Dever & Serano - [2025] FedCFamC1F 255

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Dever & Serano [2025] FedCFamC1F 255

File number(s): BRC 9850 of 2019

Judgment of: BAUMANN J

Date of judgment: 17 April 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CONTESTED RESIDENCE – Where final orders were made by the Court in 2019 for regular time and equal shared responsibility – Where time has not occurred between the father and child since March 2021 due to the child allegedly expressing reluctance to spend time with the father – Where the mother and child unilaterally relocated approximately 1,000 kilometres from their usual place of residence – Where the mother asserts the child has made disclosures that the father has both physically and sexually abused her – Where father asserts the mother is an emotional risk to the child and seeks a change of residence – Final Orders made for the child to live with the father – Interim Orders made for a moratorium of time following which the child will spend supervised time with the mother

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Cases cited:
Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092

Sampson & Harnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 111

Date of last submission/s: 3 November 2023

Date of hearing: 4 - 6 and 29 September 2023

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Alexander and Ms A Burke

Solicitor for the Applicant: McInnes Wilson Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Collins

Solicitor for the Respondent: Statewide Family Law

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms A Hellewell

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Smithson Lawyers
ORDERS

BRC 9850 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR DEVER

Applicant

AND:
MS SERANO

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

BAUMANN J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2025

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:
1.That all previous parenting orders are discharged.

Parental responsibility
2.That the Applicant father, Mr Dever, shall have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2013 (“the child”).
3.That the father must, within fourteen (14) days of making a major long-term decision in respect of the child (save for in an emergency), inform the mother of the decision made by him.

Living arrangements
4.That the child shall live with the father, from 4.00pm on Thursday 1 May 2025, unless the parents agree on an earlier date in writing.
5.That the Respondent mother, Ms Serano, shall attend, with the child, at a location in Region B nominated by the father, to handover the child to the father to permit Order 4 hereof to commence, and failing agreement of the location, handover shall occur at the Town C McDonalds restaurant.

Specific Issues
6.That the parents shall keep the other informed of:
(a)a residential address, postal address, email address and mobile telephone number for that parent;
(b)any change to the information at Order 6(a) within seven (7) days of such change occurring;
(c)the names and addresses of any treating medical or other allied health practitioners who treat the child; and
(d)as soon as reasonably practicable, any information concerning any serious medical condition, medical treatment, significant health issue or significant illness suffered by the child.

7.That each parent is hereby authorised to obtain from the child’s schools all notices, letters, and school reports in relation to the child (at that parent’s cost).
8.That the parties will not discuss these proceedings or criticise or denigrate the other party or the other party’s family in the presence of or within hearing of the child.
9.That the parties shall encourage and not undermine each child’s relationship with the other party.
10.That this Order hereby authorises: -
(a)the mother to provide a copy of this Order and any Reasons for Judgment published in these proceedings to her psychologist, Ms D or such other treating health professional engaged by the mother;
(b)the father to provide a copy of this Order and any Reasons for Judgment published in these proceedings to the child’s:
(i)treating psychologist;
(ii)treating psychiatrist; and
(iii)Ms E.

11.That both parents will communicate using the Talking Parents app or email, save in an emergency situation where the parents shall communicate by text message or mobile phone is permitted, and both parents will within seven (7) days download and register for the Talking Parents app.
12.That the father shall arrange, at his cost, to engage Ms E to explain these Orders to the child and will, as recommended by Ms E, have such further counselling session as are required.

THE COURT ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS PENDING FURTHER ORDER:
Moratorium
13.That the child shall not communicate with; or spend time with the mother, from 1 May 2025 until the first scheduled supervised visit on the weekend of 27/28 July 2025.

Spend time with
14.That the child shall spend supervised time with the mother at all times as agreed between the parents and failing agreement for up to three (3) hours each alternate weekend (either on the Saturday or the Sunday as can be accommodated by the Contact Centre) on the following basis:
(a)The contact visits shall occur at F Contact Centre (“the Contact Centre”), unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents;
(b)Both parents shall contact the Contact Centre by 15 May 2025 and attend to all required intake processes as directed by the Contact Centre; and
(c)The parents shall share equally in the costs of supervision and intake.

Communication
15.That commencing Thursday 31 July 2025 and each Thursday thereafter, the child shall communicate with the mother by telephone, or video call, on the following terms:
(a)The call shall be initiated by the mother to a mobile phone number nominated by the father, no later than 16 July 2025;
(b)The father shall ensure the nominated phone is fully charged and in a mobile reception area;
(c)The phone call or video call shall occur between 6.00pm and 6.30pm unless otherwise agreed between the parents; and
(d)The father shall be entitled to observe the call (but not interrupt) but neither parent shall be permitted to record the interaction between the child and the mother.

16.That once supervised time has commenced under these Orders, the mother is at liberty to provide letters, gifts and cards to the child on not more than a fortnightly basis provided such letters, gifts and cards are child focussed.

Restraints
17.That the mother is restrained and an injunction is hereby issued restraining her from:
(a)attending any school attended by the child unless otherwise agreed in writing by the father or provided for in this Order; and
(b)approaching the child or contacting the child in any way other than in accordance with this Order, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the father.

Further Case Management
18.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 10 September 2025 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Brisbane.
19.That the parties shall file and serve an affidavit as to events since the change of residence and their proposed interim orders they seek for the next (3) months, by no later than 4.00pm on 3 September 2025.

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
BAUMANN J:
INTRODUCTION

X, now aged 11 years, has not communicated or spent time with the Applicant father, Mr Dever (“the father”) since March 2021. The mother, Ms Serano (“the mother”) asserts based on disclosures of the child and other evidence, that the father is an acceptable risk to the child, and that the child should continue to live with her.
The Reasons which follow seek to explain why the Court has come to the conclusion, in this very difficult case involving the best interests of a highly anxious child, that if X does not live with the father, then there is little prospect that the child will have a relationship with the father.
These Reasons seek to balance a number of competing factors so as to decide what is currently in X’s best interests.
STATUTORY PATHWAY
In circumstances where the final hearing in these proceedings commenced prior to the legislative changes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) commencing in May 2024, the following principles shall apply.
In all cases involving parenting orders, the child’s best interests are the Court’s paramount consideration. In determining those interests the Court must consider not only the objects of s 60B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) and the right of a child to have a meaningful relationship with all those people significant to them, but also the primary considerations under s 60CC(2) and the additional considerations under s 60CC(3) which will be analysed below to ensure that the order I propose will serve the best interests of the children.
To the extent possible, the Court should ensure orders made do not expose a party or a child to unacceptable risk of harm through family violence, abuse or neglect.
In certain circumstances, the Court applies a statutory presumption that it is in the children’s best interests for parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (s 61DA(1)), which relates to making major decisions and not about the time a child spends with each parent.
In Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286, the Full Court made it clear that the presumption that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child (s 61DA) does not carry with it any presumption about time. The issue of equal time is dealt with in s 65DAA and:
when the presumption is applied the first thing the Court must do is to consider when making an order whether it is consistent with the best interest of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents. If equal time is not in the interest of the child or reasonably practicable the Court must go on to consider making an order whether it is consistent with the best interest of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents.
The written submissions for the father – at paragraphs 11 to 15 set out some relevant authorities relating to the assessment of risk in a parenting case. It is not necessary in these Reasons to incorporate those principles – save to observe that:
(a)The trial Court is cautioned against making a positive finding that an allegation of abuse is established.
(b)The standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities applies to the assessment of risk, but the Court must also consider s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).
(c)The assumption of risk is an evidence based conclusion and is not discretionary, and as pointed out by the Full Court in Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 at [7], risks, like all prospective events are capable of classification in only one of these mutually exclusive categories: possibilities, probabilities or certainties.
The Court is required to properly analyse the evidence in coming to any conclusion as to risk – sexual or otherwise.
The following examination cannot be exhaustive. Both parents’ trial affidavits are long – the fathers containing 261 paragraphs and numerous annexures; the mother’s containing 259 paragraphs and numerous annexures. I will now deal with a few discrete issues and make some findings about risks, before comparing the proposals within the matrix of the relevant s 60CC(2) and (3) considerations.
COMPETING PROPOSALS
The trial having concluded and written submissions being filed, the competing proposals at conclusion were as follows.
Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”)
Appendix One to these Reasons outlines the final orders sought by the ICL, being essentially:
(a)The child live with the father and that he have sole parental responsibility;
(b)After a 12-week moratorium the child may communicate with the mother, but no physical time take place for 16 weeks; and
(c)Physical time of which is dependent on whether the mother lives in Region B and commences with supervised time before graduating to unsupervised time.
Mother
The mother’s Case Outline filed 30 August 2023 sought orders that the child X live with the mother who will have sole parental responsibility and that the child’s time with the father be limited to phone contact, supervised by the child’s treating psychologist.
Although the mother was directed to provide written submissions and a minute of orders sought, no minute of order was offered or included in submissions filed on 27 October 2023.
However, during the trial, the mother submitted an interim order (Exhibit 3) and the submissions referred to this minute. I therefore adopt the mother’s proposal as being for the making of an interim order which essentially:
(a)Provides for the child to live with the mother;
(b)For the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility; and
(c)That the child and the father attend reunification counselling with Dr G and after no less than three sessions, the father should spend supervised visits weekly for two hours at the H Contact Centre.
What the mother envisaged was, without any evidence at all from Dr G, that at least three sessions would be enough to overcome the issues and then further steps could be taken to build on supervised time in some undefined way.
FATHER
Although the father’s written submissions contended a number of proposals for how the child should spend time with the mother, depending on whether or not the Court finds:
(a)The mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and the Court is not satisfied that the mother will accept this finding; or
(b)The mother poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and the Court is satisfied the mother will accept this finding; or
(c)The mother does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the child;
In all scenarios, the father contends for X to live with him.
As is clear, for both the proposed orders and the chronology, the determination of risk is the major, yet not only, factor in this case.
The evidence offered to the Court is as set out in the parties’ Case Outlines – essentially:
(a)Evidence of the Applicant father in his affidavit filed 24 August 2023 and his employer, who was not required for cross-examination
(b)Evidence of the Respondent mother in her affidavit filed 25 August 2023; and
(c)The Family Report of Ms J.
The tendering of the following Exhibits is also recorded:
(a)Exhibit 1 – Consultation note by Dr K dated 6 April 2021
(b)Exhibit 2 – Section 93A interview dated 26 July 2022
(c)Exhibit 4 – L School notes
(d)Exhibit 5 – USB of audio files
(e)Exhibits 6, 10 and 11 – Handwritten notes and reports of Ms E
(f)Exhibit 7 – Police subpoena documents
(g)Exhibit 8 – Medical documents of Dr M
(h)Exhibit 9 – Medical notes – Ms D
(i)Exhibit 12 – Police Summary of Domestic Violence Orders
(j)Exhibit 13 – 2023 student plan for X
(k)Exhibit 14 – Consultation note of Dr K dated 30 June 2022
Because of the reliance on some of the medical records, Ms E; Dr M and the mother’s treating psychologist Ms D were all briefly cross-examined.
It is not necessary, or indeed helpful, in seeking to explain how the Court came to the final outcome, to deal with every event, submission or issue in contention and I do not do so.
CONTEXTUAL HISTORY
Both the father, Mr Dever and the mother, Ms Serano are now in their early 50’s having commenced a relationship in 2007 and marrying in 2011.
Their only child, and the focus of this difficult case, is their only daughter X, born in 2013. She is now 11 years of age.
The parties separated on 1 January 2018 after a conflictual event where the mother says, in he presence of the child (then aged 4 years), the father attempted to punch her, but hit a wall.
The difficulties in the father maintaining contact; voluntarily noting this occurred overnight 3‑4 times a fortnight; with X post separation was exacerbated by:
(a)The mother undertaking a medical procedure in April 2019, which confined her to a wheelchair for months;
(b)The mother shortly after her procedure unilaterally relocating from Brisbane to Region B for home rental reasons; and
(c)The father’s roster for his work.
The father moved closer to Region B to ensure the child was able to enjoy time with him.
On 3 December 2019, final parenting orders were made by consent by Judge Howard (as he then was) in these terms:
Parental Responsibility
1.That the Father and Mother are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to the child, [X] born […] 2013 (“the Child”) including but not limited to: -
(a)       The child’s education;
(b)       The child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)       The child’s health;
(d)       The child’s names; and
(e)Changes to child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with each parent.
2. That the parties are to consult with each other about decisions to be made in the exercise of their equal shared parental responsibility as follows: -
(a)       They shall inform, the other about the decision to be made;
(b)       They shall consult with each other on terms that they agree; and
(c)       They shall make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision.
3.        That notwithstanding the provisions of Clauses 1 & 2:
(a)The Father shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the child while the child is living with or spending time with him; and
(b)The Mother shall be responsible for the daily care, welfare and development of the child while the child is living with or spending time with her.
Living Arrangements
4.That the child lives with the Mother and spends time with the Father at all times agreed in writing between the parties and failing agreement as follows: -
(a)From the date of these orders until 20 April 2020, from the conclusion of school Thursday (or 3:00pm on a non-school day) until the commencement of school Monday (or 9:00am on a non-school day) with such time to occur in the week in which the Father is not rostered to work; and
(b)From 20 April 2020, from the conclusion of school Wednesday (or 3:00pm on a non-school day) until the commencement of school Monday (or 9:00am on a non-school day) with such time to occur in the week in which the Father is not rostered to work.
5.That in the event one party is unable to care for the child during their prescribed time for a period greater than seventy-two (72) hours then that parent will afford the other parent the opportunity to care for the child during the relevant period.
School Holidays
6.That in relation to term 1, term 2 and term 3 school holiday periods, the child will spend time with each parent as agreed and failing agreement as follows: -
(a)In odd numbered years with each parent for one half of each holiday period with the Father to care for [X] for the first half in Term 1 & 3 holidays and the second half of Term 2 holidays (if his work roster permits and in the event it does not, the Father forfeits that time with the child) and the Mother to care for [X] for the second half of Term 1 & 3 holidays and the first half of Term 2 holidays; and
(b)In even numbered years with each parent for one half of each holiday period with the Mother to care for [X] for the first half in Terms 1 & 3 holidays and the second half of Term 2 holidays and the Father to care for [X] for the second half of Term 1 & 3 holidays and the first half of Term 2 holidays (if his work roster permits and in the event it does not, the Father forfeits that time with the child).
7.That in relation to the Christmas school holiday period, the child is to spend time with the parents as follows: -
(a)       In 2019: -
(i)With the Father from Friday 20 December until Tuesday 24 December;
(ii)With the Father from 31 December 2019 until 13 January 2020; and
(iii)      At all other times with the Mother.
(b)       In each year thereafter (subject to Order 13): -
(i)In odd numbered years with the Mother for the first half and the Father for the second half; and
(ii)In even numbered years, with the Father for the first half and the Mother for the second half.
8.        That for the purpose of Order 6 & 7 herein:
(a)a school holiday period is deemed to commence on the first Sunday of the school holiday period and to conclude on the final Sunday before the first day of the next term; and
(b)For the avoidance of doubt, half of the school holiday period will be calculated by dividing by two (2) the total number of days between the first Sunday of the school holiday period and the last Sunday prior to commencement of the following term and in the event there is an odd number of days the Mother will have the additional day(s) in odd numbered years and the Father will have the additional day(s) in even numbered years.
Special Days
Birthdays
9.That subject to the Father’s work schedule (with fourteen (14) days’ notice to be provided to the Mother) unless otherwise agreed in writing, the child will spend time with their parents on the child’s birthday as follows:
(a)In the event the child’s birthday falls on a school day, the child will spend time with the parent who would not otherwise have care from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm; and
(b)In the event the child’s birthday falls on a non-school day, the child will spend time with the parent who would not otherwise have care from 2:00pm to 7:00pm.
10.That, unless the child is already in the care of the mother and, the child will spend time with the Mother on the Mother’s birthday:
(a)In the event the Mother’s birthday falls on a school day then from the conclusion of school until 5:00pm; and
(b)In the event the Mother’s birthday falls on a non-school day then from 9:00am until 5:00pm.
Mother/Father’s Day
11.That, unless the Father’s work roster does not allow it and unless otherwise agreed in writing, the child is to spend time with the Father from 3:00pm on the day prior to Father’s Day until 5:00pm on Father’s Day;
12.That, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the child is to spend time with the Mother from 3:00pm on the day prior to Mother’s Day until 5:00pm on Mother’s Day;
Christmas
13.That from 2020, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the child will spend time with the parent they are not otherwise spending time with for Christmas from 12:00pm on 23 December until 12pm on 24 December.
14.That any provision for time that is inconsistent with Orders 6 to 14 be suspended so as to facilitate those orders.
Changeover
15.      That, unless otherwise agreed in writing, changeover will occur as follows:
(a)       On a school day, at school; and
(b)       On a non-school day, at […] at [Suburb N].
Communication
16.That the parent who is not caring for the child will be at liberty to communicate with the child by telephone or any electronic means of communication (such as Skype) at all times as agreed between the parties but failing agreement between 4:00pm and 5:00pm.
17.That the child is at liberty to communicate with either parent at all times reasonably requested and for the purpose of this order the parent caring for the child will facilitate any such requested call.
18.That the child will be afforded privacy during any communications with the other parent.
Communication between the Parents
19.That the parents will use the outlook calendar management system to request and make changes to [X’s] care arrangements and arrangements for any medical or other appointments.
20.That all other communications between the parents in relation to parentings matters must occur via text message or email save and except for an emergency situation.
Residence
21.That neither party will relocate with the child further than 30 kilometres from [Suburb N] without the written agreement of the other party and failing agreement, an Order of the Court.
Schooling
22.That the child will continue to attend [O School] unless otherwise agreed in writing.
23.That the child will attend one of the following High Schools, as determined by the Mother in consultation with the Father no less than two years prior to the commencement of the child’s first term of high school: -
(a)       [P School];
(b)       [Q School]; or
(c)Such public school within a 20km radius of the child’s primary residence.
24.That within three (3) months of the date of this Order, the parties will take all steps to enrol the Child in [P School] and [Q School] with the Father to pay 75% of the combined enrolment fees and the Mother to pay the remaining 25%.
25.That the parents are expressly permitted to attend any activity in which the child is involved and any school activity to which a parent would ordinarily be invited.
26.That the parents are responsible for ensuring the child completes her homework whilst she is in their respective care.
Travel
27.That in the event the child’s passport requires renewal, the Mother and the Father must execute all necessary documents to facilitate the provision of a new Passport within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of any such forms from the other parent.
28.That pursuant to section 11(1)(b)(i) of the Australian Passports Act 2004 (Cth), the Child, [X] born […] 2013, is permitted to have an Australian travel document.
29.That the child’s passport will remain in the possession of the Mother save and except for when the child is travelling overseas with the Father and should the Father travel with the child then he is to return the passport to the Mother within seven (7) days of his return to Australia.
30.That, subject to Order 29, the Mother will no less than seven (7) days prior to a date of departure release the child’s passport to the Father for the purpose of the child travelling overseas with the Father.
31.That from 21 August 2023 (unless otherwise agreed in writing), the parents are permitted to travel internationally with the child whilst the child is spending time with them or as otherwise agreed in writing, and subject to the following terms:
(a)The travelling parent is only permitted to travel with the child to a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction unless agreed otherwise in writing;
(b)In so far as practical the occasions on which the travelling parent takes the child out of Australia are to coincide with school holiday periods observed by the school that the child attends;
(c)That the travelling parent is to provide sixty (60) days written notice to the other parent of their intention to travel internationally with the child;
(d) That no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of departure, the travelling parent will provide to the other parent the following: -
(i)        A copy of the return airfares for the parent and the child;
(ii)an accurate itinerary to include the departure and return dates, the country or countries to which the travelling parent and the child will travel, the approximate dates on which the child will arrive and depart each country;
(iii)in the event the itinerary changes at any point, the travelling parent will notify the other in writing within twenty-four (24) hours of the change; and
(iv)a mobile telephone number and address at which the travelling parent and the child can be contacted in each country.
Miscellaneous
32.      That each parent is to keep the other informed of:
(a)Any change of telephone number or residential address within 48 hours of such change occurring;
(b)The names and addresses of any treating medical or other allied health practitioners who treat the child; and
(c)As soon as reasonably practicable any information concerning any serious medical condition, medical treatment, significant health issue or significant illness suffered by the child.
33.That this Order authorises any of the child’s treating medical or other allied health practitioners to release the child’s medical or health information to each parent and to discuss the child’s treatment with each parent.
34.That the parties are required to administer the child any prescribed medication in accordance the direction of the child’s treating medical professionals.
35.That the parties are authorised to provide a copy of this Order to the school the child currently enrolled in and to any school the child may be enrolled into and attend in the future.
36.That each parent is hereby authorised to obtain from the child’s schools all notices, letters, school reports and invitations and to attend parent/teacher interviews or other activities to which parents are invited (at that parent’s cost).
37.That each parent is at liberty to attend at the child’s school for the purposes of any function or activity formally attended by parents.
38.That each parent is at liberty to attend the child’s sports games, other extra-curricular or co-curricular activities and training sessions.
39.That the parties not criticise or denigrate the other party or the other party’s family in the presence of or within hearing of the child.
40.That the parties encourage and not undermine each child’s relationship with the other party.
41.      That during the time the child is with either parent that parent will not:
a)        Consume illicit drugs or substances; or
b)        Consume alcohol to a level higher than 0.05 BAC.
(As per the original)

A seminal event, disputed by the parents, occurred at changeover in December 2019. The child witnesses the conflict, and shortly after the mother asserts, the child (then aged 6 years) began to express reluctance to spend time with the father. By January 2020, the tensions had increased with the mother asserting the father withheld the child from her around Christmas 2019, distressing the child, and the father deciding to file an Application for a Protection Order. For the record, mutual Protection Orders were made on 22 October 2020.
That the parents, who were by that time communicating ineffectively were prepared to seek urgent therapeutic engagement, I regard as a credit to them both. Ms E was engaged in January 2020 and her involvement with this family has resulted in a number of reports, and extensive therapy offered primarily to X (see Exhibit 6). Ms E was cross-examined at the final hearing and I deal more fully with her evidence below.
Ms E persuaded the parents to agree to new parenting arrangements (inconsistent with the orders made on 3 December 2019), I understand in the hope that by reducing time (to two days – not overnight a fortnight) the anxiety that Ms E says she was observing in the child and/or mother would hopefully reduce.
The child’s school arrangements also altered, allegedly because of bullying, with X starting a new school in October 2020.
As a result of allegations made by the child (particularly of the father choking her) which are more fully dealt with later in these Reasons, the child ceased all contact with the father in late March 2021. Ms E was engaged. The mother asserts that by June 2021, the child was self-harming.
When time ceased, the father notified the mother he was reducing child support payments.
The mother sought on 6 April 2021 from Dr K (a general practitioner), a mental health care plan for the child. The notes of the consultation (Exhibit 1) record as the history:
Anxiety is getting alot worse
All related to seeing the father
He yells a lot
No physical, sexual abuse, no neglect
but mum believes sole custody is the answer
(As per the original)
The general practitioner was provided all information by the mother. A referral to Ms E was made and mental health care plan was prescribed.
Furthermore, a referral to psychiatrist Dr M (referred to during the hearing and hereinafter referred to as “Dr M”) was made. As Exhibit 8 reflects, Dr M first saw X in October 2021. A number of reports have been produced, and Dr M’s initial diagnosis for X was:
1. Generalised Anxiety Disorder.
2. Separation Anxiety Disorder.
3.Unexpected prolonged separation from her mother whilst with her father would have triggered her underlying separation anxiety and been extremely traumatic for [X]. This is probably contributing to reluctance to spend time with her father…
4.Possible problems with learning.
(As per the original)
Dr M was briefly cross-examined at the hearing – and had earlier candidly acknowledged (in the initial report), that the assessment at that time of reluctance to spend time with the father “is based on reported information, and is lacking collateral information from her father”.
On 20 April 2021, Ms E provided a report recommending X’s time with the father be supervised until a family report is obtained, and after the father’s attendance on Ms E (to get further information as to X’s mental health), he proposed X be re-introduced slowly to spending time with him, but that, did not receive a positive response from the mother.
With the child spending no time at all with the father, and as he became increasingly concerned (and I would assess frustrated) with the status of his daughter’s mental health (the father having been informed by the mother of self-harming in June 2021 and by November 2021 that the child was medicated), he filed the current parenting application on 8 December 2021 seeking orders that:
Final orders sought
1.The Father be granted leave to further particularise final orders after the child’s time with the father has been reintroduced.
Interlocutory orders sought
Time
1.The child, [X] born […] 2012 (the child) live with the Mother and spend time with the Father every second Saturday from 12pm to 3pm.
Attendance upon Psychiatrist
2.The child continue to attend upon her psychiatrist, [Dr M] as regularly as [Dr M] recommends and to that end:
(a) The parties cause [Dr M] to provide an updated report as to the child’s progress every 3 months from the date of this order;
(b)Each party be permitted to discuss the child’s ongoing attendance with [Dr M] and this order act as irrevocable authority for [Dr M] to provide either parent with any information requested;
(c)The mother is to ensure the child is medicated in accordance with the recommendations of [Dr M];
(d)The parties equally share the cost of any out of pocket expenses related to this attendance.
Communication
3.The Father be at liberty to telephone or Facetime the child every second Saturday (in the off week from Order 1) between 4pm and 5pm with the mother to ensure the child can be contacted at that time.
With proceedings now on foot, the mother in March 2022 unilaterally withdrew the child from her Region B school and relocated to Town R (contrary to the Orders made 3 December 2019 at Order 21) – many hours drive away. Without the father being aware of this move (he says for 12 months – which evidence I accept), the mother also involved the child, at least:
(a)In the creation of some disturbing audio recordings (Exhibit 5) where the mother engaged the child when she made allegations against the father;
(b)Between 9 to 14 June 2022 with the mother leaving numerous emails alleging the father has physically and sexually abused the child, and allowed another male person in the father’s home to sexually abuse the child;
(c)After raising the allegations with the police, the police caused an interview pursuant to s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to be conducted in mid-2022. The tape (Exhibit 2) was played in open Court during the trial.
The father further asserts that the mother:
(a)Accused him of stalking her and had her hacked or otherwise gained unauthorised access to her electronic records.
(b)On 18 August 2022, the mother’s solicitors made a complaint to the father’s employer alleging that he has child exploitation material stored on his work devices. An investigation by this employer found no such material.
By late 2022, in an interview the father had with police (Child Protection Investigation Unit), the father was informed the police were pursuing no charges against him. The father has not been charged with any offences.
Although interviews for a family report by Ms J were scheduled earlier, the interviews (the mother and child attending by Zoom) took place on 31 August 2022 and again in early 2023 – with such report published on 21 February 2023. Ms J was cross-examined at the hearing.
After transfer of the proceedings to Division 1, by May 2023, the father’s hope of recommencing time with the assistance of therapy became forlorn, such that he understandably pressed for a final hearing.
The hearing commenced on 4 September 2023 for three days and concluded on 29 September 2023. Written submissions were filed and considered as follows:
(a)Submissions filed 10 October 2023 authored by Ms Hellewell of Counsel;
(b)Submissions filed on 27 October 2023 authored by Mr Collins of Counsel; and
(c)Submissions filed on 3 November 2023 authored by Mr Alexander and Ms Burke of Counsel.
The Court regrets its delay in publishing these Reasons, noting that no application to re-open has been received. Considering the father had not spent time with X since March 2021, there is an assumption by the Court that no time has occurred since the trial concluded in September 2023.
SECTION 93A INTERVIEW
This interview of the child was undertaken by police in mid-2022 and was played in open Court. In my view however, the interview must be seen within the following undisputed history. By considering the context, the actual statements made by X (then nearly 9 years of age) can be better understood.
I record the following matters that preceded the interviews:
(a)The time between separation being in January 2018, until late 2020 between the father and X had progressed reasonably well, with the child spending overnight (including extended holiday time) with the father.
(b)Counselling with Ms E had commenced again in late 2020 and Ms E had been informed by the mother on 27 October 2020 that the child was experiencing bullying at school. Both parents agreed that X change schools to S School which she did in late 2020. The parents, at this time seemed to be working together to benefit X.
(c)In January 2021, X undertook a medical procedure, which caused her some distress. Her level of anxiety continued to increase it seems, exacerbated by the asserted break in at her mother’s home. Her “sadness” and “anxiety” was observed by Ms E in a consultation on 23 October 2021.
(d)The child was struggling to attend school consistently – missing many days between January 2021 and February 2022 – with the mother saying the child was home schooled for some three months, I infer during this period.
(e)As a result of allegations, the mother ceased all time between the child and the father from late March 2021, although counselling with Ms E continued remotely.
(f)A referral by the child’s general practitioner on 7 April 2021 resulted in an appointment with psychiatrist Dr M producing his report and initial diagnosis on 27 October 2021, which is earlier referred to in these Reasons.
(g)In December 2021, the father commenced these proceedings seeking interim orders for daytime contact to resume, a position which changed on 19 July 2022 (one week before the s 93A interviews occurred) when the father’s Amended Initiating Application formally sought orders for residence and for the mother to have supervised time.
(h)Over five days between 9 June 2022 and 13 June 2022, the mother left six voicemails on the father’s phone (see Exhibit 5) with disturbing content and allegations. At this time, the father was not aware that in February 2022, the mother had moved to Town R with the child. We now also know that during this period, the mother had contacted police in mid-2022 and given them a statement that same month in 2022.
I find that by the commencement of the police interview X; a highly anxious child as diagnosed:
(a)Had spent no time with the father for over 15 months;
(b)Had lived solely in the mother’s care who changed her region of residence and schooling; isolated her for a period whilst home schooling (without approval from the Department of Education Queensland); and
(c)More likely than not, had discussed, consistently with the mother and Ms E her fears and concerns, mostly about her father. To a degree she was having her fears validated by her primarily/sole carer the mother; who has maintained a rigid belief that X does not lie and what the child told her (and as we will now identify – the police), was true.
As to what the child said during the interviews (which took place in City T for approximately 82 minutes), I choose in these Reasons to highlight some of the major disclosures. The tape speaks for itself. Those points include:
(a)Without any prompting and for almost 10 minutes, uninterrupted, the child launched into negative comments about the father. Some of the complaints were trivial –such as he ignored her all day; never plays with her and a suggestion that the father never feeds her and that he did not show love to her.
(b)More serious disclosures were made including:
(i)She nearly drowned at the beach when she was hit by a wave and got a black eye, with her father doing nothing about it;
(ii)The father choked her and does so repeatedly;
(iii)The father took photographs of her naked in the kitchen and he said would send them to the mother, but he never did;
(iv)She was used to being with her mother and the father wouldn’t let her ring her mother; and
(v)She has nightmares of the father killing the mother and taking her away from the mother.
The police, not unreasonably, tried to get better particulars of the choking events (time and place etc.), but overall, the child was vague with particularisation. In my view her comments like; continued choking on multiple occasions; being unable to breath for 50 seconds; throwing up for 20 minutes and photographs (taken by the mother), which were said to include a black eye; red marks she saw in the mirror and having “baggy eyes” would have been likely to have been made to the mother and noticed by the mother at the time of their occurrence. For this mother, this is likely to have prompted some immediate medical enquiry. No such enquiries or investigations were made or initiated.
The attempt by the mother, both to the police and this Court, to try and corroborate such behaviour by the father to this little girl failed. The mother, requiring the child to identify (from hundreds of photographs on the mother’s phone) examples of red marks or even bruising (see Exhibit 7), was entirely inappropriate and unconvincing.
The father has denied any aggressive behaviour towards X and certainly physically assaulting her. He acknowledged the dispute about her not wearing the school hat.
The police, as is their statutory duty, are required to assess whether or not sufficient evidence exists to warrant charging the father – and they decided not to do so for reasons expressed in Exhibit 12. I also note that the family report writer viewed the s 93A interview (noting it was undertaken just a week before the family report interviews took place), and at paragraph 151 and 152 of her report, Ms J raised concerns about the veracity of the statements made by X. Ms J also observed that X “has now spoken to a number of adults about these alleged incidents, which can, over time compromise the veracity of the information”.
The decision by police not to take the child’s statement as a basis for charges against the father caused the mother unhappiness, with the submissions of the ICL (at paragraph 32) contending the mother sought to gather further evidence against the father. I agree. Some of those attempts are dealt with later in these Reasons.
My concerns about the child’s involvement in discussions about her father and his alleged actions, are least at least demonstrated by the voicemails left by the mother.
At paragraph 80 of the submissions of the father, the nature of the words spoken by the mother on 9, 10 and 13 June 2022 is accurately recorded from Exhibit 5. During these voicemails the mother indicated an intention to contact the father’s place of employment because of the “policies around family violence” and his physical abuse of the child on multiple occasions.
Although the mother in cross-examination, said she had never accused the father of sexually assaulting X, her angry comments (particular to the voicemail of 10 June 2022) go close to doing so.
When I come to make a finding of risk, I will make some further observations about my concerns about the s 93A interview.
MS E
The longitudinal engagement of Ms E, an experienced psychologist, is demonstrated by the notes and reports marked as Exhibits 6, 10 and 11. In the comprehensive written submissions of the mother’s Counsel, Mr Collins, at paragraphs 108 to 123, he set out accurately in some detail extracts from the notes. I do not repeat those extractions in these Reasons. It reveals that X, consistently from April 2021 (when the child expressed fear when her father yelled at her but said he can be fun/firm), she expressed reluctance to see the father. It is noted that time had ceased before this visit with Ms E. I am satisfied that the father genuinely wanted to accept that Ms E could help X reengage with him. He followed her advice and guidance. However, despite attempts by Ms E to get X to engage with the father (adopting strategies like accepting gifts and cards), the child was strenuously resistant.
By 21 June 2022 and then 27 July 2022 – before the police interview – the clinical notes reveal the child beginning to articulate the concerns raised in the s 93A interview, for the first time. They could only have occurred prior to the physical time ceasing in March 2021.
It is not clear to me when Ms E became aware of the mother’s unilateral relocation to Town R however by the time she was cross-examined before me, she was aware of that significant change. Under examination by the ICL – Ms E further deposed that:
(a)The child’s anxiety, meltdowns and parental refusal, caused her to recommend time being suspended.
(b)X often “freaked out” when she raised with the child seeing her father.
(c)The mother was not generally present when she spoke to X.
(d)Although she had not seen the mother’s direct influence, X was aware of the mother’s anxiety in respect of the father, and Ms E opined the mother and child’s anxieties “probably triggered their individual anxieties”.
(e)She may have said the father had an unhealthy focus on the mother (not an unhealthy obsession), and she certainly did not tell the mother to disappear.
(f)Ms E did not take the view that seeing her father would assist the child, however X expressed a fear the father would not take her back home to the mother.
(g)Under cross-examination from the father, the further evidence of Ms E included: -
(i)The level of heat and acrimony has increased in this matter;
(ii)If the court finds that the father is not an unacceptable risk and the mother’s beliefs do not change, this could mean the mother poses a risk to X;
(iii)If there is a change of residence, a short moratorium would not work – perhaps six months with some therapeutic support would be appropriate;
(iv)The mother’s email on 16 June 2022 was the first time Ms E had heard about the “strangulation”; and
(v)The audio of the distressed child (speaking to the father) was distressing but difficult to hear and decipher. Ms E questioned why it went so long, when the child was so clearly distressed and why “the mother did it at all”.
(h)Under cross-examination by the mother’s Counsel, the further evidence of Ms E included: -
(i)If X believes the father is a risk, a change of residence would be the child’s worse scenario and could be “catastrophic”; the child would be upset, highly emotional, would react badly and there is a risk of self-harm;
(ii)Although Ms E is not qualified to make a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), the child has some traits, is very literal and demonstrates some sensory sensitivities (consistent with ASD);
(iii)In August 2020, X participated in a “free drawing activity” as an aid to developing a mutual therapeutic understanding, but the “bear” cards are more about feelings – from which Ms E interpreted (as her report of 20 April 2021 indicated) X experienced feelings of being fearful of her father; and
(iv)The mother’s move to Town R could have reinforced the child’s fear that they had to be moved to be protected from the father.
It is important to remind the parties that like all therapists, Ms E does not attempt to “investigate” or determine facts. She was engaged initially with the support of both parents to support their highly anxious child. Even though the father felt Ms E had genuinely tried to help, the lack of effecting the child’s re-introduction to him, caused the father to suggest alternate counselling in the future. Having said so, the father conceded that if there is to be a change of residence, then Ms E could be engaged by him as X had built up a therapeutic relationship with Ms E.

I felt that Ms E was invested in the outcome which is best for X; respected the role of the Court to make findings of fact, from which a change of residence, although difficult for X, might be the best outcome long term.
DR M
The initial diagnosis by this consultant psychiatrist made in October 2021, had changed, it seems, by the time Dr M “discharged [the child] from my care” on 1 March 2023 with her future needs “better served by local teams”. At March 2023, X was not on any medications.
Earlier on 3 August 2022, Dr M identified that “the nature of the alleged abuse together with [X’s] symptoms at present is in keeping with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) which I believe is her primary diagnosis at present, as opposed to my previous diagnosis of an underlying anxiety disorder”. When referring to the child’s “symptoms”, the mother’s email to the Doctor around 9 June 2022 (Exhibit 8), which detailed X’s “behaviour update” as at 27 May 2022 included statements about:-
(a)Refusal to take medication;
(b)Loss of weight – 2 kilograms in four weeks;
(c)X being “…very irritable and easily frustrated – angry, shouting, hitting things…”;
(d)Bed wetting and sleeping in the mother’s bed;
(e)Will not leave the mother’s side unless hiding under the mother’s bed;
(f)“Highly repetitive, asking same questions and for confirmation over and over and over”;
(g)“Continuing self-harm […]”;
(h)Asking the mother if she will kill herself or will the father kill her, can she kill herself too and come to heaven with the mother;
(i)Does not feel safe away from the mother at anytime;
(j)Started negative self-talk;
(k)Trying to run away from school;
And finally, the mother asserted in her email:
[X] has reported to teacher at school and me recently, that her father was physically violent towards her on several occasions, this seems to be a catalyst to the most recent meltdown based on her hear of being forced to see him after next week.
This email was before the s 93A interview and possible before the mother had attended at the police in mid-2022.
Under examination by the ICL further evidence was given including: -
(a)When the ongoing diagnosis was made in October 2021, he only had the mother’s information and no collateral information although when he spoke with the father on 24 November 2020 his “take on that was different”.
(b)By 3 August 2022, his professional opinion was that X had PTSD, primarily based on the mother’s report that the father had strangled the child, to the point of unconsciousness. This “trauma” triggered a fear of the father and a feeling of fear if she thinks she saw the father.
(c)Without the physical abuse occurring, then PTSD would not be the appropriate diagnosis.
(d)The Doctor opined the separation anxiety relates to the mother, however X initially told him the father ignored her and doesn’t like his yelling.
(e)If there is a change of residence, he would be concerned about a moratorium and it would not be appropriate to completely take away connection with the mother.
Under cross-examination by the father’s Counsel, the further evidence of Dr M included: -
(a)If the Court found that the mother was an unacceptable risk, he would generally recommend a patient to be removed from the “stressor”.
(b)If the father is the “stressor” rather than ceasing connection, it would be appropriate to consider some supervised and controlled time.
(c)It is “tricky” to do any factual investigation, but for the report of 3 August 2022, he accepted the mother’s information that the father had “strangled” the child on multiple occasions. He knew of the “legal battle” and was concerned when he was told visits had stopped.
Under cross-examination by the mother’s Counsel, the further evidence of Dr M included: -
(a)That he was aware X had the benefit of treatment from Dr K and psychological care from Ms E, but he was not getting regular feedback.
(b)That the child expressed a fear of separation from the mother and, at one time, said she was not going to school because “Dad might get me”.
(c)If the child has an embedded memory, however formed, even if fake, that can cause anxiety. He had no evidence that “the memories were implanted”. He prescribed anti-depressant medication to help with her anxiety and some improvement was noted.
(d)By March 2022, consultations occurred over Zoom, which has limitations.
Doing the best he could, Dr M was supporting X, although it seemed to me the primary professional support was Ms E.
At the trial, no evidence of any other psychiatric engagement for X was offered to the Court.
FAMILY REPORT – MS J
Whilst the Court is not bound to adopt or apply significant weight to the opinions of a family report writer (or an expert such as Dr M and Ms E), where a report is founded on evidence ultimately accepted by the Court, such opinions can be highly persuasive.
Ms J, a highly experienced report writer, published her report dated 21 February 2023, arising from documents she identified and after interviews of the father (personally) and the mother and X (via Zoom) on 31 August 2022. There were no formal observations conducted due to X attending electronically. However, in person interviews were also conducted on 28 January 2023 (mother and X) and 30 January 2023 (father) again with no observations of the father with X, because of the different days utilised.
I do not propose to incorporate large portions of the 170 paragraph report in this Judgment as the contents are well known to the parties. In reaching a the initial recommendation (paragraphs 166 to 170), that: X continue to live with the mother; that the father and X engage in joint counselling and that the mother “engage with a counsellor to assist her in managing her own anxious reactions to [X’s] challenges, particularly when [X] reports that she does not feel safe and refused to attend school, or has contact with a person she has perceived as a threat to her”; Ms J made a number of observations and formed a number of professional opinions, some of which I summarise now:-
(a)The mother did not disclose her whereabouts; said she and X were currently in “self‑imposed witness protection” and she felt the police could not protect her (paragraph 5).
(b)It was, accurately reported that the child is currently experiencing “significant mental health issues” (paragraph 24).
(c)The recording of the mother’s interview which is set out at paragraphs 28 to 48, is mostly consistent with the concerns expressed and history set out in her trial affidavit.
(d)The father’s interview is recorded at paragraphs 49 to 78, is mostly consistent with his denials of inappropriate behaviour and his concerns expressed about the mother as set out in his trial affidavit.
(e)The interview of X is recorded at paragraphs 80 to 96. It is not necessary to record all the comments made during the Zoom interview when the child was “teary” and had her support dog present. Some of the quotes included:
(i)Although school had been good “…Dad might take me” (paragraph 81);
(ii)Recalled her parents fighting, which made her feel sad;
(iii)Her father “didn’t understand that I missed Mum”, when spending time with him and she had to have a “meltdown” before her father let her ring the mother (paragraph 83);
(iv)“He choked me and didn’t feed me”, with the choking occurring up to three times a day (paragraph 84);
(v)Alleged the father would tell her not to tell the mother “or he would kill her mother”;
(vi)Concluded the interview on 31 August 2022 by saying “…are we done now? I just want to stay with Mum and not see Dad at all” (paragraph 85);
(vii)When interviewed on 28 January 2023 that “when I went and spent time with Dad I hated leaving Mum. So it wasn’t that Dad was a bad person, but I didn’t like going to Dad’s ‘cos I missed Mum too much” [sic]. She repeated, after his positive comment, that she “began to feel unsafe at Dad’s. He used to choke me sometimes”;
(viii)Dealing with the “hat” incident, the child (at paragraph 90) she said her father was annoyed when she left her school hat in the house and he didn’t speak to her on the way to school;
(ix)At paragraphs 91 to 93 the child spoke about her police interview and that she didn’t tell the police about “the poisoning”;
(x)X could not remember when she saw her father last, stating “it’s been a long time, and I’m really glad I haven’t seen him”. She acknowledged that at some stage in the past she did love her father, but not now. Tearfully she stated “I really don’t want to be made to see him… I hate him. I don’t want to talk to him. I would scream and yell at him the whole time”.
(f)At paragraphs 98 to 141, Ms J found it necessary to provide a comprehensive analysis of the “subpoenaed material” she inspected. The summary appears accurate from at least reports and other documents tendered.
(g)The evaluation at paragraphs 142 to 165 recorded opinions expressed including:
(i)Prior to separation X had spent few nights away from the mother and solely in the fathers care (paragraph 142);
(ii)Both parents had an “anxious disposition” (paragraph 142);
(iii)At paragraph 145:
Once [the father] began to question the mother’s authority in the relationship, conflict ensued and once the conflict became intolerable, they separated. It is likely [the mother] did not like her authority being challenged, and thus saw the [father’s] behaviour as abusive
(iv)The post separation struggle for power and control affected communication. A misunderstanding around Christmas 2019 (paragraph 146) with arrangements being interpreted by the mother as withholding the child from her. On the evidence I find it was a simple misunderstanding, and agree that the event was not a “pervasive pattern utilised by the father to assert power and control” (paragraph 146);
(v)“There is no doubt that X’s anxieties are real to her, and that they overwhelm her, and that they become unmanageable” (paragraph 148);
(vi)At paragraph 149, the father, on reflection, at the second interview, conceded:
…when [X] forgot her hat he had his; “grumpy voice on.” Given the mother’s hypervigilance, it is possible that [the mother’s] reaction to [X] reporting the father “yelling” at her, was exaggerated and that the mother has inadvertently fed into [X’s] anxiety...
I agree with this assessment.
(vii)At paragraph 150, Ms J explores a history which supports her opinions that the mother tends to overact to incidents and that “as long as [the mother’s] reactions to anything negative concerning X are displayed in an inflated manner, this will continue to impact on X’s view of the father” and the child perceive him as a threat to her safety. I agree.
(viii)At paragraph 151, 152 and 155, Ms J gave reasons why the s 93A interview lacks veracity in her opinion, and her concerns about the lack of detail and likely exaggeration around the choking incidents. I agree.
(ix)After separation “[X] could not manage her separation from her mother when spending time with her father” – an issue which “continued to be unresolved, and became unmanageable for [X]” and after harm issues were raised, and time with her father stopped, the “separation anxiety from the mother was resolved” (paragraph 156)
(x)The mother has a highlighted sense of danger and the school notes reveal at times, that she is forthright in her communication and is “prone to exaggerate incidents”. The mother perceives her role as “protector of [X] as paramount” (paragraph 157).
(xi)The parents different parenting styles is well explained by Ms J at paragraph 159. I agree with this assessment.
(xii)At paragraphs 160 to 163, Ms J explains the reasons for her initial recommendations for joint therapy and the need for the mother to undertake counselling to assist the mother “to explore other ways of responding to [X’s] reports of feeling scared, unsafe, unsure of social interactions, and assist in building up [X’s] emotional resilience”. I regard this as an insightful opinion.
(xiii)At paragraph 164, Ms J opined that:
[X] needs to have some positive experiences with her father, where he can recognise and acknowledge her feelings, and [X] can experience feeling heard and understood by the father…
…[X] also needs to experience her father in a way where she can be reassured that he will return her to her mother’s care and that he has not intention of causing her harm.
Ms J’s optimism that though joint therapy, supervised time and then unsupervised time, X’s anxiety will ameliorate to a manageable level, and X could cope with increasing time “with the blessing of her mother” – was established during the trial as more aspirational than realistic in my view. The cross-examination of Ms J required her to give further evidence, which I summarise next about the outcome less optimal, including:
(a)Arising from the published family report, Ms J provided a further letter of advice after receiving questions from the father’s lawyers, (being annexure “[MD]-44” to the affidavit filed 24 August 2023):
In response to your correspondence dated 6 April 2023, and pursuant to Rule 7.26 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law Rules) 2021, I provide the following responses to your questions.
Question 1(a) - Yes, I did consider the father's amended Initiating Application and that he was seeking sole parental responsibility of [X].
Question 1(b) - Yes, I did consider the father's proposal that [X] live with him.
At the time of preparing the family report dated 21 February 2023, I had formed a view that an attempt to mend the rupture between [X] and her father ought to be considered, prior to considering a change of care for [X]. This would also provide the mother with an opportunity to demonstrate whether she is willing and able to support [X] having a relationship with her father.
Question 2(a) - If the Court made findings that the mother had fabricated the allegations of violence and sexual abuse against the father, I would consider that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to [X] remaining in the sole care of her mother.
Question 2 (b) - If the Court made finding that the mother had fabricated the allegations of violence and sexual abuse against the father, it would be my opinion that a false belief that her father is an unsafe person, would be highly detrimental to [X's] emotional and psychological wellbeing. It is my opinion that [X's] relationship with her mother is enmeshed, and she is highly dependent on her mother. [X] also expressed a fear that if she were to see her father, he would not return to her to her mother. Hence, whilst removing her from the environment her mother has created will undoubtedly benefit [X] in the long run, she will nevertheless experience a high level of distress having been removed from her mother and placed into the sole care of her father without appropriate supports. A move into her father's care may reinforce her (false, but nonetheless real) fear of her father not returning her to her mother's care, and this may jeopardise any potential mending of the current rupture in the relationship between [X] and her father.
It is suggested that if the Court orders a change of residence for [X], it must be very carefully managed, and with all relative supports in place both for [X] and [Mr Dever]. It is anticipated that [Ms E] will need to play an integral role in explaining what is happening to [X], and the reasons why. A moratorium will need to apply with respect to the mother, to allow [X] to settle into her father's care, but all assurances must be given to [X] that she will spend time with her mother in due course. This needs to be reinforced and come from her trusted counsellor, [Ms E] and indeed the father.
Question 3(a) - I am aware of the father's proposed plans as outlined in his material, and agree that consultation with [Ms E] and [Dr M] will assist to mitigate the impact on [X] and her needs, should she be placed into the sole care of her father. It will be important that both [Ms E] and [Dr M] are aware of the Court's findings and the reasons for a change to the care of [X].
Question 3(b) - The father's proposal to take leave during [X's] transition into his care, will be paramount, along with a change in his role thereafter, to ensure that he does not require to travel at all.
Question 3 (c) - Calling upon the support of his family (and maternal family) members will be important in order to support [Mr Dever] and [X] during the transition phase.
Question 4 - The allegations that have historically been made, needed to be investigated and the child needed to be interviewed. However, there is a risk that when a child is interviewed repeatedly (by a number of personnel) that the veracity of the evidence is weakened, and is deemed not reliable. There is also a risk of the child being subjected to systems abuse, through repeated interviews with numerous agencies, and thus a risk that the child becomes confused and does not recognise what is the truth. Any further allegations concerning [X], will need to be well scrutinised and caution given to any further interviews of this child.
I trust these comments assist the Court in its determination of this matter.
(As per the original)
At the time of that letter, Ms J had viewed further records and the troubling audio files of the child directed to the father.
(b)She agreed that if the mother has an entrenched view that the father is a risk (and the Court does not do so), then that creates a risk of emotional abuse by the mother.
(c)A change of residence would result in a strong negative reaction from the child who has been in the almost sole care of the mother and with whom the child has a strong bond.
(d)It was highly inappropriate for the mother to engage the child in seeking to identify photographs which exhibited the effects of the alleged choking.
I give weight to the opinions expressed by Ms J.
THE CHILD
Before making findings about the risk associated with each parent, I feel compelled to make an observation of the picture painted of this little girl X from the evidence.
Whilst I accept this child is vulnerable and suffers consistent anxiety, she seems to be a delightful child with much potential. She has a strong, independent and forthright mother who she believes protects her from a “bad father” and schools that don’t understand her or meet her needs. X has had consistent discussions for a long time about events in her life and the mother demonstrates she believes her – never really providing any adult filter or challenging the child. The mother’s attitude and fixed beliefs provided a shield around the child from having to engage with the father. Removing the child from the Region B and hiding as she did was a calculated endeavour by the mother, which had the benefit, to the child, of not having to question her perceptions of past events – which, as I will find, have either not occurred or are grossly embellished. The child is the focus of the mother’s life and the child knows it and, whilst drawing comfort from the cocoon the mother has created around her, X’s separation anxiety has subsided. As I will now ultimately be compelled to discuss, the child’s anxieties are to be tested and explored once again.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
The child would benefit from a meaningful relationship with both parents. She has such a relationship with the mother now – but does not have one with the father. Of course s 60CC(2)(b) must be given greater weight.
Risk Issues – Father
The mother’s affidavit provides evidence of what she says the child has disclosed to her. The mother kept a journal on the advice of Ms E. The ICL, at paragraph 13 of the submissions accurately summarises the nature of the disclosures, and I deal with them sequentially: -
Allegations of choking and/or strangling
(a)It is alleged that the father choked and strangled X. Whilst the s 93A interview records the child’s words, I am confidently satisfied that the child’s performance – for that is what it was from the beginning – is not a truthful account. It not only lacks consistent particularisation but is of such severity that it is not possible for the mother to have been unaware of the both physical and emotional effects of the child at that time – not over 12 months after time ceased when first disclosed. The events leading up to the police interview allowed the child’s story to be shaped in an environment where this anxious little girl must have known of her mother’s support for her and not wanting to be separated from the mother achieved by having no time with the father. The submissions of the father (at paragraphs 103 to 118) are persuasive and I accept them as articulated.
Taking nude photographs
(b)It is possible, despite the father’s denials, that he had taken a photograph of the child smiling and not fully clothed. However there is no evidence to suggest this was a regular occurrence; that he did so for some form of sexual gratification or that he has paedophilic tendencies. The mother’s complete overreaction to the allegation (engaging the father’s employer etc.) strongly suggests she was looking to damage the father’s personal reputation and support her case rather than protect her child.
The father hacking the mother’s computer and telephone
(c)The mother’s beliefs, after investigation by police, reveal they are totally unfounded – as was the mother’s initial suspicions that the father had broken into her home. The mother’s beliefs were, I find, known to the child, only reinforcing the child’s concerns about the father.
Allowing a man to sexual assault X
(d)There is no believable evidenced of anything like X vaguely described occurring – but again the mother gripped a comment from the child and tried to make something of it. She failed.

The mother, I find, has discussed all the allegations about the father with the child consistently – likely to be during period of ongoing therapy with Ms E and certainly leading up to the police interview. I am not satisfied that the mother has coached the child. I am satisfied however that once the child knew that her spending time with the father would have the ultimate effect of her being separated from her mother (even for short times) and she she simply kept repeating allegations which became exaggerated over time. The fact that time ceased and she moved so far away, simply sent a message to X that her mother was protecting her from the father and he was a bad person.
I am satisfied, beginning with the hat incident, that it is likely the father has at times when X was with him, reacted loudly and even angrily. She may have been frightened and he may not have picked this up. The mother’s parenting style is very different. However his anger and frustrations even when accompanied by loud yelling never, on the evidence I accept, reached a level of physical abuse. In this respect, the way the child portrayed the incident of her being hit by wave in the surf, is a quite innocent everyday event. As a little girl, she could well have been frightened, and the father’s robust reaction (or initial inaction) did not comfort the child as she hoped (and as the mother would have likely done). However, this incident has been blown out of all reasonable proportion to fit the narrative the child repeats of an uncaring and uninterested father. I do not agree. He is neither.
In final submissions, Counsel for the mother does not seek a finding that the father is an unacceptable risk to X. Rather, his carefully prepared submissions approach the outcome from how the child living with the father is the worse option and further submits that risk arises from orders being made (refer to paragraphs 147, 154 and 156).
I agree with the submissions of the ICL and the father, and I find, that the father is not an unacceptable risk to X in any way. I find that his parenting style is different to the mother’s style, being the dominant environment where the child has lived now for some years, and that suits the child as she basically gets her own way. The mother supports her negative views of the father and by her attitude does not inhibit the child expressing them to others.
Risk Issues – Mother
I find the mother’s views of the father being a child abuser; a hacker and a person likely to hurt her precious only child are deeply embedded but unfounded. Her therapy with Ms D was not designed, nor has it challenged her belief system. The mother’s evidence in her affidavit and her cross-examination showed no capacity or willingness to change her views and beliefs. When the police did not ultimately support the child’s complaints, the mother saw that as the police failing to protect her and the child. Why she chose to relocate to Town R, a full days drive away, is still a mystery. Her decision to keep the location a secret for so long is concerning and not supported on the evidence. It is the clearest example of the mother’s intentions not to facilitate and encourage a relationship with the father – by making an interaction difficult.
The opinions of Ms E and Ms J support a finding, which I make, that the mother is a risk to this child and is could be causing psychological and emotional harm to the child. She of course rejects such an assertion – pointing to the consistent care she clearly provides the child to meet her physical needs and the intense love she holds for X. But therein lies the problem. This child is being brought up in a home where the child is supported in believing, falsely (in my assessment), that the father is a grave risk to her safety. The mother’s minute of order had the appearance of seeking to support X returning to a relationship with the father but it is doomed to fail.
Both Ms E and Ms J agreed on the long-term negative effect on X and her capacity to form relationships and forge her own identity, if the suffocating and intense exclusive parental style of the mother is the only thing she knows. I agree with those concerning long-term likely effects being a strong possibility.
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
I rely upon but do not repeat earlier findings made, as I now discuss the evidence and competing proposals within the matrix of the relevant s 60CC(3) considerations.
As identified, the child is consistently expressing strong views about not seeing her father. All views expressed by a child must be considered, but the weight to be applied must be assessed by considering the maturity and understanding of the child of the effect their wishes, and the context in which they are expressed. I assess X’s wishes as a clear statement she wishes to remain living with her mother and that she feels unsafe in her father’s care. She dreads being separated from her mother. She knows her views completely align with the mother’s views, which are often, I find, are shared by the mother with the child. X’s views cannot be given determinative weight.
The child is strongly bonded and has a close relationship with the mother, and presently has no real relationship with the father. There is an absence of any evidence (and none tested) as to the support from extended family that each parent can muster. The mother, in particular relishes the role as a simple working mum, without interruption from the father.
The mother has been making all decisions for the child, and since the joint decision about enrolling the child at S School, solely and without consultation with the father. This was not the intent of the Final Parenting Orders. Reflective of the initial demonstrated ability to co-parent (to the end of 2020 at least), the father made child support payments voluntarily. As his time was reduced and then ceased, he reduced his payments—he says because of work issues. Ultimately the mother sought an administrative assessment. I have no current evidence the father is in arrears, but considering the nature of his employment at the time of the trial, I find it is likely his liability is deducted from his wages.
The mother’s choice to move away has created a practical hurdle in facilitating regular physical time between the child and the father, and will be an issue if the child lives with the father and the mother remains living in the Town R area. The mother in her oral evidence, indicated if the child lived with the father in Region B, she would not move back. I find it difficult to accept, but that is her evidence. The nature and conditions of the mother’s employment with “the Government” is somewhat unclear. The mother was less than fulsome in disclosing these particulars, she says again for safety issues.
I have earlier in these reasons made findings about the parents parenting capacity and attitude to parenting.
I am aware of the existence of mutual Protection Orders in force and at the time of the hearing there was no evidence that either party have been the subject of applications alleging a breach of the domestic violence orders.
Two factors which arise on the evidence for careful consideration is the effect of any change to the child’s circumstances and making orders least likely to lead to future proceedings.
The mother’s proposal would not be a significant change for the child. Reintroducing the child to the father with family therapy and then attempts at supervised time (in City T), have on the evidence no prospect of success after the time that has, elapsed, coupled with the mother’s genuine resistance and her fixed views about the father.
The father accepts a change of residence will be very difficult for X. The evidence of all the experts support a finding that the issue needs to be handled carefully and with therapeutic support. It is mere speculation to try and assess how the father, despite his willingness to do so, will manage X’s likely reaction and for how long it will last. The concerns of potential attention seeking, further false or exaggerated complaints by her against the father, and even self-harming are very real concerns. The child has not consistently attended school or enjoyed school. There is no evidence offered to the court as to what challenges she will present, with a change of schooling. The father says he has made tentative arrangements to enrol the child at U School at Suburb V. The father, at the time of the hearing says he has support from his employer and significant leave entitlements, to allow him to devote his energies full time to X adjusting to the change of residence he proposes.
I find, having fought so hard and long for the opportunity to do so, he will do everything in his power to support X and build a trusted relationship with her. He also loves this child intensely, and it is in the child’s best interest that the change of residence occur — but it will not be easy for the father and it will be very difficult for X.
I envisage difficulties in even managing the initial change of residence, I propose to order. The mother could resist every attempt to facilitate the change. I could not discount engaging police via a recovery order, which the mother could avoid by complying with the order I make today. Even with a moratorium of time, X could well act out; seek to run away or cause havoc to demonstrate her resistance to the change. With the existing separation anxiety, acknowledged even by the father, how X’s strong will be reflected in her behaviour is not clear. As a result I could not be satisfied that the parents (and X) will not be engaged in and exposed to further proceedings.
However, that real prospect does not, on balance, compel the Court to take the easy option and leave the child living with the mother with no real prospect of her having a relationship with her father, at least in her infancy.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBLTY
The evidence makes it clear that the parents cannot communicate or consult about major long-term issues. The father, as the resident parent shall have sole parental responsibility, with an obligation to advise the mother within 14 days of any decision he makes on a major long-term issue.
RESIDENCE
The child X should live with the father, against her wishes and even though the change will be difficult. I propose the change occur on Thursday 1 May 2025 with the mother to deliver the child to the father at a place nominated by the father. If it were possible for Ms E to be available to explain the orders to the child on or before that day (or soon thereafter) that would be ideal. The father shall have leave to produce a copy of the Orders made and these Reasons to Ms E.
I have considered the evidence of Dr M that a moratorium of time would be “cruel”. I have considered the views of Ms E that a moratorium should be around six months, so as to give the child time to adjust to and recalibrate her relationship with the father; the change of schooling; and the return to Region B with ease.
Mindful of the diagnosis of separation anxiety, I propose to order a moratorium of time on communication between the child and the mother until the second week of the Term Three schooling term. This will give the child the balance of Term 2 and the June school holidays to settle into her new situation. She will also have an opportunity, with school recommencing after Easter to say her goodbyes.
Frankly, the mothers strident and fixed views are such that I have no real confidence that she will be able to change her beliefs — even with the support of her counsellor Ms D I will permit the mother to produce a copy of these reasons to Ms D, which I believe could assist the mothers therapy by providing a context which I do not believe Ms D has at this time.
After long consideration, on the current evidence, I am not prepared to try and anticipate what orders might be in X’s best interests in spending time with her mother long term and in what manner, for example, because:
(a)If the mother tries to accept the Court’s findings her change of attitude to the child having a relationship with the father might change. This might be assisted by the mother seeing how the child settles in and develops in the father's care (and at school) although this could take some months;
(b)The distance created by the mother’s actions, to relocate is an impediment to frequent time. The mother can consider whether she wishes to move closer to where the child will be living. I am conscious of decision such as Sampson & Harnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365 and about not prescribing the mother to move, in anticipation of a better regime for time, being offered by the Court; and
(c)I am not persuaded that long time supervision of the child’s time with the mother is either sustainable or in the child’s best interests.
For these reasons, the orders I pronounce, which I find are in X’s best interests are a mixture of final orders and interim orders. Unless otherwise removed from these proceedings, I intend to revisit the interim orders made in early September 2025, after some supervised visits have occurred.
Otherwise, I adopt some of the order orders proposed by the ICL and father, and incorporate telephone/video calls after supervised time commences. By the calls occurring on a Thursday, it means the child will speak to her mother on her birthday.
The Orders at the commencement of these Reasons are in X’s best interests at this time.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eleven (111) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann.
Associate:
Dated:            17 April 2025
APPENDIX ONE
MINUTE OF ORDER PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER
Prior Order Discharged
1.        That all previous orders are discharged.
Parental Responsibility
2.      That the Father have sole parental responsibility for the child X born 2013
3.        When making a decision about major long-term issues, the Father must:
3.1      Inform the Mother of the decision to be made;
3.2      Invite written comments from the Mother;
3.3      Consider any comments of the Mother when making the decision; and
3.4      Inform the Mother of the decision made as soon as practical after making the decision.

Living Arrangements
4. That the child live with the Father.
Moratorium of Time
5.That the child not communicate with the Mother for a period of 12 weeks from the date of this Order.
6.That the child spend no time with the Mother for a period of 16 weeks from the date of this Order.

Mother May Provide Gifts/Cards
7.That after the expiration of the time referred to in Order 5 up until the time the child commences spending time with the Mother pursuant to Order 8, the Mother is at liberty to provide gifts/cards to the child on not more than a fortnightly basis provided such gifts/cards are child focused.

Spend Time – If Mother Lives in Region B
8.Where the Mother lives within Region B, and upon the expiration of a period referred to in Order 6, the child spend time with the Mother at all times agreed between the parents and failing agreement as follows:
8.1For a period of 6 weeks for up to 2 hours each Sunday at F Contact Centre and for this purpose:
(a)Both parents shall contact the Contact Centre within 7 days from the date of this Order and arrange to attend an intake appointment.
(b)Both parents shall be responsible for the costs of the intake appointment and thereafter the Mother shall pay the costs of the supervision.
(c)Both parents will comply with the directions of the contact centre at all times.

8.2 From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.1 and for a period of 6 weeks as follows (with such time to continue through school holidays):
(a)From 10am to 2pm each Sunday;
(b)From 10am to 2pm on the child’s birthday;
(c)From 10am to 2pm on Christmas Day;
(d)From 10am to 2pm on Mother’s Day.

8.3From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.2 and for a further 6 weeks as follows (with such time to continue through school holidays)
(a)From 9am to 5pm each Sunday;
(b)From 9am to 1pm on the child’s birthday;
(c)From 9am to 1pm on Christmas Day;
(d)From 9am to 5pm on Mother’s Day.

8.4 From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.3 and for a further period of 6 weeks as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from 9am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday;
(b)From 9am to 1pm on the child’s birthday;
(c)From 9am to 1pm on Christmas Day;
(d)From 9am to 5pm on Mother’s Day.

8.5From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.4 and for a further period of 6 weeks as follows (which such time to continue through school holidays):
(a)Each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday to 5pm Sunday
(b)At the times referred to in Order 10.

8.6From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.5 and for a period of 6 weeks as follows (with such time to continue throughout school holidays):
(a)Each alternate weekend from after school (or 3pm) Friday to the commencement of school (or 9am) Monday; and
(b)At the times referred to in Order 10.

8.7From the expiration of the time referred to in Order 8.6 and for a period of 6 weeks as follows (with such time to continue throughout school holidays):
(a)Each alternate week from after school (or 3pm) on Friday to the commencement of school (or 9am) Wednesday;
(b)At the times referred to in Order 10.

8.8Thereafter, on a week about basis as follows (which such time to continue throughout school holidays):
(a)With the Mother - From after school (or 3pm) on Friday in Week 1 to the commencement of school (or 9am) on Friday in Week 2 and alternately each week thereafter.
(b)With the Father – From after school (or 3pm) on Friday in Week 2 to the commencement of school (or 9am) on Friday in Week 3 and alternately each week thereafter.
(c)At the times referred to in Order 10.

Spend Time – If Mother Does Not Live in Region B
9.Where the Mother lives outside Region B, and upon the expiration of the time referred to in Order 6, the child spend time with the Mother at all times agreed between the parents and failing agreement as follows:
9.1The Mother is at liberty to telephone or facetime the child between the hours of 6:00 to 6:30pm on Wednesday and Sunday each week. For this purpose, the Father will ensure that his mobile telephone is switched on and that the child is available to take the call at these times.
9.2For up to 4 hours on the last Sunday of each month with such visit to occur at F Contact Centre and for this purpose both parents will comply with Orders 8.1(a) to (c).

Special Days
10.That the child spend time and communicate with each parent on the following special days at all times agreed between the parents and failing agreement as follows (and a parents time will otherwise be suspended during these times). To remove any doubt this time will not commence for the Mother until she commences spending time with the child pursuant to order 8.5:
Parent’s Birthdays
10.1If the child is not otherwise in the Mother’s care on the Mother’s birthday, the child spend time with the Mother as follows:
a)if the Mother’s birthday falls on a non-school day from 9am on the Mother’s Birthday to the commencement of school (or 9am) the following day;
b)if the Mother’s birthday falls on a school day from after school on the Mother’s birthday to the commencement of school (or 9am) the following day.

10.2If the child is not otherwise in the Father’s care on the Father’s birthday, the Father spend time with the child as follows:
a)if the Father’s birthday falls on a non-school day from 9am on the Father’s Birthday to the commencement of school (or 9am) the following day;

b)if the Father’s birthday falls on a school day from after school on the Father’s birthday to the commencement of school (or 9am) the following day;

Child’s Birthdays
10.3That the parent that does not have the care of the children on the child’s birthdays spend time with the children as follows:
a)if birthday falls on a non-school day from 3pm on the birthday to the commencement of school (or 9am) the following day;
b)if the birthday falls on a school day from after school to 6pm.

Christmas
10.4That the child spend time with the Father from 9am Christmas Eve to 2pm Christmas Day in odd numbered years and from 2pm Christmas Day to 5pm Boxing Day in even numbered years.
10.5That the child spend time with the Mother from 9am Christmas Eve to 2pm Christmas Day in even numbered years and from 2pm Christmas Day to 5pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years.

Easter
10.6That the child spend time with the Father from 9am Easter Saturday to 2pm Easter Sunday in odd numbered years and from 2pm Easter Sunday to 5pm Easter Monday in even numbered years.
10.7That the child spend time with the Mother from 9am Easter Saturday to 2pm Easter Sunday in even numbered years and from 2pm Easter Sunday to 5pm Easter Monday in odd numbered years.

Mother’s/Father’s Day
10.8That the child spend time with the Mother from 5pm on the day prior to Mother’s Day to the commencement of school (or 9am) on the day following Mother’s Day.
10.9That the child spend time with the Father from 5pm on the day prior to Father’s Day to the commencement of school (or 9am) on the day following Father’s Day.

Telephone
10.10That either parent is at liberty to telephone or facetime the child between the hours of 6:00 to 6:30pm on Wednesday and Sunday each week when the child is in the other parent’s care. For this purpose, both parents will ensure that their mobile telephone is switched on and that the child is available to take the call at these times.

Changeovers
11. Unless otherwise agreed between the parents, changeovers will occur as follows:
11.1If a school day – at the children’s school;
11.2If a non-school day – at F Contact Centre

General Matters
12. That both parents must:
12.1Inform the other of any change of address, telephone number, mobile number or email within 24 hours of such change;
12.2Not denigrate the other parent or their partner or family to or in the presence or hearing of the child;
12.3Not abuse, harass or intimidate the other parent;
12.4Inform the other as soon as reasonably practicable of any serious accident, illness or emergency involving the child and the name of the treating doctor or medical facility.
12.5Not discuss these proceedings with the children nor allow the child to read any document in these proceedings.
12.6Not discuss changes or variations to these Orders with the child or in the presence of the child.
12.7Not physically discipline the child.

School/Extra-Curricular
13.That following time commencing pursuant to Order 8.5, both parents are at liberty to attend any school, sporting or extra-curricular event that the child is involved in.
14.That neither parent will discuss any changes to these Orders with the other parent or the child during changeovers or at any school, sporting or extra-curricular event.

Communication
15.That both parents will communicate using the Talking Parent app and for this purpose both parents will within 7 days from the date of this order download and register for the app.

Travel
Within Australia
16.That should either parent wish to travel with the child more than 300km from the parent’s residential address but within Australia, they must provide to the other parent at least 5 days prior to any travel the following:
a)a detailed copy of itinerary for the trip including the dates of travel, the addresses of each place where the child will be staying and a contact phone number;
b)If the child will be travelling by plane or rail a copy of the return ticket.

Overseas
17.That should either parent wish to travel with the child overseas they must provide to the other parent at least 3 months prior to any travel the following:
a)A detailed copy of itinerary for the trip including the dates of travel, the addresses of each place where the child will be staying and a contact phone number;
b)A copy of return airflight ticket for the child;

c) Details of any internal flight tickets whilst travelling;
18.That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parents, the travelling parent must:
a)Ensure that the child contact the other parent at least once every second day during the travel;
b)Ensure the child only travel to countries that are signatory to the Hague Convention;
c)Ensure the child does not travel to countries where there is a travel warning above level 1 (exercise normal precautions).
d)Only travel during times when the child is ordinarily in their care.

19.That both parents will do all things reasonably required to ensure the child holds a current passport upon being notified that a parent wishes to travel with the child overseas and the cost of such passport is to be shared equally between the parents.
20.That the child’s passport will be held by the Father.
21.That upon the Mother providing the items in Order 17 above, the Father will release the child’s passport to the Mother. At the conclusion of the Mother’s travel, the Mother will return the child’s passports to the Father within 14 days of returning to Australia.

Counselling - Child
22.That the child attend upon a registered psychologist Ms W at such times recommended by the psychologist with the cost to be shared equally by the parents.
23.For the purpose of Order 22, the Father will obtain a referral from the child’s general treating medical practitioner within 7 days from the date of this Order and forthwith make an appointment as soon as available.
24.That the Father provide a copy of this Order and the Reasons for Judgement to the psychologist appointed pursuant to Order 22 at least 7 days prior to the date of the first consultation.

Counselling - Mother
25.That the Mother attend upon a registered psychologist nominated by her general treating medical practitioner at such times recommended by her psychologist but not less than 10 sessions (on either a weekly or fortnightly basis) with the cost to be paid by the Mother.
26.For the purpose of Order 25, the Mother will obtain a referral from her general treating medical practitioner within 7 days from the date of this Order and then forthwith make an appointment with the psychologist as soon as available.
27.That the Mother provide a copy of this Order and the Reasons for Judgement to her psychologist at least 7 days prior to the date of her first consultation.
28.That the Mother will provide to the Father the name and address of the psychologist, the dates of her appointments with her psychologist and confirmation from her psychologist that she has complied with Order 25 and 27.

ICL and Family Consultant to Explain Orders
29.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer together with a Family Consultant of the Court explain these Orders to the child.

NOTATION:
A.Pursuant to Section 65DA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders are set out in “Parenting Orders – obligations, consequences and who can help” and these particulars are included in these Orders.

File number(s):	BRC 9850 of 2019
Judgment of:	BAUMANN J
Date of judgment:	17 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – CONTESTED RESIDENCE – Where final orders were made by the Court in 2019 for regular time and equal shared responsibility – Where time has not occurred between the father and child since March 2021 due to the child allegedly expressing reluctance to spend time with the father – Where the mother and child unilaterally relocated approximately 1,000 kilometres from their usual place of residence – Where the mother asserts the child has made disclosures that the father has both physically and sexually abused her – Where father asserts the mother is an emotional risk to the child and seeks a change of residence – Final Orders made for the child to live with the father – Interim Orders made for a moratorium of time following which the child will spend supervised time with the mother
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA
Cases cited:	Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-092 Sampson & Harnett (No 10) [2007] FamCA 1365
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	111
Date of last submission/s:	3 November 2023
Date of hearing:	4 - 6 and 29 September 2023
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Alexander and Ms A Burke
Solicitor for the Applicant:	McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr A Collins
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Statewide Family Law
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms A Hellewell
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Smithson Lawyers

BRC 9850 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR DEVER Applicant
AND:	MS SERANO Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 APRIL 2025