearing in the current proceedings, the father stated that the child Y does not have autism, and he had complained to the NDIS that there was nothing wrong with Y. He told the Family Report writer, inter-alia, that the mother had fabricated Y’s diagnosis to take advantage of NDIS money. The Court has a real concern that the father’s belief in this regard in respect to Y could result in this child receiving inadequate care and attention from the father if the father was to spend unsupervised time with him.
The father submitted that the mother was not coping parenting the children and in this regard pointed, inter alia, to the mother’s loss of parenting supports including loss of a previous full-time day carer for the children as well as the mother’s parents, who for a time had been residing with the mother and children, having returned to Country C. The father effectively submitted that should he be able to spend unsupervised time with the children then his time spent with the children could relieve the burden of the mother’s parenting responsibilities and he could as well call upon his paternal extended family to assist with the care of the children.
The Court does not accept that the mother is not coping parenting the children adequately, although it is clear that the mother, as primary carer, has been finding such primary care highly challenging. In this regard the Court refers to the following evidence of the Family Report writer:
60.From [Ms Faez]’s descriptions, she is an attuned parent who is appropriately attending to the children’s complex needs. She actively seeks and is receptive to the advice of professionals to grow her capacity to support the children. [Ms Faez] was forthcoming in her need for help to support her children, again expressing exhaustion.
…
64.[Ms Faez] finds being the primary caregiver for the children highly challenging, ‘The therapy, health, my needs, the work I do as well – it is very difficult. With four kids it is very hard to keep up with’. She spoke of the children requiring significant supervision, which becomes stressful in public as they are hard to contain. Overall, she painted a picture of the family unit being under constant push and pull demands that she attempts to manage to the best of her ability. She acknowledged her stressors and articulated her actions to gain support as a means of creating as much security and stability as possible for the children.
…
113.[Ms Faez] presented as a dedicated and attuned parent, who is meeting the bulk of the children’s needs. [Ms Faez]’s narrative reflected her commitment to safeguarding the children from [Mr Azimi], though this appears to have pressured her capacity to meet the children’s needs. It seems that in response to overwhelm in caregiving for the children, [Ms Faez] may become exasperated and her parenting behaviours are stressed. Engagement in a Parenting Under Pressure or alike, course may assist here.
…
(Under the heading Recommendations)
130.[Ms Faez] engages in a Circle of Security and/or Parenting Under Pressure or alike programs, ideally on a one-on-one basis and in person where possible.
The Family Report writer gave oral evidence that the mother could access wraparound support to assist her caring for the children, such as engaging in with services that are likely to offer some respite from constantly carrying the burden of the bulk of the care, and that she could attend some Circle of Security programs to learn or gain some more perspective in this context.
In summary, having regard to all the above discussions, there remains an unacceptable risk that the children will experience harm and/or neglect if spending unsupervised time with the father. The risks of harm to the children can be minimised by the children spending time with the father under professional supervision, however such supervised time should not commence until the father has enrolled in and completed a Men’s Behaviour Change Program in view of, in particular, his lack of insight into the harmful effects of his adverse behaviour upon the children as discussed above.
The two eldest children, W and X, should not be required to spend such supervised time with the father if they do not wish it to occur. In view of W and X’s ages, and their fractured and fearful relationship with the father including their adverse views of him, they should not be effectively forced to spend time with him. If they were required to spend supervised time with the father against their wishes, they may well experience emotional harm and their position towards the father may worsen putting further at risk the prospect of any redevelopment of their former relationship with him.
The ICL sought a no time order between the children and the father. A no time order would represent a very serious step for the Court to take. The Court acknowledges that the father gave evidence that he will not spend supervised time at a contact centre with the children because, inter-alia, it is unnecessary. However, following the making of orders for professionally supervised time between the children and the father, which could in theory occur outside the confines of a contact centre, the father, having first completed a Men’s Behaviour Change program may, on reflection, decide to take up the opportunity to spend such supervised time with the children.
After the father’s completion of a Men’s Behaviour Change Program, there should be a time limit upon the father attending any required intake assessment by the relevant professional supervision service, so that any delay relating to supervised time occurring which might cause confusion for the children is minimised.
The Court recognises that the making of orders for professionally supervised time without an endpoint, noting the youngest child in this case is now only nine years old, is usually undesirable; supervised time orders, with their qualitative limitations, are preferably not long-lived and ideally should be a stepping stone to unsupervised time. However, at this time, in circumstances where there are significant safety issues pertaining to the children spending time with the father and in relation to which the father lacks fulsome insight (with the Court acknowledging that it is possible that the father may go on to develop such insight), it is not feasible to order a limited period of supervised time.
The Court has reflected upon the mother’s proposed order that professionally supervised time should occur, in particular, each Sunday afternoon for 4 hours. The Court infers from this proposal of the mother that she can practically facilitate such regular time. The Court is of the view, that such regular time, as opposed to some lesser time (e.g. fortnightly time) will aid in the timely redevelopment of the children’s relationship with the father noting that the children have not spent time with the father since July 2022.
The Court questioned the Family Report writer, on the assumption that the Court was to make an order that the children spend supervised time with the father, as to what the father would need to demonstrate if he was to later seek (on application to the Court) to convert the supervised time orders to unsupervised time orders in relation to the children. The Family Report writer stated, and the Court accepts, that the father would need to demonstrate, should he at some time in the future, having engaged with professionally supervised time with the children, seek to spend unsupervised time with them, at least, that:
·he was able to listen to the directions of professionals, and follow their directions and boundary setting;
·he was able to acknowledge the children’s views and position with an open mind and not resort to attributing them to the mother and blaming her;
·he was able to be attuned to the children’s emotional states;
·he would be able to refrain from having conversations with them that are more adult matters to discuss;
·he does not denigrate the mother at all in the presence of the children;
·he can engage the children for a period of time in a professionally supervised setting safely;
·he can respond to the children, attend to all their needs at once;
·he can demonstrate that he has a capacity to maintain attention to the children’s needs and notice them;
·when the children become a little emotional or difficult, that he can respond in a manner that assists his relationship with them and that is demonstrating problem-solving skills; and
·that he is patient with the children and that he doesn’t resort to any inappropriate conversations and discipline.
The Court should add that the father would need to also show that the children had responded positively to their professionally supervised time with the father and that positive relationships between themselves and the father were developing.
There was some suggestion in the father’s cross-examination of the Family Report writer that it was potentially open for one of the children’s NDIS carers to act as a formal supervisor of the children’s time with the father. Respectfully, there was no evidence before the Court to indicate that one of the children’s NDIS carers could so act or would be prepared to so act. There was no evidence that such a NDIS carer would have the expertise to formally supervise the children’s time with the father.
The Court gives significant weight to this safety consideration under s 60CC of the Act, which is consistent with the evidence of the Family Report writer.
(2)(b) any views expressed by the child;
The child W, who was interviewed by the Family Report writer on 19 February 2024, was 12 years old at this stage. This child presented to the Family Report writer as mature and balanced, and was assured in stating that she does not want to spend time with the father. The Family Report writer recorded at paragraph 83-84 of the family report:
83.[W] presented expressed feeling unsafe around her father, which she struggled to understand when she was younger. She shared that she had not seen her father since July 2022, and that her last experience with him was negative, ‘He kept turning up at my school unannounced’. She spoke of abuse towards the children and her mother, listing behaviours including [Mr Azimi] hitting herself and her siblings, saying ‘terrible things’ about her mother, swearing and having road rage. She described [Mr Azimi] as being ‘scary’ and having a ‘very bad temper’.
84.[W] struggled to consider the possibility of a safer relationship with her father, but with some gentle scaffolding, listed some changes required, ‘A better person in general. Stop swearing, no violence or abuse and contribute in some way, like to my school. Help with what we need. He would need to try hard to get my trust’.
The child X, who was interviewed by the Family Report writer on 19 February 2024, was 11 years old at this stage. This child presented as a delightful young girl. At paragraphs 88, 90-92, the Family Report writer recorded:
88.[X] presented as a delightful young girl. She articulated incidents and patterns in [Mr Azimi]’s past behaviour which have led to her experiencing him as a source of fear and drive her resistance/refusal of him, though she did appear slightly conflicted regarding a future relationship with her father. She expressed worry that [Mr Azimi] would try to hug or touch her during observations, which she did not want.
…
90.[X] described experiences which she found scary from her father, including yelling, screaming at [Ms Faez], a short temper, denigration of her mother and hitting her younger brothers. She shared that her father had called her mother a ‘bitch’ and similar, and though she had asked him not to, ‘he doesn’t listen’. She recalled an incident where the police attended her father’s home due to a verbal altercation including the paternal family. She shared feeling that ‘everyone is happier’ since time with her father ceased.
91.[X] reported that her mother had asked if they wished to speak to their father, to which [X] responded ‘we don’t want to’, indicating some extent of alliance between [X] and [W] in their rejection of [Mr Azimi]. When asked what [Mr Azimi] would need to do differently, [X] responded, ‘Everything about him. He would need to change his whole personality’.
92.Though [X] expressed that she would feel ‘too much anxiety’ spending time with her father at his residence, she had some openness to seeing her father at a contact centre, ‘I would see dad at a supervised centre, I would be doing it for me. I don’t want to see him but I could if I had a choice. I wouldn’t mind seeing him just to play with him’. Overall, her responses exampled her ambivalence – a common feature of insecure attachment.
The child Y, who was interviewed by the Family Report writer on 19 February 2024, was 9 years old at this stage. This child presented as a sweet young boy, albeit shy and anxious. The Family Report writer stated at paragraph 97:
97.[Y] shared that he hadn’t seen his father ‘for a long time’. He advised he does not wish to speak to or see him, ‘He makes me uncomfortable.’, and when asked why, spoke of his aggressive behaviours, ‘He is rude to my mum. Swearing at her’. He shared that his father would ‘smack me if I did something wrong’, whereas his mother would give him paper to write what he did wrong, and he might be grounded. He spoke of his mother encouraging him to speak to his father, ‘My mum says that I should talk to him if I miss him, but I don’t’.
Taking into account in particular, the Court’s above safety discussions, regarding the children potentially spending time with the father, and the evidence of the Family Report writer, the Court would attach significant weight to the views of W and X, and some weight to the views of the male children.
(2)(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
The Court refers to its discussions above as to the various diagnoses including autism diagnoses relating to the children. The Court refers to the evidence of the Family Report writer relating to these various diagnoses in the children.
(2)(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
The mother has such capacities.
As to the father, the Court refers to its discussions above under the s 60CC safety consideration.
(2)(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
The children have a meaningful relationship with the mother and they will benefit from a continuance of those relationships.
Again, the children’s relationship with the father is fractured and fearful. The Court refers to its discussions above under the s 60CC safety consideration as to the matters the father would at least need to address before he could spend unsupervised time with the children; should the father be able to meaningfully address at least those matters, then the children may well benefit from redeveloping a relationship with him.
The children have positive relationships with the maternal grandparents. Presently the children have no significant relationships with members of the father’s paternal extended family, in particular because the children have not spent regular time with them for some time.
The children have a stepsibling from the father’s side. The children may benefit from the further development of their relationship with him.
(2)(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
The mother seeks final parenting orders, inter-alia, that the children’s names be removed from the Family Law Airport Watchlist and that she be permitted to travel internationally with them. These proposed orders are opposed by the father. The mother commenced interlocutory proceedings in this court last year to obtain international travel orders and on 15 May 2024, by consent, interim orders were made, inter-alia, that the mother be permitted to travel with the children to Country C for one month (in mid-2024). The mother travelled with the children to Country C (a non-Hague Convention country) pursuant to that consent order and the mother and children duly returned to Australia complying with that order. The mother and children have significant ties to Australia, both by reason of the length of time they have lived in Australia, the mother’s work, and the children’s schools. Some of the children receive NDIS funding for disabilities and receive treatment for these disabilities. In the view of the Court, should the Court make the mother’s proposed international travel orders, there is no significant risk, in fact a low risk, that she would travel overseas with the children including to Country C and not return to Australia with them in a timely fashion. The children will benefit from visiting the maternal grandparents, in particular, in Country C. There is force to the oral submissions of the ICL in this context. It will be in the best interests of the children to make the mother’s proposed international travel orders.
The father should meet the costs of his professionally supervised time with the children by reason of the risks that he poses to the children in spending unsupervised time with them which have been discussed above under the s 60CC considerations. By reference to those risks, it would be unreasonable to expect the mother to contribute towards the costs of such supervision.
The Court’s Orders of 23 November 2020, specifically orders numbered 8(a), 14, 15, 20, and 23(a) will be orders in the best interests of the children.
Decision making responsibility
Under the Court’s prior final parenting judgment, the mother was to have sole parental responsibility for major health decisions for the children but otherwise the parties would have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. Since that prior final parenting judgment, the mother has been making all major decisions for the children including health decisions and change of schooling decisions, and satisfactorily so. The parties, for some significant time now, have had no positive co-parenting relationship. There is significant distrust between the parties. The father does not accept Y’s autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. The Court has no confidence that the parties could reach agreement, in a timely fashion and without conflict, in relation to major decisions to be made for the children. It will be in the best interests of the children that the mother have sole parental decision making power and responsibility for major decisions to be made for their care welfare and development.
SUMMARY

Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, and other matters discussed above, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following final parenting orders:
1.The Orders of 23 November 2020 be discharged.
2.The mother have sole decision making for long-term issues relating to W born in 2011, X born in 2012, Y born in 2014 and Z born in 2015 (“the children”).
Time with
3.Subject to Orders 4 to 8 below, the children spend time with the father as follows:
(a)Each Sunday from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(b)On special occasions:
(i)In years ending with an even number, on the first day of Eid from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(ii)In years ending with an odd number, on the second day of Eid from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(iii)On each of the children's birthdays, if a school day from the conclusion of school (or otherwise 3.30 pm) to 5.30 pm if the children are not spending time with the father and if a non-school day, for a period of three hours as agreed between the parties in writing or otherwise from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm;
(iv)On the father's birthday if a school day from the conclusion of school (or otherwise 3.30 pm) to 7.00 pm if the children are not in the father's care and if a non-school day for a period of three hours as agreed between the parties in writing or otherwise from 10.00 am to 1.00 pm;
(v)On Father’s Day from 1.00 pm to 5.00 pm;
(vi)On other occasions as agreed in writing between the parties.
Supervised time
4.The father's time with the children pursuant to these Orders be under the supervision of S Contact Centre or an alternative professional supervision service and be conditional upon:
(a)the father first completing a Men’s Behaviour Change Program;
(b)the father complying with Orders 6 and 7 below.
5.The children W and X spend supervised time with the father only in accordance with their wishes.
6.For the purpose of giving effect to Order 4, the mother, within seven (7) days of being notified by the father that he has completed a Men’s Behaviour Change Program, notify the father of a nominated professional supervision service.
7.Within twenty-eight (28) days of being notified of the nominated professional supervision service the father do all acts and things necessary to complete an intake assessment with that service.
8.The father shall meet the costs of the nominated professional supervision service.
Travel
9.Pursuant to section 11 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), the mother may obtain and renew Australian travel documents for the children without reference to the father.
10.The children’s names be removed from the Family Law Airport Watchlist.
11.The mother be permitted to travel internationally with the children for up to four weeks per calendar year and the father’s time with the children be suspended during such periods of international travel.
Other
12.The father’s time with the children be suspended to allow the mother to spend time with the children on Mothers’ Day from 1.00 pm to 7.00 pm.
13.Both parents are restrained from physically disciplining the children.
14.Both parents are restrained from speaking to the children about any aspect of these proceedings or discussing with the children any conflict between the parents.
15.Each parent shall refrain from making critical or derogatory remarks in relation to the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and each party will use their best endeavours to ensure that no third party makes critical comments about the other party in the presence or hearing of the children.
16.The mother authorises the children’s school to provide the father, at his expense if any, with a copy of all school reports for the children.
17.The parties keep the other parent advised of their contact telephone numbers and advise the other party of any changes to their contact telephone number within seven days of such change occurring.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and sixty-four (164) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun.
Associate:
Dated: 25 February 2025

File number(s):	PAC 2159 of 2023
Judgment of:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
Date of judgment:	25 February 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Best interests of children – orders made.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CD
Cases cited:	Banks & Banks (2015) FLC 93-637 Jollie & Dysart [2014] FamCAFC 149 Tibb v Sheean (2018) 58 Fam LR 351
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	164
Date of hearing:	3 – 5 February 2025
Place:	Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Provera
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Western Sydney Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Elachkar
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sadek Lawyers Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Hill
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Gonzalez & Co

PAC 2159 of 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR AZIMI Applicant
AND:	MS FAEZ Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE NEWBRUN
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 2025