English & Eklund - [2022] FedCFamC1F 621

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 1)
English & Eklund [2022] FedCFamC1F 621

File number(s): PAC 3379 of 2019

Judgment of: HANNAM J

Date of judgment: 24 August 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Where substantial agreement reached about child’s living arrangements and exercise of parental responsibility and the ambit of the dispute centred on the child’s relationship with the father and how the Court is to approach her time with him on a final basis - Where each parent’s parental capacity, their interactions with the child and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s alleged complex needs also considered - Where there is evidence to suggest that the mother was a gatekeeper in relation to most aspects of the child’s lifestyle including her diet and relationship with the father - Where concerns held by each parent about the other parent’s attitude and actions towards the child’s health and overall care were not elevated to matters of unacceptable risk of harm arising from abuse or neglect from which the child requires protection - Where expert gave strong opinions and recommendations about the need to re-establish the child’s relationship with the father - Where expert also expressed views and made recommendations regarding child’s state of health and health regime - Where final orders proposed by the ICL and supported by the father are in the child’s best interests as it accords with expert evidence - Orders made accordingly.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65D

Cases cited: Chapman and Palmer (1978) FLC 90 – 510
English & Eklund [2021] FamCA 89
Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102
Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518
McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 217

Date of last submission/s: 9 June 2022

Date of hearing: 23 – 26 May 2022

Place: Parramatta

Solicitor for the Applicant Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent Mr Tockar

Solicitor for the Respondent Genlaw Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Ms Druitt

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer Legal Aid NSW

ORDERS

PAC 3379 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR ENGLISH

Applicant

AND:
MS EKLUND

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

HANNAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 August 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders in relation to the child X born in 2012 (“the child”) are discharged.
2.The parents are to hold equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
3.The child is to live with the mother.

Child’s time with the father
4.From the date of these orders until the commencement of Order (7), the child is to spend time with the father as agreed in writing between the parents, and in default of agreement as follows:
(a)Each alternate Sunday from 9am until 5pm for a period of six weeks;
(b)From the conclusion of Order (4)(a), each alternate weekend on Saturday from 9am to 5pm and Sunday from 9am to 5pm for a period of six weeks with the child to spend time in the overnight period from 5pm Saturday until 9am Sunday in the company of the paternal aunt Ms E at a location other than the father’s home;
(c)From the conclusion of Order (4)(b), each alternate weekend on Saturday from 9am to 5pm and Sunday from 9am to 5pm for a period of six weeks with the child to spend time in the overnight period from 5pm Saturday until 9am Sunday in the company of Ms E with the father to be at liberty to also stay overnight at the location of overnight;
(d)From the conclusion of Order (4)(c), each alternate weekend on Saturday from 9am to 5pm and Sunday from 9am to 5pm for a period of six weeks with the child to spend time in the overnight period from 5pm Saturday until 9am Sunday in the company of Ms E at the father’s place of residence.
(e)On Father’s Day in 2022 from 9am until 5pm;
(f)On Christmas Eve in 2022 from 9am until 5pm;
(g)Such other times as agreed.

5.For the purposes of Order (4) above:
(a)The child’s time with the father is to occur in the presence of Ms E and in the presence of the child’s paternal cousin (“Y”), where the attendance of Y can be facilitated by Ms E.
(b)The child’s time with the father is to occur at such location as agreed between the father and Ms E, providing that time pursuant to Orders (4)(b) and (4)(c) does not occur at the father’s place of residence.
(c)Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, Ms E is to be present at changeover at the beginning and end of the child’s time with the father.

6.Notwithstanding Order (4), the child’s time with the father is to be suspended and the child is instead to live with the mother from 9am until 5pm on Christmas Day in 2022.
7.Upon the conclusion of time pursuant to Order (4), the child is to spend time with the father as agreed in writing between the parents and in default of agreement as follows:
(a)Each alternate weekend from 9am Saturday until 5pm Sunday;
(i)For the Term 4, 2023 school holiday period, the child’s alternate weekend time with the father shall extend to 9am Saturday until 9am Monday.
(ii)For the Term 1, 2024 school holiday period, the child’s alternate weekend time with the father shall extend to 9am Saturday until 5pm Monday.
(iii)For the Term 2, 2024 school holiday period, the child’s alternate weekend time with the father shall extend to 9am Saturday until 5pm Tuesday.
(iv)For the Term 3, 2024 school holiday period, the child’s alternate weekend time with the father shall extend to 5pm Friday until 5pm Tuesday.
(v)For the Term 4, 2024 school holiday period and each school holiday thereafter, the child’s alternate weekend time with the father shall extend to 5pm Friday to 5pm Wednesday.

(b)On the child’s birthday from 3pm until 5.30pm if a school day, and from 3pm until 8pm if a non-school day;
(c)On Father’s Day from 9am until 5pm;
(d)On Easter Sunday in 2023 from 9am until 5pm;
(e)On Christmas Day in 2023 from 9am until 5pm;
(f)On Easter Saturday in 2024 from 9am until 5pm;
(g)On Christmas Eve in 2024 from 9am until 5pm;
(h)In odd numbered years beginning in 2025:
(i)From 5pm Christmas Day until 5pm Boxing Day; and
(ii)From 9am Sunday until 5pm Monday on the Easter weekend.

(i)In even numbered years beginning in 2026:
(i)From 5pm Christmas Eve until 5pm Christmas Day; and
(ii)From 9am Friday until 5pm Saturday on the Easter weekend.

(j)Such other times as agreed.

8.Notwithstanding Order (7), the child’s time with the father is suspended and the child is to instead live with the mother:
(a)On the child’s birthday from 5.30pm until 8pm if a school day, and from 10am until 3pm if a non-school day;
(b)From 9am until 5pm on Mother’s Day;
(c)On Easter Saturday in 2023 from 9am until 5pm;
(d)On Christmas Eve in 2023 from 9am until 5pm;
(e)On Easter Sunday in 2024 from 9am until 5pm;
(f)On Christmas Day in 2024 from 9am until 5pm;
(g)In odd numbered years beginning in 2025:
(i)From 5pm Christmas Eve until 5pm Christmas Day; and
(ii)From 9am Friday until 5pm Saturday on the Easter weekend.

(h)In even numbered years beginning in 2026:
(i)From 5pm Christmas Day until 5pm Boxing Day; and
(ii)From 9am Sunday until 5pm Monday on the Easter weekend.

(i)Such other times as agreed.

9.Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, changeover is to occur at Handover Location C.

Telephone/video communication
10.The father is at liberty to communicate with the child by telephone or video call on each Sunday that the child does not spend time with him pursuant to these orders. For the purposes of facilitating these calls, the father is to phone the mother’s nominated phone number between 7.30pm and 8.00pm and:
(a)The mother is to ensure that the child is available to take the father’s call;
(b)The mother is to ensure that her phone is fully charged; and
(c)The mother is to ensure that the child is able to receive the phone call without undue interference and in a private and quiet environment.

11.Each parent is to do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate any reasonable request made by the child to communicate with the other parent by telephone or video, including providing the child with a device from which to place such a call and ensuring the child is able to participate in the call without undue interference and in a private and quiet environment.

Health care and education
12.In the event the child suffers a medical condition, accident or emergency which requires emergency, ongoing or specialist care or hospitalisation, the parent with whom the child is living or spending time at such time is to as soon as practicable and by no later than within 24 hours:
(a)Inform the other parent in writing of the nature of such circumstances including any diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plan;
(b)Authorise any health care practitioner who may assess or treat the child to communicate with and provide information to the other parent in relation to the child’s health care and provide the other parent’s contact details to facilitate such communication;
(c)Provide the other parent with the name and contact details for any health care practitioner.

13.Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, and subject to 13(b) below, in the event the child requires assessment, treatment or referral from a general practitioner, including in relation to any referral to a paediatrician or other specialist practitioner, such presentation and engagement is to be made with Dr D of Medical Centre F.
(a)In the event Dr D is unavailable to assist, the parents are to facilitate the child’s attendance upon the next available practitioner at the same practice or in the event no other practitioner is available, such practitioner as recommended by Dr D or in her absence, by her practice.
(b)In the event Dr D’s practice is closed and the parents are unable to make contact with Dr D or her practice at the time the medical attention for the child is required from a general practitioner, unless otherwise agreed, the parent with whom the child is living or spending time is to nominate three (3) practitioners from whom the other parent is to select the practitioner to be attended upon. The practitioner selected is authorised and directed to provide to Dr D written confirmation of any treatment, diagnosis and prognosis they have reached in relation to the child within three (3) business days.

14.Each parent is to comply with any treatment plan, including the issue of medications and compliance with any dietary plan, issued to the parents by health care practitioners engaged pursuant to these orders in respect of the child.
(a)In the event of any disagreement between the parents in relation to the interpretation or application of any such treatment plan, the parents are to seek the direction or recommendation of Dr D or such alternate practitioner as engaged pursuant to Order 13.

Information-sharing and communication between the parents
15.Within 48 hours from the making of orders, each parent is to advise the other parent in writing of their current residential address, nominated mobile telephone number and email address, and shall advise one another in writing within 48 hours of any change to such details.
16.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents, for the purposes of communicating in relation to matters pertaining to the child’s parenting arrangements, care, welfare and developments, the parents are to communicate:
(a)By telephone call in the case of imminent medical emergency;
(b)By text message for matters that are required to be brought to the other parents’ attention within 72 hours; and
(c)By email for all other matters.

17.Each parent is authorised to obtain directly from the child’s school at their own expense a copy of all documents and information ordinarily made available to parents, including but not limited to school reports, school photo order forms, newsletters, progress reports and invitations to parent teacher interviews and school events.

Attendance at child’s events and restraints on parties
18.Each parent is at liberty to attend school functions and events, and extracurricular activities to which parents are entitled or invited to attend regardless of whether the child is to live with or spend time with them pursuant to these orders at the time of the function or event.
(a)Unless otherwise agreed between the parents, the parent with whom the child is living or spending time at the time of such function, event or activity is responsible for facilitating the child’s preparation and participation in such function, event or activity.

19.Each parent is restrained from:
(a)Discussing these proceedings or allegations raised in these proceedings with or in the presence or hearing of the child, except as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate compliance with these orders or the child’s attendance for court-ordered appointments, or to facilitate the child meeting or communicating with the Independent Children’s Lawyer;
(b)Denigrating one another, or members of the other parent’s families or households in the child’s presence or hearing, and are to remove the child from the presence or hearing of any third person who does so;
(c)Enrolling the child in any additional hobby or activity where such activity would require each parent to facilitate the child’s participation in such hobby or activity from time to time, unless with the consent of the other parent.
(i)The parents agree that the child is to continue her current enrolment in hobby activities.
(ii)Order 19(c) does not preclude either parent from enrolling the child in any activity which requires participation only during times the child is living or spending time with that parent.

(d)Attending at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the other parent’s place of residence unless with the other parent’s express written consent or in the case of imminent emergency directly impacting upon the child.
(e)Enrolling the child in any educational institution, health care provider or extracurricular activity by any name other than “X”.

20.The mother is restrained from:
(a)Causing the child to be examined or interviewed in relation to alleged sexual abuse or harm unless:
(i)With the father’s consent to same; or
(ii)At the direction of the Department of Communities and Justice or NSW Police.

(b)Causing the child to attend upon, receive treatment or be assessed by Ms G, Clinical Psychologist, or Dr H, Paediatrician.

Passport and travel
21.Each parent is to do all things necessary and sign all documents necessary and pay one half share of any fees for the renewal of the child’s passport.
22.In the event that either parent seeks to travel with the child on a holiday outside the Commonwealth of Australia, that parent is to:
(a)Not less than 28 days prior to the departure date of the proposed trip, provide to the other parent written notice of the country or countries to be visited, together with a period of such trip including departure and return dates to the Commonwealth of Australia.
(b)At least 10 days prior to departure, provide the other party with a final itinerary, including contact phone numbers and full street addresses of where the child will be staying, together with copies of airline tickets/e-tickets.
(c)Unless otherwise agreed in writing, travel only to and within countries that are signatory to the Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed in the Hague on 25 October 1980;

23.The mother is to hold the child’s passport until the child attains the age of 18 years. If the father makes a written request to the mother for the child’s passport to be released to him for the purposes of overseas travel in compliance with any orders:
(a)The mother must not unreasonably hold the child’s passport in such circumstances and must provide the child’s passport to the father within 10 days of a written request to receive the child’s passport.
(b)The father is to return the child’s passport to the mother within 48 hours of return to Australia.

Family therapy and dispute resolution
24.The parents are to continue to engage in family therapy with Dr J or such other therapist engaged pursuant to Orders dated 26 May 2022 (“the family therapist”) and do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate the child’s engagement with the family therapist until such time as the family therapist recommends or directs that engagement cease.
25.In the event the family therapist recommends the parents or either of them, or the child, engage in an additional or alternative course of therapy, program or group, each parent is to do all things reasonably necessary to facilitate such engagement in the manner and time frame recommended by the family therapist.
26.No sooner than in 2025 the parents are to participate in Family Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) with an accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (“FDRP”) for the purposes of seeking to reach agreement in relation to further increases to the child’s time with the father:
(a)In the absence of agreement regarding the FDRP, the initiating parent is to nominate at least three practitioners from whom the other parent is to select the FDRP;
(b)The parents are to give all consents and provide any authority necessary to permit the FDRP and family therapist to communicate with one another in order to assist the parents to consider any recommendations of the family therapist in their discussions at FDR.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym English & Eklund has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HANNAM J:
INTRODUCTION

These proceedings concern the future parenting arrangements for a little girl who will soon be 10 years old (“the child”). She is the only child of the parties (“the mother” and “the father”).
The final hearing of the parental dispute proceeded over four days commencing 23 May 2022, in which the father was self-represented and the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer appointed to the proceedings (“ICL”) were both represented by counsel.
Some factual disputes between the parties fell away in the course of the hearing including in particular historical allegations made by the mother that the father had sexually abused the child in the past or otherwise posed a risk of harm to her.

Ultimately, the parties (noting that the father adopted the ICL’s proposal in its entirety) reached substantial agreement in relation to orders that they equally share parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother and initially spend time with the father for four hours each alternate Sunday outside of the father’s home and in the presence of the paternal aunt. At the conclusion of the hearing, orders were made with the consent of the parties in these terms pending final judgment.
While the parties are also in agreement about the child’s time with the father increasing to reach an endpoint of alternate weekends in his care without the paternal aunt present, they remain in dispute about the speed at which different increments of time are to occur and the circumstances for the child during those increments.
In essence, the mother’s proposal would see the child’s time with the father reach its endpoint of being unsupervised and occurring each alternate weekend only after 12 months. The ICL, with whom the father agrees, proposes that this arrangement be achieved within a period of eight months. The mother argues that a slower progression of time is in the child’s best interests having regard to the limited time the child has spent time with the father since the parties’ separation and concerns about the father’s capacity to meet the child’s health needs which she contends have become a serious feature in the child’s life. The ICL insists that the quicker time frame is more consistent with the regime of time recommended by the expert.
Other discrete issues about which the parties cannot also agree relate to the child’s time with the father during school holidays, a treatment plan in relation to the child’s health and a change in the child’s surname. The mother seeks an order that the child’s time with the father during school holidays be significantly more limited than the ICL’s proposal of extended time with him each alternate weekend. The mother also seeks that the parties comply with a treatment plan in terms which are currently being followed, rather than as may be recommended by a nominated medical practitioner as proposed by the ICL. It is also the mother’s proposal that the child’s surname be hyphenated to include the maternal surname, which the ICL opposes.
The question for me to determine is which of the proposals submitted by the mother and the ICL (supported by the father) respectively, is proper having regard to the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration.
BACKGROUND
Much of the relevant background to the proceedings including circumstances of the parties’ relationship and separation is canvassed in an earlier judgment delivered on 26 February 2021 (“the February 2021 Judgment”)[1]. That judgment concerns interim orders that the child live with the mother and spend time with the father each alternate Sunday supervised by a contact service (“the February 2021 interim orders”). The February 2021 Judgment is incorporated into and to be read with these Reasons.
[1] English & Eklund [2021] FamCA 89.
Assuming familiarity with the February 2021 Judgment, it suffices to say that the mother and father who are in their 40s met in 2005 and began living together in the following year. At that time the mother had another child from a previous relationship who formed part of her household. In 2012, the only child of the parties’ relationship was born.
In August 2015 the parties separated and a few months later the mother began a new relationship, though she continued living in the family home. The mother then discontinued the new relationship and reconciled with the father in late 2015. At around this time, the parties observed that the child was frequently suffering with diarrhoea and stomach cramps and a general practitioner and dietician were of the view that the child was suffering from food allergies and recommended that she follow a more limited diet. It is also the mother’s assertion that around this time the child began exhibiting concerning behaviour in settings such as at childcare.
The parties separated on a final basis in January 2017 but both initially continued living in the family home. The mother moved to a new home a few months after separation, taking both of her children with her.
Following separation, the parties reached agreement for the child to spend time with the father each alternate weekend and half of each holiday period. However, there is no dispute that despite this arrangement there were ongoing disagreements between the parties regarding the child’s diet and the mother’s contentions about the child’s ill-health. The child was exposed to significant conflict between the parents particularly at changeover.
In around mid-2017 the mother began a relationship with a new partner. Shortly thereafter, when the child was almost five the mother ceased making the child available to spend time with the father.
From around this time, the mother began taking the child to a range of health professionals and practitioners in relation to concerns about the child’s physical health, and in particular her diet.
From mid-2017 there were lengthy periods of time in which the child spent no time with the father, including from around July to December that year.
The parties then reached agreement about the child’s parenting arrangements which was embodied in a parenting plan but this was often not adhered to.
It is generally the mother’s case that the child continued to experience behavioural and health difficulties which the mother connects to the child’s time with the father. The father contends that the child appeared to enjoy her time with him and disputes the severity of the child’s physical symptoms.
The pattern of care with the mother effectively being the gatekeeper for the child’s time with the father continued throughout 2018 and 2019. In early 2019, the child had a total period of five months without contact with the father. It is the mother’s case that the child’s health, behaviour and concentration improved dramatically when not spending time with him.
The father commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court (as it was then known) in July 2019 seeking parenting orders largely in accordance with the parties’ previous agreement.
In September 2019 a judge in the Federal Circuit Court made orders that the child live with the mother and spend time with the father for two hours twice per month (with the time to occur in a public place) until February 2020 when I understand that there was to be a hearing in relation to interim orders.
The mother continued to present the child to various health professionals in an effort to gain an understanding about her claimed concerns about the child’s health and behaviour. One of the professionals consulted by the mother was a psychologist.
In early 2020 when the child was to spend time with the father on the last occasion pursuant to interim orders in place at the time, the mother did not make the child available. At around this time, a notification in relation to sexual abuse was made to the Department now known as Communities and Justice (“the Department”). An investigation was undertaken by the Child Abuse Unit into this notification, including an interview with the child by police attached to that unit. The father was also interviewed by police in the course of this investigation. Ultimately, the complaint was not substantiated and no further action was taken by police or the Department in respect of the matter.
In April 2020 when the interim hearing had been listed in the Federal Circuit Court the proceedings were transferred to this Court for consideration of placement in the Magellan program.[2]
[2] The Magellan program is a fast–track case management program in the Family Court that deals with serious allegations of physical and sexual child abuse.
In May 2020 the child was diagnosed with “Autism Spectrum Disorder” (“ASD”) by her treating psychologist.
On 15 October 2020 the father’s application for interim orders was heard and judgment reserved.
As can be seen from the foregoing background one matter that has assumed particular significance in the proceedings and has impacted the mother’s willingness to facilitate the child’s time with the father over the years, relates to serious health problems that the mother claims are experienced by the child. From early in the child’s life the mother has presented the child to a multiplicity of health and medical professionals in an effort to obtain a diagnosis in relation to the child’s alleged health problems.
In addition to being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, the mother maintains that the child has particular food intolerances and chemical sensitivities which require that the child adhere to a strict dietary regime. The mother raises concerns about the father’s approach to the child’s needs in this regard, complaining that he has seriously neglected the child’s wellbeing and continues to be dismissive of her health issues. She alleges that various aspects of the child’s presentation over many years including incidents of faecal soiling and other behavioural difficulties stemmed from the child spending time in the father’s household.
It had also been the mother’s case (which the father has at all times denied) that the child was at risk of sexual abuse in the father’s care based on disclosures said to have been made by the child of being inappropriately touched and photographed by the father. This matter featured in the February 2021 Judgment to a great extent but was not pursued by the mother at final hearing.
Ultimately, the ambit of the dispute at the final hearing centred on the child’s relationship with the father and how the Court is to approach her time with him on a final basis. There was also some focus on each parent’s parental capacity, their interactions with the child and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s alleged complex needs.
Key events prior to final hearing
The family was assessed by an expert appointed to the proceedings in March 2021 and a report was prepared by the expert as ordered.
That report (“the expert’s report”)[3] had been ordered at a time when the child was not spending any time with the father. The expert opinion was sought on various matters concerning the child’s welfare including (but not limited to):
·whether the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence;
·the nature of the child’s relationship with each of her parents; and
·Whether or not the child has any emotional, developmental, health or mental health issues or special needs that need to be addressed and if so, what treatment or therapy is recommended.
Pursuant to the terms of her appointment, the expert was also asked to consider allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother against the father which were, at that time, a live issue.
[3] Exhibit 13.
The expert’s report was released to the parties on 20 August 2021, a few months following the delivery of the February 2021 Judgment. A more detailed summary of the expert’s opinion and recommendations contained in that report is given later in these Reasons.
It suffices to say for the purposes of providing background that the expert considered it was highly unlikely that the father perpetrated sexual abuse towards the child and that the child is not at risk of future harm arising from sexual abuse in his care. The expert was mainly concerned about the child’s exposure to chronic, unresolved conflict between the parents and in particular, tensions between the parents arising from the child’s diet which the expert opined were a “stressor” for large parts of the child’s life.
The expert also assessed that the mother’s past actions in failing to make the child available to spend time with the father amounted to an undermining of the child’s relationship with the father and went on to recommend that the relationship between the child and the father be rebuilt. The expert ultimately concluded that the child could continue living primarily with the mother so long as the mother facilitates the child’s time with the father to enable that relationship to redevelop.
Shortly after the release of the expert report, on 21 October 2021 the father amended his application for final orders. He sought orders for the parents to hold equal shared parental responsibility for the child and for the child to live with the mother and spend time with him each alternate weekend and one afternoon after school in the “off”-week. Various restraints on the mother were also sought by the father, including from presenting the child to a named psychologist for treatment and enrolling the child in extracurricular activities without his consent.
On 5 November 2021 the mother also amended her Response. She sought final orders that she hold sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with her and spend time with the father for four hours each alternate Sunday as had been the regime of time provided for under the February 2021 interim orders. The mother also sought orders that the child’s time with the father be supervised by a named paternal aunt (with a paternal cousin to also be present during the child’s time), and that the father be restrained from taking the child to his home during these contact events.
By the time the matter proceeded to final hearing in May 2022 the child had still not spent time with the father pursuant to the February 2021 interim orders with the exception of one brief occasion in December 2021.
It is the father’s case that he had limited financial capacity to meet the costs of supervision of the child’s time with him following the making of interim orders. Although he tried to organise for an alternate contact service to supervise that time with him, that alternate contact service refused to provide their services on the basis of safety concerns arising from the previous allegations that he had sexually abused the child.
While no significant time ever took place between the child and the father between February 2021 and early 2022, both parents refer to two separate occasions during this period when the father attended public shows where the child had competed in sports events. The mother complained that by attending at these shows the father breached interim orders restricting him from attending any location at which the child was participating in an extracurricular activity absent agreement between the parties. The father maintained that he was unaware that the child would be present at these shows on those specific days and deposed that his attendance at the second show in particular was for business purposes.
Other than alleging that the above-mentioned incidents caused the child to become anxious and distressed (consistent with the overall tenor of her case that the child is severely unsettled after contact with the father), the mother did not take these matters any further such as by commencing Contravention proceedings.
Otherwise, the only other form of contact the child had with the father in the months preceding the final hearing is some scheduled telephone conversations. It appears to be common ground between the parties, however, that this electronic contact took place intermittently and at one point in late 2021 became unworkable due to clashes with the child’s extracurricular commitments.
The final hearing
The final hearing was set down for four days commencing 23 May 2022.
At the hearing, including under cross-examination, the mother remained staunch in her position that the child’s physical contact with the father (however limited) has precipitated the child exhibiting “serious physical and emotional reactions” including faecal incontinence, stomach cramps, emotional distress and other behavioural problems. For much of the hearing the mother continued to seek orders[4] that she hold sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child’s time with the father be limited to a few hours on alternate Sundays and only increase by a few hours when the child reaches the age of 13. Her main argument was that the child’s relationship with the father requires “very careful and sensitive rebuilding”.
[4] See Case Outline filed 17 May 2022; Exhibit 2
The father represented himself at the hearing and initially pressed the final orders sought in his Amended Initiating Application that the child live with the mother and spend substantial and significant time with him. He continued to deny all allegations raised by the mother and took the position in his Case Outline[5] that since separation he has maintained his parental obligations to the child but the mother has continued to undermine the child’s relationship with him and that such continued negative influence detrimentally affects the child’s emotional and social development.
[5] Filed 20 May 2022; Exhibit 1.
The ICL indicated in her Case Outline[6] that she could not formulate a position on final orders prior to the evidence being heard.
[6] Filed 17 May 2022.
In the course of the final hearing, both parents were cross-examined and neither of them resiled significantly from their respective cases. The mother’s current de facto partner who filed an affidavit in the proceedings was also briefly cross-examined.
On the third day of hearing, the expert was cross-examined and generally maintained her opinions and recommendations, which is a matter to which I will return.
On the last day of the hearing, 26 May 2022, the paternal aunt who had filed an affidavit in the proceedings in support of the father’s case was also cross-examined. This witness gave oral evidence that she was willing and available to be present at future contact events between the child and the father, should orders be made for the child to spend time with him.
Towards the close of the evidence on the final day, the ICL provided to the Court a Minute of Proposed Orders (“the ICL’s final proposal”)[7] in which the ICL proposed that the parents equally share parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother and spend increasing time with the father graduating within eight months to unsupervised alternate weekends in his care.
[7] Exhibit 19.
The father subsequently indicated to the Court that he agreed with the entirety of the ICL’s proposal and no longer sought orders as he originally proposed.
The mother similarly shifted her position at the conclusion of the hearing and a final Minute of Order[8] was tendered on her behalf. In that final Minute of Order the mother seeks orders that the parents equally share parental responsibility for the child and that the child continue to live with her and spend gradually increasing time with the father initially in the presence of the paternal aunt for 12 months and that the child then commence spending unsupervised time with the father each alternate weekend.
[8] Exhibit 23.
In summary, it had become clear in the course of the hearing that there was substantial agreement about the child’s living arrangements and regarding parental responsibility.
While the parties and the ICL also agreed that the child should commence spending time with the father each alternate Sunday for four hours with the paternal aunt present,[9] they remained in dispute about the speed at which the child’s time with the father would progress to the final arrangement of unsupervised alternate weekends in his care.
[9] Albeit that on the mother’s proposal this was to occur for a period of 12 weeks while on the ICL’s proposal this was to occur for only eight weeks.
Other differences in the parties’ respective proposals related to discrete issues such as the child’s time with the father during school holidays, the parents’ compliance with treatment plans in relation to the child’s health and a change in the child’s surname.

I directed the parties to file written submissions addressing these matters that remained in dispute and indicated that upon receipt of those submissions judgment would be reserved.
Before adjourning the matter indefinitely I made orders with the consent of the parties pending final judgment (“the 2022 interim orders”) that the parents equally share parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother.
The parents also agreed to orders restraining each of them from discussing the proceedings with the child, denigrating one another, or enrolling the child in any additional hobby or activity without the consent of the other parent. They also agreed to restraints on the mother from causing the child to be examined or interviewed in relation to alleged sexual abuse and to receive treatment or be assessed by named medical professionals who were previously involved with the child.
As the parties and ICL were in substantial agreement that the child’s initial time the father should occur as agreed in writing and in default of agreement each alternate Sunday for four hours in the presence of the paternal aunt, an interim order in those terms was also made by consent. The child’s first Sunday with the father was to commence almost immediately thereafter.
Given the history of the parental dispute, and with a view to progressing the reintroduction of the father in the child’s life, I made a further order that prior to the child’s interim time with the father commencing, the mother furnish to the father a document containing the current diet for the child and that the father ensure that when the child is spending time with him pursuant to the 2022 interim orders, she is not to consume any food other than as listed in that document. I made it clear that it was not to be assumed that an order in similar terms would be made on a final basis.
I also gave liberty to the ICL to list the proceedings before me on short notice in the event that the child did not spend time with the father in accordance with those interim orders for any reason.
Finally, each of the parents also agreed to engage with a family therapist to assist them in their co-parenting relationship, particularly in the exercise of shared parental responsibility, and to support them in facilitating the child’s re-integration into the father’s household.
By 9 June 2022, a few days after the child spent her first Sunday with the father pursuant to the 2022 interim orders, the parties and the ICL filed directly to chambers their respective final written submissions and judgment was reserved.
It should be noted that when making the 2022 interim orders I indicated in interchange with the father and legal representatives that I anticipated that I would deliver final judgment within eight weeks. Due to the judicial resources available to this Court and in particular this registry, final judgment could not be delivered within the anticipated time-frame.
In my view, however, the ‘delay’ of a few weeks in making final orders does not prejudice either party or the child given that on both proposals there is a general agreement between the parties and the ICL that it is in the child’s best interests for her to spend increasing time with the father over the next few months.
In other words, I do not consider that a slight continuation of the child’s current interim time with the father, being the initial re-introduction stage, will adversely affect the overall trajectory of the child’s final parenting arrangements.
THE COMPETING APPLICATIONS
Child’s time with the father
As indicated, the salient matter in dispute between the parties relates to the time the child is to spend with the father on a final basis and how the Court is to approach such an arrangement.
It became clear in the course of the hearing that serious allegations of risk previously made by the mother against the father were abandoned, and findings of that kind were ultimately not sought on her behalf. As these matters of risk fell away, the ICL also did not ask that the Court make findings related to these matters.
Each of the arrangements proposed by the mother and the ICL/ father envisage the child’s time with the father increasing incrementally after an initial period of time on alternate Sundays in the presence of the paternal aunt. The mother proposes that such initial period of time endure for 12 weeks, while the ICL sought that this time continue for eight weeks only. By the time this judgment is delivered this arrangement will have been in place for around 11 weeks. In these circumstances the small difference between the parties’ proposals about this matter is of little moment.
Accordingly, the only remaining matter in dispute relates to the manner in which the child’s time with father is to now increase, to reach the agreed endpoint of unsupervised time in his care each alternate weekend.
The lingering discrepancies in the length and circumstances of each increment of time the child is to spend with the father to reach that final arrangement, are in my view minor. The main distinction between the proposals can be summarised as the mother seeking that the child’s time with the father increase more conservatively so that overnight time in the father’s household in the absence of the paternal aunt is not implemented for 12 months after the child first began spending time with the father again (in June 2023).
On the ICL’s proposal (adopted by the father), the child’s time with the father will increase within a more rapid time-frame, allowing overnight time with the father at the paternal aunt’s household to commence at an earlier stage than proposed by the mother, and unsupervised alternate weekends in the father’s household to begin after eight months.
The parties also cannot agree on the child’s time with the father during school holidays which are to commence at the end of Term 4 of 2023. By that stage, on either proposal before the Court the child’s time with the father will have graduated to each alternate weekend in his care.
The ICL with whom the father agrees proposes that in each school holiday period, the child should continue to spend alternate weekends with the father but that this weekend time be extended over time. In particular, it is proposed that the child’s scheduled alternate weekend time with the father during school holidays be extended to take place from 9am Saturday to 9am Monday and gradually increase to a block period of five nights (5pm Friday to 5pm Wednesday).
The mother’s proposal for school holiday time is significantly more limited than the ICL’s proposal. She proposes that in each school holiday period the child should only spend one extra night with the father.
Treatment plan for the child
One further dispute arising from the parties’ respective proposals relates to the terms of a treatment plan for the child with which the parents are to comply when the child is in either parent’s care.
As touched upon earlier in these Reasons, the child’s state of health (and her related pattern of care) has been a major issue in these proceedings. While it emerged at the final hearing that there is general consensus between the parents that the child has not always enjoyed good health, there is dispute about the extent to which the child has been appropriately medically diagnosed and whether her current strict dietary regime must be followed in order that her current state of good health be maintained.
The order that the mother seeks is for the parents to comply with the current treatment plan in place under the interim orders. That is, the mother seeks an order that the father continue to adhere to the regime of food (including dietary supplements) that the mother has determined is suitable to maintain the child’s good health.
The ICL and the father on the other hand, propose a less prescriptive order. Under that proposal the parents are to comply with any treatment plan, including any medications and dietary plan that may be issued to them by nominated health care practitioners that they may engage jointly for the child pursuant to final orders.
I will now consider the submissions put forward by each of the parties and the ICL in support of their respective proposals.
THE PARTIES’ AND ICL’S SUBMISSIONS
The mother’s submissions and evidence
In support of her case that a slower progression of the child’s time with the father is to be preferred over the ICL’s proposal, the mother raises various matters related to the history of the child’s relationship with the father and concerns she holds about the father’s parental capacity and ability to meet the child’s needs.
The mother submits that since the parties’ separation, the child’s time with the father has been haphazard in that it has not occurred for substantial periods of time and when it has occurred, it has taken place inconsistently and in very limited circumstances such as in public places. The mother contends that in these circumstances, a dramatic adjustment would be required of the child if orders are made as the ICL (and father) seeks. She further submits that the child will also have to overcome anxieties in relation to the father that have persisted for majority of her life.
Consistent with her position in earlier interim proceedings, the mother deposes in her trial affidavit to numerous occasions when she says the child’s health was compromised after returning home from the father’s care. It continues to be the mother’s case that the child exhibited serious physical, emotional and behavioural reactions to spending time with the father, and particularly attributes the child’s symptoms of poor health and oppositional behaviour in the past to the father not complying with the child’s strict dietary requirements.
No clear medical or expert evidence is adduced by the mother to corroborate her claim that the child requires a strict diet due to food intolerances. Rather, the mother relies on school records and notes from the child’s previous paediatrician to suggest that the child’s apparent health difficulties have abated during the prolonged periods of time she has not spent with the father. Asserting that the child is currently “functioning and developing well”, it is submitted on the mother’s behalf that the Court would therefore be careful to introduce “drastic” changes to the child’s routine and lifestyle to prevent her past health problems resurfacing.
The mother also raises in her final written submissions[10] that the child is “very likely” to be aware of the mother’s concerns about the child’s health in the father’s care. In the mother’s submission, approaching the child’s time with the father in a sensitive manner, including by taking into account the mother’s own anxieties, will go a long way in achieving an outcome that is in the child’s best interests. It is suggested on the mother’s behalf that making orders as sought by her will allay her persisting concerns about previous health problems endured by the child which will in turn have a positive effect on the child in the future.
[10] Dated 9 June 2022.
In arguing that the Court should take a cautious approach to the increase in the child’s time with the father and to the child’s future arrangements generally, the mother also deposes to various shortcomings she alleges are present in the father’s parental capacity.
Quite apart from her concerns that the father has seriously neglected the child’s strict dietary requirements, it is the mother’s case that he has failed to meet his parental responsibilities, including by failing to engage in important decisions regarding the child’s health and overall care.
According to the mother’s affidavit, from the time the child was born the father showed minimal interest in the child’s care. In being critical of the father’s lack of involvement in the child’s life the mother contrasts her own vigilant approach in managing the child and her various health and care needs.
In her affidavit for example, the mother deposes to various steps she has taken to engage the child with different health and medical professionals in an effort to diagnose illnesses and behavioural issues she says were manifest in the child over the years. Although in her affidavit some reference is made to an occasion when the father accompanied her to a medical consultation regarding the child’s health, she maintains feeling “very much alone and unsupported” in her efforts to address the child’s health issues. She further deposes that she has been primarily responsible for the child’s medications, supplements and other medical expenses, while the father has made no financial contribution towards these expenses.
In final written submissions made on her behalf the mother also refers to the following matters which cause her concern about the father’s insight into the child’s needs and matters that are consistent with her best interests.
First, the mother raises concern about the nature of orders sought by the father up until the late stages of the proceedings. The mother submits that:
·In seeking orders throughout most of the hearing that the child’s time with him immediately transition to significant and overnight time in his care the father had no regard to the fact that the child had not spent substantial periods of time in his household. In making such a proposal, the mother submits that the father also completely ignored difficulties with the child’s health and behaviour that “appeared to be related to time spent with him”;
·The mother also contends that the father’s initial proposal for the child to spend half of the school holidays with him was completely unworkable given on his evidence his work commitments would make it very difficult for him to have the child in his care for long periods of time;
·The mother also raises concern that the father previously proposed an order for a change of residence if the Court found that it was not in the child’s best interests to continue living with the mother, but failed to even “vaguely suggest” how this could be accomplished;
·The mother is otherwise critical of the father’s proposed orders being contrary to the “wishes of the child” and submits that unlike her proposed orders, the father’s original proposal paid no heed to any of the expert’s recommendations.
Another matter the mother submits is of real concern in relation to the father is his failure to avail himself of the opportunity for the child to spend time with him pursuant to the February 2021 interim orders. It is contended on the mother’s behalf in relation to this matter that there is little evidence to support the father’s claim that he had limited financial resources to afford supervision of the child’s time with him. She argues that the father otherwise made “scant effort” to arrange other supervision for the child’s time with him, after he was rejected by the only proposed alternate supervision service he attempted to engage.
Other alleged conduct by the father which the mother claims is not child-focused and reflects poorly on his parental capacity include:
·His inflexible approach to electronic communication with the child when it clashed with her extracurricular activities;
·His attendance at public shows where the child competed in sports events (which the mother contends was “insensitive” to the child’s interests);
·His personal use of funds in an account he had opened in the child’s name; and
·His refusal to vacate the former matrimonial home after the parties’ separation which forced the mother and child to find separate accommodation.
The litany of complaints raised by the mother in her affidavit were generally maintained under cross-examination at the final hearing. At one point of her oral evidence she made further complaint that the father engaged in conduct aimed at alienating the child from her.
Ultimately, the mother was unshaken in her view that there is a real possibility that the child would feel destabilised in the father’s care, especially if time with him did not progress slowly. This is despite agreeing under cross-examination that the purpose of the increase in the child’s time with the father is to assist the child with her connection with him and any anxiety she experiences, as well as protect the father from allegations, reassure the mother and allow the child opportunities to decide whether she wants overnight time in the father’s care in the future.
In summary, the overall tenor of the mother’s case is that given the father’s significant absence in the child’s life, his dismissive approach to the child’s health and various alleged shortcomings in his parental capacity, there is a real need for him to learn and develop appropriate parenting strategies before any rapid re-building of the child’s relationship with him is implemented.
With respect to matters relating to the child’s health, the mother argues that because of her commitment to the care of the child, the child is now “thriving”. Accordingly, she contends that orders should be made to respect the child’s current health regime so as to avoid unsettling the child and reviving previous health and behavioural difficulties. The mother insists that she cannot be criticised for the approach she has taken to the child’s health as she says she was “simply doing whatever she could to establish the cause of [the child]’s ailments and to find a cure for them”.
The father’s submissions and evidence
The father who adopts the ICL’s proposal has at all times denied all allegations made by the mother about his conduct with respect to the child and alleged parental shortcomings.
From the outset of the proceedings, and up until his closing submissions, it was the father’s case that the mother has undermined the child’s relationship with him and has caused a disruption to the child’s emotional development as a result. Although the father does not seek a specific finding about potential harm the mother poses to the child in this regard, he relies on her conduct to suggest that the Court should prefer orders that the child’s time with him progress in a more rapid manner to enable the child’s relationship with him to re-develop.
In his trial affidavit dated 3 December 2021, the father disputes the mother’s allegations of being an uninvolved father and causing harm to the child through any means including by meddling with her diet. He deposes that he has shown interest in ensuring that the child is healthy by adhering to professional advice relayed by the mother and by following other demands of the mother in relation to most aspects of the child’s care.
Prior to separation, the father deposes that he accompanied the mother to see a dietitian regarding the child’s health and was advised about particular restrictions in the child’s diet. He says he generally adhered to these dietary requirements including any changes to that diet as advised by the mother.
The father further deposes that in the early months following separation the child spent time with him each alternate weekend from Friday to Sunday without significant incident. He recalls a time when the mother left the child in his care for a week when the mother travelled overseas. The father deposes to being surprised when in mid-2017 the mother began making complaints that the child returned from spending time with him “crying and sobbing” and that she had begun wetting the bed and experiencing slight diarrhoea. Although he agreed under cross-examination that the child did experience some health issues including stomach aches and faecal soiling, on his account, the child displayed few symptoms of poor health in his care, often enjoyed her time with him and was “happy”.
Further in his affidavit, the father refers to two parenting plans the parents entered into which provided that the child spend regular time in his care. Although time seldom occurred as agreed, the father asserts that the child nevertheless enjoyed herself in his company including when they engaged in different outdoor activities together. In accordance with the parenting plans, the father says he also went to lengths to ensure that the child’s strict diet was followed. He says he did not encourage the child to eat meat (except on one occasion in 2017), adhered to the mother’s instructions of providing the child specific brands of food and following particular recipes, and also maintained a “food diary” for the child as requested by the mother.

The father then gives evidence that from about 2018, particularly around the Christmas period, the mother became increasingly averse to facilitating the child spending time with him. He deposes that the mother refused to make the child available to spend time with him on the basis that the child had delicate health and was allegedly experiencing stress at the time. On one occasion, the mother withheld the child from returning to his household for a six-week period in early 2019 in order to provide the child a controlled environment to undertake a “gluten challenge”. The mother does not dispute that the child did not spend time with the father during this time and adds that this period marked the genesis of her suspicions that the cause for the child’s ill-health related to reasons other than the food the child was consuming.
When cross-examined at final hearing the father did not deny feeling concerned about the child’s state of health, including in relation to her incidents of faecal soiling, and did not challenge records relied upon by the mother indicating that the child displayed oppositional behaviour at school. While he agreed that the child’s diet was the possible cause for these difficulties, he proffered that another cause could have been stress from the tension between he and the mother.
When questioned under cross-examination about his efforts to accompany the mother and child to various consultations with the child’s treaters, the father agreed that he rarely attended these appointments but explained that he was never informed about most of them and was otherwise excluded from the process. The father also raised concern about the mother exaggerating the state of the child’s health and questioned whether involving the child with numerous doctors was really in her best interests.
Consistent with the mother’s evidence, the father deposes that the child’s time with him subsequently diminished when the mother became concerned that the child’s health issues were related to her time in his household and his care of her. The father relays that for substantial periods of time the mother refused to make the child available to spend time with him which culminated in him initiating proceedings in July 2019 to seek orders for a resumption of contact.
Under cross-examination, the father generally denied suggestions made by the mother’s counsel that he did not take active steps to be involved in the child’s life. In the latter half of his affidavit, he deposes to several occasions he sought to spent time with the child and when he instructed his solicitors to organise such time, but had faced difficulties which prevented time occurring.
One impediment to the child spending time with the father stemmed from allegations made in 2020 (when proceedings were on foot) that he had inappropriately touched the child based on disclosures made by her to her treating psychologist at the time. Although these sexual abuse allegations were not substantiated following an investigation by JIRT[11], the father maintains that the mother remained greatly concerned about the child in his care which saw the child’s time with him become limited and supervised by a contact service and some electronic communication.
[11] The Joint Investigation and Response Team (now known as the Joint Child Protection Response Team) is made up of officers from police and the Department of Communities and Justice and Health and investigates allegations of serious child abuse.
While the father admits that his own financial circumstances also hindered the child’s time with him supervised by a private service commencing pursuant to interim orders, he maintains that he took steps to arrange for an alternate affordable contact service to provide supervision. He gave evidence to the effect that had it not been for the alternate contact service refusing to provide their services on the basis of the sexual abuse allegations made against him, he would have spent regular supervised time with the child in accordance with orders.
Finally, it can be seen from the general tenor of the father’s affidavit that it is his case that throughout the years the mother has maintained a negative stance towards him. He deposes in his affidavit to the mother failing to actively share information with him concerning the child’s education, including the child’s absences at school, her refusal to communicate directly with him about matters relating to the child unless through the parties’ legal representatives, her use of the maternal surname only when registering the child in an extracurricular activities and her allegations of his aggressive and intimidating conduct to both she and the child throughout the relationship and after separation which he maintains are false.
Viewing the father’s case as a whole, I understand his main contention to be that the mother did little to support the child’s relationship with him over the years, was unnecessarily negative towards him and was overly controlling towards the child’s health. All of these matters resulted in the father being excluded from the child’s affairs to her detriment. On these bases, he seeks orders proposed by the ICL in order that he be able to reconnect with the child and become involved in her life in a meaningful manner.
The ICL’s submissions
The ICL provided only brief final written submissions[12] in support of her proposal. The nub of the ICL’s argument, with which the father also agrees, is that many of the orders proposed by the ICL are in keeping with the expert’s recommendations.
[12] Dated 1 June 2022.
In respect of orders relating to the child’s time with the father, the ICL particularly submits that the Court would be satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests to normalise the child’s time with the father within a quicker time-frame than as proposed by the mother, in accordance with the expert’s opinion and recommendation. As will discussed shortly, the expert was of the view that the child’s relationship with the father requires to be rebuilt, and recommended that increasing the child’s time with the father within a period of six months would best support this occurring. The ICL’s approach is slightly more cautious than as recommended by the expert as it envisages the child having a more normalised relationship with the father including overnight time within eight months.
The ICL otherwise submits that the Court would not accede to the mother’s “very cautious approach” to the child’s overall care arrangements which is, as noted, inconsistent with the expert’s opinion.
THE expert’S evidence
In her report dated 19 August 2021 the expert expressed strong opinions and made numerous recommendations based on interviews with the family, observations of the child with each of her parents and other members of the mother’s household[13], and a review of various documents filed with the Court and produced on subpoena.
[13] The mother’s current de facto partner, Mr F, and his son.
Of the various matters considered by the expert in her report, the two most relevant in determining the current dispute between the parties relate to the final parenting arrangement the expert recommends is in the child’s best interests in light of the child’s relationships with each parent, and the state of the child’s health and its history.
These matters are discussed below noting that at the final hearing the expert remained firm in her views and opinions and was not challenged significantly by either party or the ICL about same.
The child’s relationship with both parents and the recommended final parenting arrangement
When assessed by the expert in March 2021, the child was living with the mother and was not spending any time with the father despite orders in place providing for some supervised time to occur. At the time, neither party proposed a change in the child’s residence and the single most significant issue to be resolved between them was how much time the child should spend with the father on a final basis.
The expert reported that the mother expressed concern that if the child resumed spending substantial time with the father the child could “go backwards” and “regress”. The expert reported that the father was concerned that he was having very limited contact with the child and queried the impact on the child of potential negative influence from the mother.
The expert reported that when interviewed, the child indicated that she would prefer having no time with the father rather than spending some time with him. The child reportedly stated that the father is “scary” and is “always super mean to me” and gave examples of the father being “mean” as yelling at her about various things, that he had hit her on the bottom with his hand and had touched and taken photos of her genital area (which formed the basis of sexual abuse allegations made against him in the past).
Although the expert reports the child was able to volunteer some positive memories of the father in her interview, at one point she could not recall the father’s name without prompt from the mother and was only agreeable to seeing him as part of the assessment because of the presence of the expert in the assessment room.
The expert also reports that during the assessment the child also expressed a desire to have no telephone contact with the father. The expert explained that the child communicated a dislike for the father and stated that she would “rather do other stuff with [the mother]”. When questioned about what the mother thought of the father, the child told the expert that she did not think that the mother “really likes him” and conveyed that the mother told her that “[the father] became really mean when I was born. He yelled at mum, [the child’s half-sibling] and me” and added that the father “loves me but somehow was mean”.
When seen with the father in the course of the assessment, the expert observed generally positive and warm interactions between the two. The expert reported that during the observation the father established a good rapport with the child and maintained a smiling, positive demeanour. The expert reported that the child made good eye contact with the father, though at one point checked back to look at the expert. Towards the conclusion of the assessment with the father, the expert said the child persisted with a game she had been playing with him rather than return to the mother.
During the assessment the mother relayed concerns she held about the child’s safety in the father’s care with reference to numerous health problems she says the child experienced. The mother reported to the expert that the child felt “unwell” after spending time with the father and when asked about the child’s multiple, lengthy separations from him conceded that she originally stopped contact because the father was “refusing to follow the child’s diet and lied about what he gave her”. The mother later told the expert that in her view there was “always a clear association between the child spending time with the father and being sick” and later communicated that it was best for the child to have either no time with the father or supervised time only.
In her interview with the expert the mother also complained about the father’s parenting from the time the child was born. She told the expert that he had very little to do with the child and when the child started spending time with him he did not discipline her correctly. The mother also reported negative experiences during their relationship and following separation including that the father displayed aggressive behaviour towards she and the child, threatened to “do whatever he wanted to [the child]” in the event the parents separated, and otherwise neglected the child’s “special needs”.
In a consistent vein to his affidavit, the father disputed many of the allegations made by the mother against him. He relayed to the expert a number concerns he had about the mother’s approach to the child’s relationship with him including that the mother made it difficult for him to give the child gifts at Christmas time, did not allow him to assist with the child’s homework when he offered, and did not provide him with any of the child’s medical records or school reports. Later in his interview, the father raised that the mother wanted to change the child’s surname to the maternal surname only and expressed the concern that the mother was trying to “wipe him out of [the child]’s life”. Ultimately, the father conveyed to the expert that the outcome he hoped to achieve from the proceedings was a “healthy/loving relationship with [the child] and creating a comfortable environment between families”.
When evaluating the child’s relationship with the mother, the expert concluded that the child is “clearly attached and allied to [the mother]” and that her primary connection is to her. The expert opined that this conclusion is to be expected since the mother has always been the child’s primary and most constant caregiver and added that the mother has been “very involved” with the child’s health issues and interests.
The expert opined that the child presented as being ambivalent about the father and seemed “well practised in reporting negative ‘mean’ experiences with him”. The expert noted that while the child did not avoid seeing the father as part of the assessment she made their contact conditional upon the expert remaining present, which the expert says is suggestive of the child’s mistrust of the father. The expert further opined that the child’s behaviour in this regard may have been motivated by a “misguided wish to please [the mother]”.
The expert also commented on the child’s experience of multiple, lengthy separations from the father which the parties did not dispute on interview had been instigated by the mother. In the expert’s view, these separations disrupted the relationship between the child and father as well as the child’s security of her attachment to him. The expert added that these separations could be considered as “developmental traumas” for the child, elaborating that they prevented the child from experiencing and learning that the father could be trusted to be available when she needs comfort and security.
In her report the expert also raised concern that the child is exposed to chronic, unresolved conflict between the parents. The expert opined that the child “would have been aware of (and therefore influenced by) her mother’s perception [that] the father was a risk or threat to her and not safe”. The expert considered it noteworthy for example that in an interview with JIRT police the child repeatedly used the term “unsafe” when referring to the father. The expert also highlighted instances which suggested to her that the child was exposed to negative views of the father held by the mother and how subsequently the child’s descriptions of the father evolved from positive to negative terms.
Although allegations that the father sexually abused the child are now no longer a live issue in these proceedings they were live at the time of the expert’s assessment and were thus considered by her. The expert relevantly opines that these allegations affected the regime of time the child spent with the father and the mother’s attitude to that matter. For example, the expert refers to advice given by the child’s previous treating psychologist that given the alleged sexual abuse the child should refrain from “seeing or speaking to the father”. The expert discusses that after receiving such advice the child began expressing aversion towards the father which in the expert’s opinion was a “significant change” from the child’s initial reports about him and is a matter that raises the question of the child “being influenced to this position”.
In her concluding remarks the expert made the following observations regarding the mother and the father:
[The mother] did not demonstrate she believed it was in [the child]’s interest to spend time with [the father] and, allegedly, has undermined her telephone time with him. She worked to prevent him being at [the child’s sport] lessons and now wished to remove his surname from [the child]’s birth certificate.
…
[The mother] has used her familiar coping strategies of moving on, without processing the impact of her own developmental trauma…and how it may affect her parenting and her perception of [the father] as a father to their daughter.
Of note is [the mother] experiencing [the father]’s statement he will do what he wants with [the child] if they separate as a threat to harm [the child], while she has also entertained the notion [the father] was “deliberately poisoning or drugging” her…
[The mother] undoubtedly will be anxious if unsupervised contact between [the child] and [the father] is ordered. I consider many of her past actions to prevent [the child] spending time with her father, including wanting to change [the child]’s surname, to be misguided and undermining of [the child]’s relationship with her father.
…[The father] impressed as being thoughtful and empathic towards [the child] and alleged [the mother] was controlling and devaluing of him during their relationship.
…Most unfortunately, [the father]’s limited funds and delays in access to supervisors resulted in them spending no time together (except at this interview) for sixteen months (to date).
This prolonged separation reflects poorly on his parenting capacity, as does any inappropriate behaviour towards [the mother]…or insensitive management of [the child]’s soiling and bed wetting by yelling at her.
If taken at face value, [the mother]’s allegations suggest [the father] was insensitive and punitive at times.
Against this background, the expert made the following recommendations with respect to the child’s final parenting arrangements:
·The child could continue living with the mother, provided the mother facilitates the child spending time with her father. If the mother is unable to meet this condition, the child’s “live with” arrangement will also need to be reviewed;
·The child’s relationship with the father requires to be rebuilt and time with him should not be so frequent that it causes a disruption to the other domains of her development but it must occur often enough for her to redevelop her sense of security with him;
·The child’s time with the father would preferably be spent in the general presence of the father’s family (his siblings, her cousins) and at public events such as her extracurricular activities or any school activities open to parents; and
·The child’s time with the father should begin with day time once a fortnight and could increase to every third Saturday and Sunday if the child is able to have a sleepover in her paternal cousins’ home with the father to join them each day.
The expert explained in her report that the aim of the preceding recommendations is to assist the child’s connection to her father; reduce any anxieties the child experiences, protect the father from further allegations, reassure the mother and allow the child future opportunities to decide whether to spend overnight time in the father’s care. The expert recommended that such a decision by the child in the future could be assisted by she and the parents occasionally seeing a family therapist. The expert also recommended that if with maturity (such as at the age of 12) the child wants to discuss the possibility of overnight time in the father’s home, such arrangement should be considered between the child and the therapist to prevent either parent from attempting to influence her decision.
Under cross-examination the expert reiterated her views but elaborated further on what she opined was the arrangement that is in the child’s best interests.
When asked to elaborate on a suitable regime of time during the day for the child to reconnect with the father, the expert recommended a period of four hours which would then increase to the whole day for around six occasions. The expert went on to recommend that these initial “visits” occur fortnightly and in justifying this time frame explained that the pattern of the child’s time with the father should be “consistent and predictable, so that [the child] knows where she’s at when she’s organising things”.

The expert raised in her report concern that the mother may be sending negative messages to the child about the father. It was also the child’s clear preference when assessed by the expert to spend no time and have no communication with the father. However, I attach little weight to the child’s views in this regard given the expert’s concern that the child has been exposed to the parental dispute over the years. The expert gave evidence under cross-examination to the effect that the child’s experience of the parents and her feelings towards them is likely to have been shaped by both verbal and non-verbal cues from each parent as well as each parent’s attitudes and boundaries when speaking about the other parent.
Having regard to each of the parent’s proposals, both must be taken to accept the expert’s opinion that it is to the child’s benefit for the relationship between the child and her father to be built and developed.
It also appears to be common ground that the child has continued to share a positive relationship with the paternal aunt who the parties agree will initially be present during the time the child is reintroduced to her father, as well as that aunt’s child, a paternal cousin of a similar age to the child. I was particularly impressed with the paternal aunt who presented as having a caring and sensitive attitude towards the child. This witness gave evidence in the proceedings to the effect that she had been able to sustain a meaningful connection with the child despite having had limited contact with her in recent years. As each parent proposes that this paternal aunt be present to support the child while her relationship with the father is rekindled and to provide reassurance to the mother, it can be assumed that both parties also recognise the importance of this relationship for the child.
Extent to which each of the parents have taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in long-term decision making regarding the child and to spend time and/or communicate with the child
When the parties’ relationship was intact it appears that both parents were involved in long-term decision-making regarding the child and were each involved in her care. Although both parents continued for a short-time following separation to approach decision-making concerning the child in a similar vein, the mother effectively unilaterally assumed responsibility for this decision-making and became the gatekeeper for the child’s relationship with the father from early 2017 when she moved to a new home taking the child with her.
Although the parties had reached agreement following separation for the child to spend time with the father each alternate weekend and half of the school holiday period, the mother on numerous occasions ceased making the child available to spend time with the father including for periods of many months. After the father initiated the proceedings to seek orders for the child’s time with him, the mother continued to withhold the child from the father in circumstances that she considered appropriate, including as a result of her belief that the child’s health and behaviour deteriorated when the child spent time with the father and in previously pursuing a case that there were concerns about the father posing a risk of harm arising from sexual abuse of the child.
Interim orders made by the Court in February 2021 for the child’s time with the father and communication with him were made in the context of the mother’s claims at the time. For this reason, the Court adopted a cautious approach.
Although the child was to spend time with the father supervised by a contact service pursuant to the February 2021 interim orders, I accept his evidence that the costs associated with supervision were prohibitive with the result that the child did not spend time with him in accordance with those orders. I also accept his evidence, which is corroborated by communication between he and the mother’s legal representatives at the time, that he took steps to identify an alternate supervision service but due to reasons beyond his control (the allegations that he posed a risk of sexual abuse) that service was not prepared to facilitate time pursuant to those orders. For these reasons, I am not critical of the action taken by the father in this regard.
Attitude to the child and responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each parent
Likely effect of change in the child’s circumstances
Capacity of each parent and any other person (including grandparent or other relative) to provide for the child’s needs
Maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and either parent
Each of the matters referred to under these headings are interrelated.
Despite the mother’s significant change in position at the final hearing and the orders she now proposes, in her evidence and in final submissions made on her behalf the mother still appears to hold concerns about the father’s attitude to the child and responsibilities of parenthood that she has apparently held for a considerable period of time. It is clear from some parts of her affidavit, her approach taken at the interim hearing and in some answers under cross-examination that the mother previously considered that the child’s time with the father resulted in a serious deterioration in the child’s health and behaviour. Although it appears from the tenor of submissions made on her behalf that she maintains some concerns along these lines, the mother no longer contends that the father’s shortcomings in this regard are such that he poses a risk to the child that can only be mitigated by the child spending very limited (or supervised) time with him. She now promotes orders that will see the child spend alternate weekends with the father during the school term.
The mother’s lingering concerns about the father’s attitude to the child and responsibilities of parenthood and his capacity to provide for the child’s needs form the basis for the mother’s proposal for the slow rate of reintroduction of overnight time and the extremely limited proposal for the child’s time with the father in the school holidays. It is also apparent that the mother’s ongoing concerns, that have not been completely abandoned, form the basis of her proposal that the child’s diet and health issues continue in accordance with the interim orders (which is essentially in accordance with the mother’s requirements as to these matters).
I am not satisfied that the child previously experienced a deterioration in her health and behaviour associated with the spending time with the father in the past as the mother contends. As previously noted, the evidence in the proceedings about the exact nature of the child’s diagnoses is unclear and considerably out of date. I am also of the view that if the mother genuinely believed that such a serious deterioration in the child’s physical health and behaviour was connected with her time with the father in the past, and that there are some legitimate concerns that deterioration may re-emerge in the future, it is highly unlikely that she would promote orders for the child to spend regular and overnight time with the father.
Further, the tenor of the expert’s opinion is that while it is likely that there was originally a biological basis for the child’s illness, such as diarrhoea and her faecal soiling when these problems emerged when she was much younger, the expert also opined how these conditions are “classic signs of emotional issues”. The expert further opined that if the child had a good attachment to the father when she began experiencing long, multiple periods of separation from him, this would also have been a stressor for the child and experienced as a loss which the expert considered could well have triggered these conditions. The expert also commented upon the mother’s history of seeking multiple paediatric assessments by different practitioners, which raised the possibility that she was wanting her views about the father harming the child confirmed by medical specialists.
Given the mother’s failure to adduce clear and current evidence in relation to the child’s current health, the opinion of the expert and the mother’s proposal, I do not consider it likely that the child’s physical health or behaviour will deteriorate if the child’s time with the father is re-introduced and progressed as proposed by the ICL and father. The expert whose opinion I accept for the reasons given, was firm in maintaining that the child’s life and the father’s involvement in it needed to be “normalised” as soon as possible.
The evidence in relation to the child’s diet at the time of the final hearing was also somewhat unclear. Advice given by a dietician consulted by the parties some years ago was significantly out of date and there was conflicting evidence as to the actual diet being maintained for the child and the basis upon which the mother considered that this was appropriate and necessary.
As it was clear that there had been considerable conflict between the parents concerning the child’s diet for many years and that in recent times the child has been healthy, the expert did not consider that the child’s dietary regime should be changed at a time when the father was being reintroduced into the child’s life. Further, under cross-examination, although the father at times was inconsistent with his answers he appeared to agree that it was best for the child that her diet not be changed while he was being reintroduced to her and their relationship being rekindled. For these reasons, the father consented to an interim order that during the period in which the child was reintroduced to him and the relationship rekindled, he would follow the diet that the mother had established for the child and would not provide food to her during the child’s time with him other than as listed on a document to be provided by the mother.
While the expert did not support a change in the child’s diet at the time the interim orders were made for the reasons given, the expert did acknowledge that many matters relating to the child’s health and presentation in the past were unknown and that there was limited evidence adduced in this regard. Further, the expert confirmed that it would definitely assist the child if the parents agreed that the child continue to attend a single general practitioner and the parents follow the recommendations of that general practitioner about referrals to specialists.
Each parent proposes equal shared parental responsibility for the child, and disputes regarding the child’s diet have been significant in the past. In these circumstances, I consider that orders in the terms proposed by the ICL and father that each parent comply with any treatment plan including in relation to medication and a dietary plan issued to the parents by health practitioners engaged pursuant to final orders, will be more consistent with the joint exercise of parental responsibility than a continuation of the current regime as proposed by the mother.
If the current arrangements in relation to the child’s treatment plan are to continue as the mother proposes this will amount to a continuation of the mother being the decision-maker in relation to these matters as she has done in the past, whereas compliance with a treatment regime provided by health practitioners engaged jointly and by both parents is consistent with their joint decision-making as to this important matter.
In a similar vein, I consider other orders sought by the mother relating to the daily care of the child unduly permits her to regulate aspects of the father’s day to day care of the child during the relatively limited time the child is to spend with him.
In the balance of her final proposal the mother seeks an order that each parent ensure that during the child’s time in either of their households “the child has access to an iPad, laptop and internet connection…for the purpose of the child completing homework, school assignments and communicating with her friends”. The mother also seeks an order that when the child is spending time with the father the father facilitate the child “attending such location where the child’s [can engage with a specified hobby activity], for one period of no more than 2 hours every 48 hours”.
In considering whether it is proper to make these additional foregoing proposed orders it is to be remembered that from at least the time of separation the mother has unilaterally assumed primary responsibility for the day to day care of the child and majority of the long-term decision-making in relation to most aspects of the child’s life. Given both proposals under consideration support a re-establishment of the child’s relationship with the father, there is in my view benefit to the child if her lifestyle embraces features of both parent’s choices and allows the father opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to meeting the child’s needs as they may arise (rather than such matters being dictated by the mother).
As discussed earlier, in both her report and oral evidence the expert places significant emphasis on the benefits to the child of rebuilding and developing the connection between the child and father. Further, while the expert considered the mother a caring and committed parent, other observations made by the expert made regarding the mother’s patterns of care were to the effect that she has exerted a degree of control over the child that has been misguided and otherwise undesirable for the child’s development.
In these circumstances I do not consider it proper to circumscribe through court orders further requirements upon the father in the exercise of his day to day care of the child.
Practical difficulty or significant expense involved in spending time with and communicating with the other parent
Both parents propose orders that would see a paternal aunt initially present when the child is to spend time with the father (and if possible to be accompanied by a paternal cousin of a similar age to the child). Both proposals also envisage the paternal aunt playing an ongoing role for many months including at the commencement of overnight time (as this initially to occur at her home) and being present during changeover. While this arrangement involves considerable commitment by the paternal aunt, it was clear from her evidence that this did not present a practical difficulty for her and she appeared to be committed to this arrangement and have a clear understanding of how it would benefit the child in accordance with the expert’s recommendations.
Family violence relating to the child or a member of the child’s family
Although the mother in her affidavit made allegations in the nature of family violence, she did not pursue a case at final hearing that the father had been a perpetrator family violence. Although it also appeared that the mother would contend that the father’s conduct of this nature falls within the ambit of impairments to his parental capacity, no submissions along these lines were ultimately made by the mother. In any event, it is clear that the mother no longer holds real concerns for the child in this regard given her proposal that the child spend regular time with the father which ultimately is to occur in his household on an unsupervised basis.
Any other matter the Court considers relevant
One further order about which there remains dispute relates to a change in the child’s surname proposed by the mother. The mother seeks an order that the child’s surname be hyphenated to include the maternal surname, which the ICL opposes.
There appears to be no dispute between the parties that in recent years the mother’s surname has been used as the child’s surname in various settings including at including at school, in lieu of the father’s surname which is the child’s official surname that appears on her birth certificate. Currently on the child’s birth certificate, the maternal surname is registered as the child’s middle name.
Both parties depose to the child referring to herself using the mother’s surname and in the course of the final hearing the Court was shown a recording[16] of the child being interviewed as part of the JIRT investigation in which the child introduces herself using that surname. The mother relies on this recording in contending that the child’s name should be hyphenated to include the maternal surname since the child herself identifies with such name and clearly prefers it.
[16] Exhibit 14.
In her report, the expert considered that the mother’s desire to change the child’s surname formed part of the matters that were, in the expert’s opinion, “misguided and [an] undermining of the child’s relationship with the father”. In her brief cross-examination on this issue at the final hearing, the expert expressed the view that except in relation to official documents the child should be at liberty to decide for herself how she is referred to. The expert ultimately indicated that she was against a change in the child’s surname, opining that “it will be very confusing to [the child] just to suddenly have to use this new name”.
In his oral evidence given at final hearing, the father was somewhat ambivalent about this particular issue in that he first communicated that he was opposed to a change in the child’s surname before agreeing shortly thereafter that there was no particular reason why a father’s surname should have priority over a mother’s surname and that the child herself has indicated a preference to use the maternal surname. When further pressed by the mother’s counsel under cross-examination the father then agreed that hyphenating the child’s surname “could be a good thing” since it preserves both his and the mother’s surname in all formal documents for the child.
As the father now adopts the ICL’s proposal in its entirety, however, he can be taken as ultimately opposing the mother’s proposal for a change in the child’s surname. Both he and the ICL appear to suggest in their respective final submissions that a change in the child’s surname is not necessary and contrary to the expert’s evidence.
It is clear from the authorities[17] that an application to change a child’s name requires the Court to have regard to the best interests of the child. In relation to a change in surname specifically, the Full Court in Chapman and Palmer[18] summarised that the factors to which the courts should have regard when making such an order include:
(a) The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
(b) The short and long-term effects of any change in the child’s surname.
(c) Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if its name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control.
(d) Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if his or her name is changed or is not changed.
(e) The effect which any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during the marriage.
(f) The effect of frequent or random changes of name.
[17] Reynolds & Sherman [2016] FamCAFC 240; Flanagan & Handcock (2001) FLC 93-074; Fooks & McCarthy (1994) FLC 92-450.
[18] (1978) FLC 90-510; see also Beach and Stemmler (1979) FLC ¶90-692.
In the circumstances of this case, and applying the paramountcy principle, I am not satisfied that a change in the child’s surname as proposed by the mother is in the child’s best interests. I do not consider that the child holds any confusion about her identity which may have otherwise justified inclusion of the mother’s surname in the child’s official surname.
Although there is evidence that the child has a clear desire to use the mother’s surname, in accordance with the expert’s opinions, which I accept, the child is not precluded from referring to herself in her preferred way and being known as such in settings other than official documents.
Otherwise, there are in my view no compelling reasons to support the conclusion that a change in the child’s surname as proposed by the mother is proper and in the child’s best interests.
CONCLUSION

As previously noted, both parties and the ICL agree that it is proper and in the child’s best interests that the parents equally share parental responsibility for the child and that the child live with the mother. Accordingly, I make orders in these terms.
I also make orders that the child spend time with the father in accordance with the ICL’s proposal with which the father agrees. In short, having regard to the primary and additional considerations as discussed above, and attaching weight to the expert’s evidence, I consider the child’s interests are best served with a quicker transition of time with the father as it would present the best opportunity for the child’s sense of the father to develop and her relationship with him to be more meaningfully rebuilt.
In relation to the balance of the ICL’s proposal, those orders are equally in the child’s best interests as it accords with the evidence of the expert which I accept for the reasons given.
The only other variation to the ICL’s proposal relates to the order for family therapy. This proposed order was framed as if this therapy had not yet commenced. It is slightly varied to take into account the fact that this therapy commenced pursuant to the interim orders made when judgment was reserved and is to continue as ordered rather than to commence.
For the foregoing reasons I make the orders set out at the forefront of this Judgment.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and seventeen (217) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam.
Associate:
Dated: 24 August 2022

File number(s):	PAC 3379 of 2019
Judgment of:	HANNAM J
Date of judgment:	24 August 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - Where substantial agreement reached about child’s living arrangements and exercise of parental responsibility and the ambit of the dispute centred on the child’s relationship with the father and how the Court is to approach her time with him on a final basis - Where each parent’s parental capacity, their interactions with the child and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s alleged complex needs also considered - Where there is evidence to suggest that the mother was a gatekeeper in relation to most aspects of the child’s lifestyle including her diet and relationship with the father - Where concerns held by each parent about the other parent’s attitude and actions towards the child’s health and overall care were not elevated to matters of unacceptable risk of harm arising from abuse or neglect from which the child requires protection - Where expert gave strong opinions and recommendations about the need to re-establish the child’s relationship with the father - Where expert also expressed views and made recommendations regarding child’s state of health and health regime - Where final orders proposed by the ICL and supported by the father are in the child’s best interests as it accords with expert evidence - Orders made accordingly.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65D
Cases cited:	Chapman and Palmer (1978) FLC 90 – 510 English & Eklund [2021] FamCA 89 Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	217
Date of last submission/s:	9 June 2022
Date of hearing:	23 – 26 May 2022
Place:	Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent	Mr Tockar
Solicitor for the Respondent	Genlaw Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Ms Druitt
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer	Legal Aid NSW

PAC 3379 of 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR ENGLISH Applicant
AND:	MS EKLUND Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:	HANNAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 August 2022