Floyd & Tennison - [2023] FedCFamC2F 869

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
Floyd & Tennison [2023] FedCFamC2F 869

File number: MLC 531 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment: 20 July 2023

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting - history of parental conflict – where child currently spends five nights per fortnight with the father – where father seeks equal shared care – where allegations that mother undermines the relationship between father and child and that mother lacks insight - found that mother undermines paternal relationship and lacks insight – where additional time with the father will protect against mother’s behaviours – order that child spend equal time with each parent.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – where two family reports prepared within 12 months – where Court Child Expert made different recommendations in the second report – whether there is a basis for the different recommendations – degree of weight to be given to the evidence of the Court Child Expert.

FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure – where orders were made for the filing of trial affidavits – where the Applicant father did not file an affidavit in reply to the mother’s trial affidavit despite orders permitting him to do so - where the mother contended her evidence should be accepted in full because it was unanswered by the father due to his failure to file a reply affidavit – mother’s submission rejected.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2)(a), 60CC(2)(b), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 61DA, 65DAA(1), 65DAA(1)(b), 65DAA(5).

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 138

Date of hearing: 27, 28, 29 March 2023

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms McCreadie

Solicitor for the Applicant: Clancy and Triado

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Hall

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ryan Carlisle Thomas
ORDERS

MLC 531 of 2022

BETWEEN:
MR FLOYD

Applicant

AND:
MS TENNISON

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE BLAKE

DATE OF ORDER:

20 July 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous orders be discharged.

EQUAL SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
2.The parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship, X born in 2009 (‘X’).

LIVE WITH AND SPEND TIME ARRANGEMENTS DURING SCHOOL TERMS
3.Save as otherwise provided for in these Orders or as otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, in a two-week rotation:
(a)in week 1, X live with the father for one week from the commencement of school on Monday (or 9.00 am whichever is the earliest) until the commencement of school (or 9.00 am whichever is earlier) the following Monday; and
(b)in week 2, X live with the mother for one week from the commencement of school on Monday (or 9.00 am whichever is the earliest) until the commencement of school (or 9.00 am whichever is earlier) the following Monday;

save that if the Monday is a pupil-free-day or public holiday, changeover shall take place at the commencement of school or 9.00 am, whichever is the earliest, on the next school day.
4.Time as set out in Order 3 herein shall be suspended during all school holiday periods and recommence each school term as if there had been no break in time.

SCHOOL TERM HOLIDAYS
5.Unless otherwise agreed in writing during all school term holidays, X live with each parent as follows:
(a)based on the calendar published by X’s high school:
(i)with the mother, for the first half of each school term holiday period from the commencement of school or 9:00 am on the last day of term and concluding at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day;
(ii)with the father, for the second half of each school term holiday period commencing at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day and concluding on the first day of the new term of school; and

(b)in the event that there are an uneven number of nights in any holiday period, X will spend the extra night with the mother in odd-numbered years and the father in even-numbered years.

6.Should either parent seek to have X in their care not in accordance with Order 5 herein, they shall make such request to the other parent in writing no less than 30 days prior to the last day of the school term, and in the event agreement is not reached within 7 days of such request having been made, then Order 5 herein shall prevail.

LONG SUMMER HOLIDAYS COMMENCING 2023/2024
7.Commencing from the 2023/2024 long summer holidays and each year thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing X live with her parents as follows:
(a)when the long summer holidays commence in an odd-numbered year:
(i)with the father for the first half, from the commencement of school or 9:00 am on the last day of school in term 4 and concluding at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day; and
(ii)with the mother for the second half, commencing at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day and concluding on the first day of school in term 1, from the commencement of school or 9.00 am.

(b)when the long summer holidays commence in an even-numbered year:
(i)with the mother for the first half, from the commencement of school or 9.00 am on the last day of school in term 4 and concluding at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day; and
(ii)with the father for the second half, commencing at 3.00 pm on the midpoint day and concluding on the first day of school in term 1, from the commencement of school or 9.00 am; and

(c)in the event that there are an uneven number of nights in any long summer holiday period, X will spend the extra night with the parent who had the care of X in the first half of the holiday period.
(d)the summer holidays are defined as the period between the last day of X’s school attendance in term 4 of one year as required by that school, and the first day of her required attendance of term 1 in the following year.

CHRISTMAS
8.Commencing in 2023, notwithstanding any of the foregoing, X spend time with her parents as follows:
(a)with the father:
(i)in even numbered years, from 4.00 pm Christmas Day until 4.00 pm Boxing Day;
(ii)in odd-numbered years, from 4.00 pm Christmas Eve until 4.00 pm on Christmas Day;

(b)with the mother:
(i)in even-numbered years, from 4.00 pm on Christmas Eve until 4.00 pm on Christmas Day;
(ii)in odd-numbered years, from 4.00 pm on Christmas Day until 4.00 pm on Boxing Day.

(c)on Father’s Day if X is not already in the father’s care, with the father, from the conclusion of school (or 3.10 pm whichever is the earliest) to the commencement of school the following Monday (or 9:00 am if a non-school day);
(d)on Mother’s Day if X is not already in the Mother’s care, with her mother, from the conclusion of school (or 3.10 pm whichever is the earliest) to the commencement of school the following Monday (or 9:00 am if a non-school day); and
(e)for such further or other periods as may be agreed in advance in writing.

CHANGEOVERS
9.Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, all changeovers on days X attends school shall take place at X’s school and in any other case:
(a)the father shall deliver X to outside the front perimeter of the mother’s property at the conclusion of X’s time with him;
(b)the father shall collect X from outside of the front perimeter of the mother’s property at the commencement of his time and the father shall send an SMS to the mobile telephone of the mother and X upon his arrival outside the mother’s home to collect X;
(c)the mother shall facilitate X’s prompt departure from her home into the father’s care upon receipt of the father’s SMS; and
(d)the mother shall remain in her home and the father shall remain outside of the mother’s property during changeovers.

10.In the event that either parent is unable to attend changeover personally for any parent to parent changeover, that parent shall provide as much notice as practicable to the other parent by SMS of their intention to use another family member or adult household member on his/her behalf (or other adult subject to prior mutual written agreement).
11.Each parent shall as far as practicable, facilitate the return of all items including but not limited to, clothing and personal items to the parent’s home from which they originated at the conclusion of X living with them, together with any clothing, uniform, books or equipment ordinarily used or required by X for school, homework or extra-curricular activities that will fall while in the care of the other parent NOTING THAT such items will travel with X.
12.Each parent shall encourage X to independently pack all clothing, uniforms, equipment, schoolbooks and other items in her school bag (or other bags) as necessary prior to any changeovers.
13.The parents shall each purchase a full set of X’s uniform, her sports uniform/gear and/or equipment that they shall each retain in their household to minimise the need for exchange of X’s clothing/belongings.
14.As and when reasonably requested by either parent, that in the event any of X’s clothing and/or belongings are found to have been forgotten or missing, the parents shall do all acts and things necessary to facilitate the exchange/return of any such forgotten or missing items to the parent making such request by dropping those items to X’s school office. All communication regarding forgotten or missing items shall take place strictly between the parents and without involving X in this exchange, and if it is not possible for these missing items to be delivered to X’s school office, both parents shall encourage X to do without the missing item/s until they can be returned to X.

TELEPHONE CONTACT
15.Each parent be at liberty to initiate or request telephone, SMS and/or email communication with X between 7.30 am and 8.30 pm on any day that X is not in their care.
16.At X’s instigation she be permitted to have liberal telephone/electronic communication with the other parent between 7.30 am and 8.30 pm and that she be afforded privacy for the duration of such calls if she requests it.

PARENTAL ACCESS TO X’S DEVICES
17.Without admission of the need for this Order, neither parent may utilise GPS tracking in order to monitor the movements of the child whilst she is in the care of the other parent.

PASSPORT FOR X
18.Within 14 days of a written request from the mother, the parents shall do all things necessary and sign all necessary documents to enable a passport to be issued for X (or renewed or replaced) and the following shall apply:
(a)firstly, the application form shall be completed by the mother and sent to the father for him to complete any remaining fields;
(b)secondly, and within 7 days of receiving the form from the mother, the father shall complete his section of the form, sign the form and send the completed form back to the mother;
(c)thirdly, the mother shall provide the father with a certified copy of the submitted form within 7 days of submission; and
(d)fourthly, upon receiving X’s renewed passport, the mother shall provide the father with a photocopy of her passport.

19.X’s passport is to be retained by the mother in odd-numbered financial years and the father in even-numbered financial years, and for this, the parent that holds X’s passport shall, by the 30^th of June each year provide the passport to the other parent for safekeeping.
20.The parent who holds possession of X’s passport shall release the passport to the parent intending to travel internationally (if the passport is not already in that parent’s possession) no later than 30 days prior to the intended travel.
21.The travelling parent shall return X’s passport to the parent who has authorised possession of the passport pursuant to Order 19 herein within 7 days of arrival in Australia.

MEDICAL, EDUCATION AND EXTRACURRICULAR
22.The parties shall forthwith download the AppClose Parenting Application and shall use it to communicate with each other with respect to the care, welfare and development of X, and when necessary the parties shall provide a response within 7 days thereto, save that in the event of a medical emergency, the parties may communicate via text message or phone call.
23.The parents do all acts and things necessary to keep each other informed of issues relating to X’s health, education and behaviour including:
(a)advising the other parent of any specialist, medical, dental and/or allied health appointments along with the names and contact details of same and each parent shall be entitled to attend same including but not limited to via telephone or video conference;
(b)ensuring at all times both parents are listed as parents AND first and second emergency contacts in all formal and informal documentation and circumstances relating to X including any school, educational, recreational, employment, medical and/or professional service providers X may attend and that leave be granted to provide a copy of these Orders to same;
(c)forthwith informing the other of any illness or injury sustained by X whilst in their care and further provide the other with full particulars of the name, address and contact telephone number of any medical or other health professional or hospital from whom, or at which X has received, or is to receive treatment so that each parent may liaise with same.

24.Both parents be entitled to visit X in the event she is admitted to hospital overnight, in accordance with the hospital visiting hour protocols at that time.
25.Both parents shall ensure that X is given any prescribed medication when she is in their care, that any prescribed medication (and the instructions for use of same) is known to the other parent, travels with X between the households, and the parent with the care of X at the time the medication is due for administration shall be responsible for dispensing the said medication to X.
26.Both parents be entitled to receive any information from a school, recreational, employment, medical or education-related provider that would usually be provided to parents, and access to all school portals.
27.Both parents are permitted to attend all events for X to which parents are normally invited, including but not limited to, school related events, extra-curricular activities, recreational and/or professional events, subject to the parents keeping their interactions with each other to a minimum and on the proviso that the parent who does not have the care of X on that occasion does not unduly interfere with the other parent attending to their parenting duties during such time.

COUNSELLING SUPPORT FOR X
28.The parents forthwith do all such acts and things required to support and facilitate X's attendance upon Ms B, child psychologist, at such intervals and for such duration of time as recommended by X’s child psychologist, with the costs of such treatment (if any) to be borne equally between the parents and with each parent to pay their half share directly to X’s psychologist.
29.In the event that Ms B is unable to continue treating X, or provide a referral to replace her:
(a)the mother shall nominate 3 child psychologists from which the father shall choose a psychologist to be appointed within 7 days of receipt of the mother’s nominees and should the father not nominate X’s psychologist during that time, the mother be at liberty to nominate X’s psychologist (‘the new child psychologist’) from the list of three nominees provided to the father; and
(b)the parents shall do all such acts and things required to support and facilitate X's attendance upon the new child psychologist at such intervals and for such duration of time as recommended by the new child psychologist, with the costs of such treatment (if any) to be borne equally between the parents and with each parent to pay their half share directly to the new child psychologist.

PROVISION OF DOCUMENTS TO TREATING PSYCHOLOGISTS
30.The parents be at liberty to provide copies of the family reports of Dr C, psychologist dated 10 April 2022 and 12 February 2023, these Orders, and any Reasons for Judgment, to any school counsellor or psychologist providing support to X from time to time, and to any psychologist which either of the parents or the father’s partner, Ms D, consults.

CHANGE OF CONTACT DETAILS
31.Each parent advise the other of any change of residential address, email address or telephone number within 24 hours of such change occurring.

SCHOOL COMMUNICATION
32.Each parent be permitted to be registered as a parent of the child on the school Compass Portal with unfettered access thereto, including the ability to provide consent for activities that fall during his/her care of the child.
33.The parties do all acts and things to request that the child’s school issue split bills for the child’s school fees and other costs payable to the school, and each parent be at liberty to provide a copy of these Orders to the school.

TRAVEL OVERSEAS
34.The parents may travel with X outside of the Commonwealth of Australia provided that the parent intending to travel provide to the other parent, no later than 60 days prior to the intended date of departure, with written confirmation of the following:
(a)the places and/or countries, and intended itineraries as far as practicable, to which X will travel; and
(b)the intended airlines, and flight bookings, upon which X will travel:
(i)the date upon which X will depart from and return to the Commonwealth of Australia; and
(ii)the addresses, and accommodation bookings, at which X shall reside and a telephone and/or WhatsApp number on which the other parent can communicate with X during the travel period.

35.The non-overseas-travelling parent be permitted to exercise make-up time with X to the extent of physical spend time foregone as a result of overseas travel if it encroached on that parent’s time with the child, with such time to occur within 12 months of the overseas holiday, and such time to occur during the term school holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing and that parent providing no less than 60 days notice of their intention to exercise such make-up time.
36.Upon receipt of the information provided for above:
(a)the parent who has received the travel request shall advise of any objection in writing within 30 days of receipt of the written notice to the parent intending to travel, and such objection not be unreasonably made; and
(b)that in the event that no objection is received, the parent who has received the travel request be deemed to have consented to the travel.

NON-DENIGRATION AND SUPPORT OF CHILD’S RELATIONSHIPS
37.The parents, their servants and/or agents shall not criticise or denigrate the other parent or the other parent’s family in the presence of and/or within hearing of X.
38.Each parent shall encourage and not undermine X’s positive relationship with the other parent and family.

RESTRAINTS
39.Without admission of necessity for this Order the parents, their agents and/or servants be and are hereby restrained from:
(a)abusing, harassing, intimidating and/or rebuking the other parent and/or members of their households to and/or within the presence of X and from knowingly permitting others to do so;
(b)discussing these proceedings or any related proceedings including but not limited to the contents of any reports prepared or documents filed in relation to these proceedings to and/or within the hearing of X and from knowingly permitting any other person to do so, save for explaining to X her live with schedule as set out in these Orders;

(c)knowingly providing to X and/or leaving any reports and/or documents filed in relation to these proceedings where she may access same;
(d)offering to or discussing with X care arrangements or options that differ from those set out in these Orders.

SCHOOLING ARRANGEMENTS
40.Unless agreed in writing, X shall continue to attend E School.

EXPLANATION OF ORDERS TO X
41.Within 7 days of the date of these Orders, X’s psychologist (currently Ms B) shall explain the content and operation of these Orders to X either in person, or by electronic means (with or without the parents at the discretion of X’s psychologist).
42.Neither of the parents shall discuss the content and/or operation of these Orders with X, pending X having met with or spoken to her psychologist as ordered herein.

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

This is an unfortunate matter. X is 14 years old. Her parents separated when she was very young, around 14 months old. She has been embroiled in, or subjected to, parental conflict in one form or the other for most of her life. X has told her school counsellor she wants the fighting between her parents to stop. She spends, on her own estimate, 50% of her time worrying about parental conflict.
Consistent with their historic inability to resolve issues, X’s parents came to this Court in dispute about a broad range of topics. Ultimately, at the urging of the Court, the scope of issues in dispute was reduced. The issues now in dispute are these:
(a)whether X should spend equal time with each parent or alternatively, whether X should spend five nights per fortnight with her father and the remaining time with her mother;
(b)whether, in the event that either parent is unable to look after X on an overnight basis, the other parent be given the first option to do so;
(c)whether both parents should be given access to X’s mobile telephone and electronic devices and be able to direct X to provide the PIN to each of them on request;
(d)whether each party should provide reasonable prior notice of any interstate travel to the other party.
For the reasons that follow, I have decided:
(a)that the parents should have equal-shared care of X;
(b)not to make any order with respect to issues (2)(b)-(d) above.
BACKGROUND
The parties commenced a relationship in 2008, and commenced living together in 2009. X was born in 2009. Her parents separated on 7 September 2010.
The father first issued proceedings on 25 February 2011 seeking, among other things, overnight time with X. On 16 November 2011, final orders were made by consent (‘2011 orders’) that X live with her mother. Under the 2011 orders, from January 2012, X was to spend one night per week with the father. From August 2012, X was to spend two nights per week with the father. From February 2015, X was to spend three nights per fortnight with the father. Arrangements were also made for holiday periods.
On 9 April 2014, the father issued a further set of proceedings. He sought orders that X live with him on a week-about basis. This application was brought even though the father’s time had not progressed to the final stage as contemplated by the 2011 orders.
On 28 May 2014, final orders were made by consent. Those orders provided that X live with her mother, and effected other largely insignificant changes.
On 6 October 2015, a parenting plan was entered into. Under that plan, X was to live with the mother and spend each alternate Friday to Monday with the father, as well as one night in the alternate week.
In around 2021, the father commenced a relationship with his new partner, Ms D.
On 21 February 2022, the Father commenced the present set of proceedings in this Court. He sought that his time with X progress, initially to five nights per fortnight, but then progress to an arrangement where X was to spend equal time with each parent.
On 10 April 2022, a Family Report by Dr C was released (‘First Report’).
On 26 July 2022, an interim defended hearing took place. Orders were made that X continue to live with her mother. The father’s time with X was increased to five nights per fortnight in one block of time.
On 12 February 2023, a further Family Report by Dr C was released (‘Second Report’).
MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT
The father relied on his Further Amended Application filed 6 March 2023, his trial affidavit dated 6 March 2023, an affidavit of Ms D dated 6 March 2023, and his Outline of Case filed 23 March 2023.
The mother relied on her Further Amended Response dated 13 March 2023, her trial affidavit filed 13 March 2023, and her Outline of Case filed 23 March 2023. She tendered four exhibits during the hearing.
The Court also had before it, the First Report and the Second Report of Dr C.
I have reviewed all of the material above, as well as the transcript of the final hearing, and considered the respective closing submissions of the parties.
THE LAW
The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘Act’) sets out the matters that the Court must have regard to in making a parenting order. Section 60CA of the Act provides that in deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, a Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 61DA of the Act contains a presumption in parenting matters that parental responsibility is to be equally shared. Where parental responsibility is shared, section 65DAA(1) of the Act requires a Court to consider whether the child is able to spend equal time with each parent. Where parental responsibility is shared and the Court does not make an order for the child to spend equal time with each parent, the Court is required to consider whether the child can spend substantial and significant time with the non-resident parent.
Section 60CC of the Act then sets out those matters that the Court must have regard to in ascertaining what is in the child’s best interests.
The primary considerations in relation to what is in the children's best interests are set out in section 60CC(2) of the Act. Subsection (2)(a) provides that a primary consideration is the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents. Subsection (2)(b) provides that a primary consideration is the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence. By subsection (2A), the Court is to give greater weight to the consideration set out in subsection (2)(b).
Finally, section 60CC(3) sets out the additional considerations that a Court must have regard to in considering what is in the child's best interests.
THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE EVIDENCE OF DR C
A significant plank of the mother’s case relates to the reports prepared by Dr C. In summary, the mother submitted that the weight to be attributed to Dr C’s reports is diminished in the circumstances of this case.
The Reports prepared by Dr C
Dr C produced two family reports. In the First Report, Dr C recommended that X continue to reside with her mother, and spend time with her father from the conclusion of school on Friday in week two, to the commencement of school on Wednesday in week one. School term holidays were to be split between the parents. X was to spend time with each parent on a week-about basis during long summer holidays until she turned 14 years of age. From age 14, long summer holidays were to be split 50-50 between each parent at the midway point.
In the First Report, Dr C expressly considered whether the parents should have equal-shared care of X. On this issue, she stated at paragraph [78] that ‘there seems to be greater potential cost than potential benefit to X introducing a fifty-fifty care arrangement at this point in her life, and thus it is not recommended. It risks impacting both, X individually, and also the father-child relationship’.
In the Second Report, Dr C recommended X shift to an equal-shared-care arrangement with X spending one week with each parent. Changeover was to occur at the conclusion of school on Friday. Dr C also recommended that X spend half of each holiday with each parent, split at the midway point.
In the Second Report, Dr C:
(a)identified two main issues. The first was the ongoing difficulty of the parents consistently prioritising a lack of acrimony in their dealings with each other. The second issue was the mother’s behaviour, being her difficulty in consistently supporting X’s relationships with others (including the father);
(b)identified that the mother had spoken to X about court proceedings (at [41]);
(c)stated that X expressed a concern that no one was there for her mother and so X tries to be the support person for her mother (at [42]). X told Dr C that this was ‘added stress I don’t need’;
(d)noted that X told her that the mother speaks to X about her (the mother’s) problems (at [42]);
(e)stated that X worries about her mother when she is away from her including worrying that her mother would get lonely. X worried that she might let something slip to Ms D that may be used against her mother in court, that will make her mother sad, and that she therefore can’t fully relax (at [43]);
(f)mentioned X referring to court orders as ‘dodgy’. X told Dr C that it was her mother’s view that court orders were ‘dodgy’ (at [45]);
(g)noted X’s statement that her father never talked about court matters (at [45]) and that X explained that her father does not talk negatively about her mother. X described this to Dr C as ‘refreshing’ (at [48]);
(h)stated that X advised that the mother speaks negatively about Ms D (at [48]);
(i)stated that X advised that her mother would back her (X) up if she did not wish to go on a trip interstate with the father, Ms D and F (Ms D’s son) in early 2023 (at [53]);
(j)noted X told her that Ms D had spoken negatively about the mother;
(k)noted the view of X’s school counsellor, Ms G that, among other things, X will adjust regardless of the caregiving arrangements so long as there is clarity and consistency, and once court matters cease (at [56]);
(l)noted that X had told Ms G that she (X) was under pressure from the mother to ‘tell the Court Psychologist’ that she was not happy at her father’s home (at [57]);
(m)considered that the mother presented as somewhat fixated on the father’s flaws, and displayed impaired insight into her own potential contribution to the current situation at hand (at [77]);
(n)noted that the mother had sought support from her own allied health worker and counsellor for her own mental health, however had not sought support that was child-focussed, which was what had been recommended in the First Report;
(o)considered that X felt ‘burdened and stressed in her role in her mother’s care, where her mother relies on her for support (and whom over-involves her in family acrimony), and this causes X to worry when away from the mother’ (at [92]). As a result, Dr C held significant concerns for X’s emotional well-being;
(p)stated that X had not had the opportunity to develop views and opinions with sufficient independence about her time spend arrangements (at [97]);
(q)considered that ‘despite X’s wishes regarding time spent, she is settled when at the father’s home, and does not wish to leave at the conclusion of time.’ Dr C noted that father and daughter shared a ‘strong and loving bond’. Dr C noted that that the matters that ‘negatively affect’ X’s enjoyment at her father’s include, ‘(i) worry about Court matters and saying the wrong thing where she is feeling she needs to censor herself, (ii) worry about her mother’s wellbeing and lack of support in her absence, (iii) her relationship with the father’s partner, and; (iv) the difference in rules/expectations across both homes, particularly with regard to pets. It is the assessor’s opinion that these factors are heavily influenced by the adults in X’s life, particularly her mother’ (at [98]);
(r)considered that X likely experiences her mother as a friend and confidant, appears somewhat anxiously attached to her mother, and there are signs of an enmeshed relationship (at [99]);
(s)noted that X experiences her father as the most able to keep her separate from family law matters (at [102]);
(t)considered that X’s loyalty to her mother is having a negative impact on her relationship with Ms D, however Ms D also needs to refrain from sharing opinions about the mother with X (at [104]);
(u)noted that in respect of the mother, ‘there are a range of concerns regarding her ability to adequately and consistently support X’s relationship with her father and partner. In addition, the mother lacks suitable boundaries. The mother’s behaviour, whilst at times subtle, is serving to undermine X’s relationships, and is having a negative impact on X’s mental-health. It is toxic’ (at [105]);
(v)noted that the mother engages in behaviour ‘that serves to (i) ensure X’s continual reliance on her for simple matters, and (ii) reduce X’s confidence in her own abilities, and; (iii) reduce confidence in the father’s role and abilities’. The mother’s behaviour is self-serving and significantly lacking in child-focus (at [109]);
(w)stated that while it would be ideal if orders could be made in line with X’s wishes, they cannot be, given the parents behaviour. Dr C noted ‘The mother-child dynamic risks becoming increasingly problematic and relevant to time-spent arrangements as X progresses through the teenage years’ (at [115]);
(x)considered that the mother ‘struggles to adequately support the father-child relationship. At this point, the best way to protect the father-child relationship is via significant and substantial time. A fifty-fifty week-about arrangement is recommended’ (at [116]).
In the witness box, Dr C gave the following further evidence:
(a)asked about why she had said there were signs of an ‘enmeshed relationship’ between X and her mother, Dr C stated that X had essentially taken on her mother’s feelings and stress and worry… she had taken on a protective role with regards to her mother (Transcript P-141, Lines 6-8, 10);
(b)that issues she had raised in the First Report had gotten worse by the time she prepared the Second Report to the point where X is incredibly stressed and confused, tearful, low in her mood at times and carries a heavy burden (Transcript P-141, Lines 22-25);
(c)X will continue to carry the weight and the burden of her mother’s mental health and stress if change doesn’t occur (Transcript P-141, Lines 37-39);
(d)that without intervention, X will become more aligned to her mother, particularly the mother’s negative view of the father, and that will have a negative impact on the father-child relationship (Transcript P-142, Lines 1-5);
(e)The benefit [of a week-about arrangement] is that significant and substantial time with her father will protect against the issues that are present in the relationship and the dynamic with her mother (Transcript P-142, Lines 43-45). More time at the father’s home will provide X with an opportunity to develop independent views that she’s not really free to develop when she’s at her mother’s home (Transcript P-143, Lines 1-3). Moreover, Dr C considered X would accept week-about now, but the older she gets, the less likely that becomes, and something needs to be done to protect the father-child relationship before the opportunity is missed (Transcript P-143, Lines 35-36);
(f)there are costs for X in implementing an equal-shared-care arrangement and it will have a detrimental impact on her, but that is outweighed by the longer term benefits for X (Transcript P-167, Lines 27-29);
(g)an equal-shared-care arrangement is not best for X. What is best is if the parental acrimony/mother’s behaviour ceases. There would be absolutely no issue if the mother’s behaviour was not interrupting her time with the father (Transcript P-168, Lines 11-12);
(h)that without significant and substantial time to protect X’s view of her father, she was concerned it would be impacted on negatively (Transcript P-175, Lines 17-18);
(i)considered that X would be at risk of suffering from ongoing mental health issues (Transcript P-177, Lines 41-43) and that for someone with an anxious attachment a diagnosable mental illness by early adulthood is likely (Transcript P-178, Lines 12-14).
The challenges to Dr C’s evidence
The mother was critical of Dr C’s evidence. The challenges by the mother to Dr C’s evidence included that the First Report was intended to encompass her final recommendations for X (yet subsequently she had produced the Second Report containing other recommendations), that the reasons given for her change of views between the First Report and the Second Report were not compelling, and that she had no knowledge of the parties’ trial affidavits or applications, and was therefore unaware of recent developments. Counsel for the mother also submitted that ultimately Dr C distanced herself from her recommendation in the Second Report that X spend equal time with each parent.
Challenges to Dr C’s experience and credentials by Mr Hall for the mother ultimately went nowhere. Significant time was spent on this endeavour. All that revealed, in my view, was the depth and breadth of Dr C’s expertise. Ultimately, no closing submission was advanced that Dr C was not appropriately qualified. Such a submission, in my view, always had insurmountable obstacles to overcome in circumstances where the mother consented to orders made on 19 August 2022 that Dr C produce a Second Report.
I accept that Dr C had not seen the parties amended application and response documents, or trial affidavits, prior to the preparation of the Second Report, or prior to being examined in Court. On this issue, however, the following is relevant. First, Dr C was aware of the position of the parties (including the mother’s acceptance (as one alternative) of an arrangement where X spends five nights per fortnight with the father) when she prepared the Second Report. Second, Dr C had seen earlier affidavits filed by the parties which recorded in some depth, the issues between them prior to the filing of the trial affidavits. Third, it was open to each party to put any new or further information to Dr C and elicit her response. Mr Hall for the mother, in particular, availed himself of that opportunity. Fourth, this was the second time that Dr C had seen these parties in the course of a few months. Most families in this Court only obtain one family report. This family obtained two family reports. It may be inferred that an expert consultant who spends a greater a period of time with a particular family than is normally the case, will gain a greater insight into the needs, dynamics and personalities of, and within, that family. For these reasons, Dr C’s failure to review the trial affidavits does not detract from the weight to be given to her views.

A critical issue in the case (from the mother’s perspective) was the change in the recommendations made by Dr C between writing the First Report and writing the Second Report. There are two matters to note about this criticism.
First, this Court does not act solely on the basis of the recommendations of experts like Dr C. The recommendations form only one part of a Family Report. A Court will consider those, but also consider other aspects of the Family Report. The Court does not blindly follow recommendations. It is the duty of this Court to weigh all the evidence in the Family Report and from other sources, and issue orders that are in X’s best interests. That evidence includes the evidence of the parties, the evidence of other witnesses, consideration of what X has reported to Dr C, Dr C’s views as to what is happening, and Dr C’s evaluation of what is happening.
Second, Dr C was asked what had changed between the First Report and the Second Report. Her answer was that the evidence had changed. By that, Dr C was referring to additional information X had provided to her in the course of preparing the Second Report that had not been available to her in the First Report.
I have examined each of the Family Reports closely. X provided a range of information to Dr C during the course of the interview for the Second Report that she did not provide to Dr C during the interview for the First Report. At the risk of repeating some of the evidence referred to earlier, and by way of example:
(a)X advised (in relation to the existing arrangement where she spent five nights per fortnight with the father) that she did not like the long gap between contact with the next parent at [33];
(b)X expressed the view that no one was there for her mother and outlined how she tries to be the support person for her mother, allowing her mother to discuss her problems with her, however X believed this to be ‘added stress I don’t need’ at [42];
(c)X was worried about her mother when she [X] was not with her and feared the mother would become lonely at [43];
(d)X referred to court orders as ‘dodgy’. X told Dr C it was her mother’s view that the court orders were ‘dodgy’ and that this was now imprinted in her head at [45];
(e)X advised that her father ‘cares a little bit more about not putting me in the middle’ at [45];
(f)X advised that she believed she had more one-on-one time with her father with the previous arrangements at [46];
(g)X described feeling more calm and happy at her mother’s house and that a big part of that is the presence of her dog, H, at [46];
(h)X advised that she tried to form her own views of her parents and can ‘push away’ her mother’s negative comments about the father at [48];
(i)X stated that it was ‘refreshing’ that her father did not talk negatively about her mother, or about the court proceedings at [48];
(j)X advised that her mother does not like Ms D and will say negative things about her. X went on to say that she realises it is conceivable that her mother is telling the truth at [48]. X also described Ms D as ‘the problem’, and that things were more relaxed prior to her presence at [41];
(k)X disclosed that the mother speaks to her about what is occurring in court with Ms D at [41];
(l)X disclosed to her school counsellor, Ms G, that she felt pressure from her mother to tell the Court psychologist that she was not happy at her father’s at [57];
(m)X advised she no longer missed her mother at night and instead missed her mostly during the day at school at [43]; and
(n)X advised that she got along well with Ms D and F, but missed one-on-one time with her father at [40].
Dr C was questioned about paragraph [75] of the First Report, in particular, her comment to the effect that exact time spend specifications matter little to the quality of the relationship. That paragraph is in the following terms:
75. Both parents are encouraged to continue their attempts to protect [X] from awareness of parental/adult matters, including their negative view of the other parent. After all, the other parent is half of [X], and thus, their negative view of them speaks to the heart of [X]’s identity. Ultimately, both parents need to understand that, at this age, the exact time-spent specifications matter little to the quality of the relationship they share – what will matter most is a lack of parental acrimony. So long as [X] is sharing quality and substantial time with both parents, she will continue to thrive, as will her strong relationship with each of them.
Dr C was asked whether she should stood by the opinion set out above. Dr C said that she did not do so. She stated, in effect, that given the further evidence received from X, her recommendations were now focused on ensuring there was a degree of protection for X.
Dr C was questioned about X’s ‘anxious attachment’. It was suggested to Dr C there was no evidence of an ‘anxious attachment’ in the First Report. Dr C was asked to accept that the emergence of an ‘anxious attachment’ postdates the implementation of X spending five nights per fortnight with the father. Dr C accepted that proposition, but not in its entirety. She stated that there were indicators at the time the First Report was prepared that something was wrong, but the evidence of that only emerged during the preparation of the Second Report.
Dr C was questioned about X’s academic performance. Dr C stated plainly, that there was no question about the mother’s ability to provide for X academically. Dr C made it equally clear, however, that academic performance is only one element, or one measure, of how children are progressing.
It was put to Dr C that the father already had a safe and secure relationship with X under the present arrangements. Dr C accepted that proposition, but also stated that risk factors to the father-daughter relationship are going to increase during the development phase of adolescence for X, in terms of the impact on her relationship with her father.
It was submitted by the mother in closing that Dr C had ‘explicitly distanced’ herself from her recommendation for an equal-shared-care arrangement. That submission appears to be based on the following exchange between Mr Hall and Dr C:
Right. Okay. What study or research basis are you relying upon in support of your assertion that it’s best for [X] to have an equal-shared-care arrangement?---I don’t think it’s best for [X] to have an equal-shared-care arrangement. I think it’s best for [X] if the parents changed, and particularly the mother more recently, so that [X] can have what she wants. There would be absolutely no issue if the mother’s behaviour was not interrupting her time with the father - - -
So - - -?--- - - - there would be no concern with carrying on with 5/9 arrangement.
Okay. So given that it’s news to you that my client has consulted a child psychologist about arrangements for [X], does that give you some level of comfort?---No, it wouldn’t, your Honour.
No, it wouldn’t?---It’s great that she has, but my question for the mother is her ability to shift in what I would say a developmentally timely fashion for [X].
I have considered closely the exchange above and the other evidence before me. Dr C did not distance herself from her recommendation of an equal-shared-care arrangement. Rather, for the reasons that follow, Dr C’s views were more carefully considered and nuanced than what the mother seeks to make out from the extract above.
First, as the extract above makes clear, Dr C does not hold the view that equal-shared-care is the best arrangement for X. Rather, Dr C’s view is that an arrangement under which X spends five nights per fortnight with her father, and the success of that arrangement, depends on the ability of the mother to engage with specialists in a timely manner and change her behaviours, a matter about which Dr C has some doubt. I note that there is evidence in this matter that shows that the mother does not have the ability to engage with specialists when it is recommended. For example, it was recommended that the parents engage with a child psychologist to receive support around how best to support X. Instead, the mother engaged with an allied health worker to obtain support for her own mental health. I also note, for reasons that I come to later, that I have formed the view the mother lacks insight into her own behaviours. Change cannot occur if there is no insight into the problem, and no desire to change.
Second, Dr C expressly clarified her position later during her cross-examination by Mr Hall:
But having done all of that, she comes along to you and she’s asked what she wants, all the more forcefully: “I want it to go back to the way it was, please; why isn’t anybody listening to me”?---Yes, absolutely.
Is this going to be a horrible remembered chapter for her in - - -?---This absolutely will be.
- - - assertiveness and being listened to by adults?---Absolutely, absolutely.
Okay. Using your – using your - - -?---It should never be – you misquoted me before when you said that the best thing for [X] is a week-about; no, it’s not; that’s the best in a bad situation. The best thing for [X] would be that these issues were not present; that the mother had gone and worked on these issues and developed insight; had suitable boundaries, so that it’s not affecting [X]’s relationship with her father, and a 5/9 could have stayed.
She also clarified her position again later:
MR HALL: All right. But let’s just focus on the part of that where you’re talking about [X]’s – I will describe it as this – [X]’s resilience in terms of the strength and the durability of her relationship with her father, that if the mother were to say something that was critical, or whatever, she brushes if off; she actually said that, and you reported that?---When she calls him names? Yes.
Doesn’t that contra-indicate this thesis that she needs to have more time with the father, because otherwise, you know, she’s going to stop wanting to see her dad altogether? That evidence directly contradicts that thesis?---I think – well, because that’s at this point in time, but it’s not taking into account the developmental tasks of the future in terms of adolescence, and adolescence, as I said, is a risk period for depression for [X], and it’s also a risk period in terms of when they develop a natural affinity for one parent or another. Like she has already got it for her mum, but that pull is there, and I’m worried that without significant and substantial time to protect her view of her father, that it will be impacted on negatively.
You’re pressing against an open door if you think there should be substantial and significant time, because that’s the mother’s proposal. There’s not even a dispute about whether the child should have substantial and significant time with the father; do you understand that?---Sure.
Right?---I think she needs more; that’s my opinion.
Yes?---Yes.
It can be seen from the above that Dr C’s evidence is that an equal-shared-care arrangement is the best outcome in a bad situation, and further, that X needs more time with her father than the substantial and significant time she spends with him under the existing interim arrangements.
Third, Dr C explained her evidence and opinion. She gave an example about the mother’s reaction to the care of X’s dog H:
Yes?---So the example of the dog, [H]: so [H] is a very important thing – being – in [X]’s life, and I don’t know how it happened, but for some reason [X] had the dog at – [H], which is in the mother’s home, at the Dad’s house. [X] then did a different activity; I think she went with her uncle’s partner, or something, on the Dad’s side – went shopping; something – whatever the reason, she was not there upon return of the dog. Now, the mother yelled at her for that, according to [X] – the mother yelled at her for that, and [X] said, “I thought it was fine. I thought that Dad could look after a dog, but now Mum’s yelled at me and she’s made me question whether or not he can, and she yelled at me, and she told me that it was my responsibility; she didn’t know where I was, so she was worried about me,” and because the dad and [Ms D] are not capable of looking after [H], so it wasn’t a responsible thing to do. But it was only after the conversation with the mother that [X] formed that opinion. Initially she was fine; it wasn’t until she got yelled at, in [X]’s view, realising that she’s a sensitive girl – you know, she wouldn’t take much for her to think she’s being yelled at – but certainly she had then internalised this issue that she was responsible and she has formed this view that the father and [Ms D] can’t look after a dog. What’s her view – if the father and [Ms D] can’t look after a dog, how on earth are they supposed to care for the mother’s 13-year-old daughter?
MR HALL: Well, my client was cross-examined about this very topic by my learned friend and she said that she accepted that the father was capable of looking 15 after the dog; she was able to - - -?---That’s not [X]’s opinion.
Finally, Dr C also expressed concerns for X’s mental health if things did not change.
Conclusions regarding the evidence of Dr C
When all of this evidence is considered, including the various challenges made by the mother to Dr C’s evidence, I find Dr C to be a careful, credible, reliable and insightful witness. Despite sustained challenge, she coherently explained her evidence and why some of her conclusions had changed. She made appropriate concessions in the course of her evidence, for example, conceding the possibility that she may be wrong, and accepting that X would find the change to an equal-shared-care arrangement difficult.
At one point, Mr Hall put to Dr C that X would continue to do well at school and would continue to have substantial and significant involvement with the father. Dr C was asked whether that was ‘a good enough outcome’. Dr C’s response to that proposition was emphatic and significant:
Yes. And it’s a good enough outcome, isn’t it?---I always strive for better than good enough when it comes to our young people, but I’m probably the only piece of – you know, person in an adult-centric court system to talk for children. I think we can do better; I think [X] deserves better, and I’m sure both of her parents would agree with that.
When all of the matters above are considered, I do not accept the submission that the weight attributed to Dr C’s evidence or opinions is diminished. In my view, Dr C’s evidence, particularly her evidence as to what X told her, and her professional assessments of the dynamics of this family, should be accorded significant weight. I accept all of Dr C’s evidence.
OTHER PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS OF THE MOTHER
Mr Hall for the mother submitted that the mother’s evidence-in-chief was not answered by the father, and therefore all of the mother’s evidence-in chief should be accepted by the Court. That submission was advanced on the basis that trial directions made by Judge Harland provided the father, as the applicant in the proceeding, with an opportunity to file an affidavit in response to the matters set out in the mother’s trial affidavit. The father did not file an affidavit in reply. It was contended on this basis, that the mother’s evidence was unanswered and should therefore be accepted by the Court.
I reject the submission above. Nothing in the trial directions and orders made by Judge Harland, or in the notations to the order, expressly provide that the orders are to have the effect suggested by Mr Hall. No authority for the proposition advanced by Mr Hall was cited. If this submission was to be seriously advanced, it needed to have been advanced at the outset of the hearing. Mr Hall only raised the point in closing submissions in reply, thereby depriving his opponent of the opportunity to address it. Moreover, the submission was general in nature, and no attempt was made by Mr Hall to detail the specific evidence which he said should be accepted.
Mr Hall also submitted that this was a case in which ‘the father must make the case for change’. It was submitted he had not done so. I reject the submission that it is incumbent on the father to make the case for change. The paramount consideration in cases such as this is what is in the child’s best interest, having regard to the evidence before the Court. No onus or obligation is cast on any party to make a case for change. Moreover, the long-standing principle in this Court is that it is not bound by proposals of the parties.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
It is necessary to make some preliminary observations of the parties and their evidence.
The evidence of the father
The father impressed as a truthful and honest witness. He was questioned in great detail about the history of the disputes and the proceedings between him and the mother. He was candid in his responses. He acknowledged the mother as X’s primary attachment figure. He accepted propositions which had the potential to be detrimental to his case. For example, he acknowledged that he was proposing significant changes for X. He acknowledged that the result of his application for orders in 2014 produced insignificant changes. He acknowledged that his applications for further time with X would have been hard for the mother. Further, when the father could not recall an answer, he was forthright in saying so.
The father also impressed as a parent with some insight into the circumstances that confront X. He acknowledged that his relationship with Ms D was a big change for X. His evidence as to how he and Ms D have managed the introduction of the relationship to X demonstrated that they had given some thought to X’s needs. Questioned about at what age X could make her own mind up about where to live, the father quite correctly noted that the answer to that question depends on her development and not on her age. Questioned about whether X would probably be okay if his application failed, he stated that he hoped he could do better for X. In expressing that view (in an unprompted way), the father’s evidence mirrored the sentiments expressed later in the trial by Dr C. In short, I found the father to be a credible witness who displayed insight into the issues confronting X.
The evidence of the mother
Regrettably, I have reached the conclusion that the mother’s evidence is unreliable. Her evidence at times conflicted with other evidence obtained independently. At times she was evasive and her answers were not genuine. By way of example:
(a)the mother told the Court about an incident that occurred on 6 September 2022. X was due to enter her father’s care earlier than usual in accordance with Court orders. X did not wish for time to commence earlier and wanted to keep to the usual arrangement. The mother told the Court she pleaded with X to spend time with her father in accordance with Court orders. The mother’s account, however, is not consistent with what X told Dr C. X told Dr C that when she (X) told her mother she didn’t want to attend the father’s home, her mother offered to pick her up from school. In other words, the mother facilitated, or encouraged X to not spend time with her father and did not plead with X to enter the father’s care;
(b)the mother told the Court she encouraged X to travel interstate with her father in early 2023 and told her to focus on having a nice and meaningful time with the father, Ms D and F. X told Dr C that her mother was willing to back her (X) up if she did not want to go and that X could stay with her instead;
(c)it was put to the mother that X was aware that she (the mother) was not pleased about the father seeking extra time with X. The mother’s response was ‘I am not sure’;
(d)the mother was asked about where X may have picked up the term ‘dodgy orders’. The mother somewhat disingenuously responded ‘X’s mouth I believe’. When pressed, she said ‘perhaps she feels that way given her experience’;
(e)the mother was informed X had told Dr C that she was not listened to in Court. The mother was asked, in effect, whether that statement of X’s implied the mother had told X what was happening in court. The mother responded ‘I wasn’t there. I don’t know where that has come from’;
(f)It was put to the mother that she expressed concern to X about how the father and Ms D would treat X’s dog. The mother denied expressing that concern. However, X gave a contrary report to Dr C (see the transcript extracted earlier in these reasons);
(g)the mother was asked to contemplate how she may have contributed to X ‘s stress. Her answer was to the effect that she encourages X to do her homework, with no mention of anything else.

As can be seen from the above, the mother’s evidence at times conflicted with what X told Dr C. I note that despite that, during cross-examination, the mother unhesitatingly agreed that X is a ‘truthful child’.
The mother was asked on the second day of trial how X had felt overnight. The mother responded by saying that X had felt stressed and anxious, and had been up vomiting all night. She was asked what X said about that. The mother replied ‘she said it tasted like Ms D’s food. Courts should be rightly cautious about reading too much into the demeanour of a witness, however even allowing for that caution, the Court observed that there was more than a hint of satisfaction about the mother when she gave that evidence.
All of these matters lead me to conclude the mother’s evidence is not reliable. She was prepared to omit evidence, or avoid answering questions, that she perceived were detrimental to her case. Her evidence conflicted with other evidence before the Court. Where there is a conflict between the mother’s evidence and other evidence before me, I have preferred and accepted the other evidence.
X’S BEST INTERESTS
Need to protect the child from harm etc
This is not a case in which the evidence suggests there is any need to protect X from harm in the care of either parent. X currently lives with her mother and spends five nights per fortnight with her father. There is no history of any involvement by authorities with the family nor is there any history of substance abuse.
The mother raised in her affidavit material an incident that occurred in early 2023 when X refused to go on holiday interstate with her father. The mother annexed to her affidavit text messages from X where X refers to being hurt when the father pulled her shoulder. The father for his part, denies being physical with X.
I have considered X’s text messages to her mother closely, and in the context of the overall evidence in the case. It is not clear on the face of the text message that X was hurt because of any touch or physical action of the father. X did not report to Dr C that the father physically injured her, despite Dr C covering in some detail the incident concerning X’s refusal to go Interstate. There is also the prospect that X was referring to being hurt by the father (emotionally or otherwise), because X may have felt that is what the mother wanted to hear. Considered overall, I am not persuaded that the father physically injured X, or that there is any risk of him physically injuring her in the future.
Benefits of a meaningful relationship with both parents
There is no dispute that X loves both of her parents and that she has well-established relationships with each of them. There is no dispute that the mother is, and has been, the primary carer of X and the primary attachment figure.
The issue raised by this case is whether X is able to continue to enjoy a meaningful relationship with both parents, but in particular her father.
The mother’s evidence was that she supported X having a meaningful relationship with her father. I do not accept that evidence. The mother’s statements amount to little more than lip service to that ideal. As I have noted earlier, the mother’s evidence on various matters is directly contradicted by what X told Dr C. Where these contradictions occur, I prefer the account X gave to Dr C, over the mother’s account to the Court. There have been several occasions where the mother through her actions has undermined X’s relationship with her father. I refer among other things, to the mother’s actions prior to the proposed trip Interstate in early 2023 when the mother told X that she (the mother) would back X up if X refused to go, to the school incident that occurred on 6 September 2022 when the mother encouraged or facilitated X returning to her rather than to the father, to the mother’s denigration of Ms D, and to the mother’s comments to X that her father and Ms D are unable to care for the dog, H. There is force in Dr C’s observation of that last situation when she says that if the mother is undermining X’s confidence in her father’s ability to look after a dog, what does it say about his ability to look after a 13-year-old girl (as X then was).
For the reasons given above, I have formed the view that the mother has undermined the relationship between father and daughter, and continues to do so. I consider there to be a real risk that mother will continue to undermine the father-daughter relationship in the future. I am concerned, having heard all the evidence that X’s continued exposure to the comments, attitudes and behaviours of the mother may also contribute to X’s anxiety (given X clearly loves her father). I am also concerned that the mother’s conduct as described, presents a risk to the continued development of the father-daughter relationship, and X’s enjoyment of that relationship.
A criticism of the father by the mother is that his applications to this Court in 2011, 2014 and now (along with numerous mediations about parenting matters) had, among other things, impacted on her psychologically. In closing, she submitted the father’s actions ‘reflect a concerning attitude in the Father towards court process, and a mindset towards post-separation care arrangements that tends towards destabilisation and disharmony that has run counter to X’s best interests ever since her parents first separated’.
I am not persuaded there is any validity to the criticism of the father commencing proceedings in 2011. He was within his rights to commence those proceedings to settle arrangements for a very young child.
The criticism of the father for commending proceedings in 2014 is, in my view, valid and warranted. That application was commenced prematurely and, as the father properly conceded during cross-examination, the changes he obtained (through consent orders made at the time) were not significant. That fact however, does not lead me to conclude that the father consistently displays an attitude of destabilisation and disharmony, or that there is a risk he will seek to destabilise the relationship between mother and daughter in the future for the following reasons. First, the father acknowledged openly that his requests for more time with X would have impacted the mother. That concession was given freely. Second, the father openly agreed that X’s primary attachment is with her mother. Third, X told Dr C that the father does not criticise the mother- – one would expect him to do so if he was intent on creating disharmony. Fourth, X told Dr C that it is the father who is most able to keep her separate from family law matters. In short, all of the evidence supports the father’s statements to the Court that he supports X having a relationship with her mother. Nothing about the father’s evidence, or the way it was given, leads me to conclude that he is a parent intent on pursuit of litigation to destabilise the mother or to create disharmony. I conclude that the father supports X having a meaningful relationship with her mother.
X told Dr C that she would like a return to the previous care arrangements (four nights per fortnight with the father, with three consecutive nights). As an alternative to this, X would accept five nights per fortnight with the father, with such nights to be non-consecutive. In that context, it is necessary to consider what might happen to X’s relationship with each of her parents, but particularly her father, if the Court were to make an order for equal-shared care which X does not appear to support.
Dr C told the Court that there was a risk that X will be angry if the father’s application is granted. On that evidence, there is a risk that the father-daughter relationship may be prejudiced or undermined if I were to grant the application of the father. That evidence, however, needs to be weighed against the following. First, the evidence of X’s counsellor, Ms G, is that X will adjust to new arrangements. Second, the father is best able to keep X separate from family law matters, and X finds this refreshing. In light of this evidence, while there may be a risk that X may be angry in the short term, I am of the view that a change to equal-shared-care will not undermine X’s relationships with either of her parents in the longer term.
The final piece of evidence to be weighed is the evidence of Dr C that risk factors for X around adolescence will increase, and may put pressure on the relationship with her father. I have taken this evidence into account because the Court needs to weigh the parenting arrangement that will best guard against this, and promote a continued meaningful relationship between father and daughter.
Views expressed by the child
I have set out X’s views above. X is 14 years of age. Ordinarily, I would be inclined to attribute some weight, and perhaps significant weight, to the views of a 14-year-old girl. I am cautious about doing so in this case.
First, X is a child that is eager to please both her parents. She is well aware that she is in the middle of parental conflict. The evidence of the conflict within X is evident from the content of the First Report. In the First Report, X told Dr C that she would like slightly more time with her father, however also did not want less time with her mother. Plainly, those two propositions cannot be given effect to at the same time. In the First Report, X also told Dr C that insofar as school holiday time is concerned, she wanted what was fair and equal for both parents. X’s views are therefore influenced by her position in the middle of parental conflict.
Second and significantly, Dr C as the single expert has made it clear in the Second Report that little weight should be placed on X’s views given the ‘enmeshment’ with the mother that she has identified, and the lack of opportunity afforded to X to form independent views. Dr C expressed similar concerns (albeit not as seriously) about X’s views when she prepared the First Report. I accept the views of Dr C. The opinion proffered by Dr C is supported by the independent evidence that she collected directly from X.
Dr C was questioned on whether granting the father’s application would result in X getting more of what X did not want. Dr C agreed. Dr C also acknowledged that X may be angry if the father’s application was successful. Dr C was clear, however, that it was the job of parents to give children what they need and not necessarily what they may want.
Finally, there is the question of whether X, given her age, is likely to act contrary to Court orders if her wishes are not granted, and self-place with the mother. The mother submitted there was a risk of that occurring and pointed to the evidence in September 2022 when X walked past her father at school and went to her mother’s home.
I have considered what occurred in September 2022 closely. The mother seeks to characterise what occurred in September 2022 as X self-placing with her, or X effectively voting with her feet. In her affidavit evidence, the mother stated that she did not pick X up from school (paragraph 245 of her trial affidavit). That evidence, however, is directly contradicted by X who told Dr C that her mother was there at school to pick her up. As I have noted, the mother therefore encouraged and facilitated X not spending time with the father. I therefore place little weight on this incident in so far as it is used in support of a submission that X will self-place with the mother if the Court makes orders contrary to X’s stated wishes.
The other piece of evidence relevant to this issue are the views of Ms G that were given to Dr C and set out in the Second Report. Ms G’s view is that X will adjust to new arrangements.
When these matters are considered, I consider the risk that X will self-place with the mother to be low. The better view is that X will adjust to any new situation.
In light of all of the evidence, I give little weight to X’s views.
Nature of the child’s relationship with each parent and other relevant persons
X has a close and loving relationship with both of her parents.
Dr C identified signs of enmeshment between X and her mother. I accept that evidence, and take it into account.
There are then X’s relationships with Ms D and F.
X has a wonderful and warm relationship with F. The father gives an account of this at paragraph [122] of his affidavit and I accept that account. Dr C also made the following observation:
60. [X] entered the room with the father present. She appeared happy to see him, and sat in close proximity to him, and the pair engaged in conversation, comfortably. [Ms D] and [F] entered the office, and [X] was observed to have a big smile on her face when she saw [F], with [F] also happy to see [X]. [F] was excited to play with [X]. [X]’s was observed to be patient with [F], happily taking time to explain strategy to [F], and in an age appropriate way. The family engaged in a game, all ganging up against the father, playfully, with [X] and [F] working together collaboratively. They then engaged in joint play with lego, with all family members working cooperatively to create a shared construction.
61. At the end of the assessment, [X] was due to be walked out to her mother who was collecting her. [X] stood and cuddled her father, and [Ms D], voluntarily. She then turned to [F], and gave [F] a big cuddle, picking him up and spinning him around, with both having a big smile on their face. It was clear that [X] and [F] shared a close and strong bond.
The evidence surrounding X’s relationship with Ms D is not as clear-cut, and requires close examination.
The father’s evidence is to the effect that X warmed to Ms D quickly, however the relationship has been placed under stress because the mother has sought to portray Ms D as the problem.
Ms D’s evidence is that her relationship with X has developed over time and is now in a place where X is comfortable sharing ideas with her. Ms D also gave evidence that she has noticed a pattern of X communicating more easily with her when the mother is settled, and withdrawing from communication when the mother is upset about some aspect of the parenting arrangements. Ms D has stated that over the last six months or so, X’s relationship with her has progressively declined.
X told Dr C that ‘Ms D was the problem’. X also discussed with Dr C that Ms D had said negative things about her mother.
The comment by X that Ms D is the problem was focused upon by Mr Hall for the mother. Context, however, is important, and the following evidence provides some context for that comment. First, X went on to state that things were more relaxed prior to Ms D’s presence. It is completely understandable that matters would have been more relaxed for X prior to Ms D’s presence. I accept that the introduction of Ms D and F into the father’s life presents a big change for X. The father accepted it and I have little doubt (for reasons I will come to) that Ms D understands it. Second, it is clear from the surrounding evidence that X’s views about Ms D are being influenced by the mother. The evidence is, and I accept, that X is aware her mother does not like Ms D. The evidence is that the mother discloses to X what is going on in court proceedings, and in doing so, paints a negative picture of Ms D. X has to try and work out what might be true and what might not be. Third, while the relationship between X and Ms D is developing, there are positive signs in their relationship. In particular, I accept (for reasons I will come to) Ms D’s accounts of how the relationship has unfolded, and I also note the observations of X with Ms D recorded by Dr C.
This is not to say that all of the evidence favours the father and Ms D. X told Dr C that Ms D had said negative things about the mother. X told Dr C that when she refused to go Interstate, Ms D told her that she was being unfair, and that the mother had put those thoughts in her head. In her affidavit, Ms D largely corroborates this account, and says she told X that her mother had undermined X’s confidence.
Clearly, Ms D ought not to have criticised the mother to X. That said, I accept Ms D’s explanation that this was an error that occurred because she was upset at the time. Anyone confronted with the situation that confronted Ms D when she about to leave for Interstate would be upset. Ms D candidly and openly admitted the error, without reservation or prompting.
Ms D was subject to significant scrutiny during the hearing. Some of it was relevant, however a lot of it was unfair and unnecessary. The net result of it, however, is that Ms D impressed me as a witness. She demonstrated a clear-eyed awareness of the difficulties confronting X, and step-families generally. She was keen to protect F. She displayed a sensitivity to X’s feelings. Ms D had independently sought counselling to assist her with her emotions. She admitted her faults and errors, and clearly regretted what she had said to X about the Interstate trip. She was candid about the ups and downs of her relationship with X as that relationship developed. She accepted there was a risk X could vote with her feet and withdraw to her mother. Most impressively, Ms D had gone out of her way to explicitly assure X of X’s place in her father’s life, telling her that she would always be the most important person to him and that is how it should be. In short, Ms D displayed an insight and maturity as step parent and parent not often seen in this Court.
Given my views of the evidence of Ms D and the mother, I prefer Ms D’s evidence as to her relationship with X. Ms D and X clearly have a developing relationship. Ms D stated under oath that X described her as nice and I accept that. Dr C observed spontaneous warmth between X and Ms D. Even the mother under cross-examination conceded that X had affection for Ms D and F.
It is likely that X and Ms D will have difficulties from time to time. They are both navigating a new relationship in difficult circumstances. To the extent that there are difficulties in the relationship between Ms D and X that have arisen recently, I am satisfied that at least in part, those difficulties have been exacerbated by the actions of the mother, who speaks openly and negatively about Ms D to X, and the existence of these proceedings. The conclusion I have reached is also supported by the evidence of Dr C who stated that ‘it is duly noted that the mother (and X’s loyalty to her mother) is having a negative impact on this relationship’.
Given the matters I have discussed above, I have reached the following conclusions. First, X has a warm and loving relationship with both of her parents. Second, X has a loving relationship with F, one that she clearly derives joy from. Third, X has a developing relationship with Ms D, and there are some very warm and positive aspects to that relationship. Fourth, X’s relationship with Ms D is being undermined by the statements or actions of her mother. Fifth, Ms D is an insightful and capable parent who is well attuned to the challenges that confront X and the family in general. I regard her as being well-placed to support X if she is given the opportunity to do that. It is likely X will benefit from a relationship with Ms D, if that relationship is not undermined by the mother.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances
The mother has been X’s primary carer throughout her life and is the primary attachment figure for her. X is close to her mother and shares a bond with her. X sees herself as a support for her mother, worries about her mother when away from her, and worries that her mother will be lonely.
A potential move to an equal-shared-care arrangement would mean that X is away from her mother for a longer period of time. Moreover, it is proposed that that period of time will run in a block of seven days. As things stand, X has already expressed the wish that she not be away from her mother for such lengthy periods of time. There is evidence before me that a change to the present arrangements will ‘rattle’ X. I accept that evidence. There is also evidence, however, that X will adjust.

The mother advanced a number of submissions in relation to this limb of the best interest considerations. These included the following. First, that X had been doing well at school, but that her progress had stagnated, and that the stagnation occurred following the last change in parenting arrangements in July 2022. Secondly, that the father’s relationship with Ms D meant that X was no longer having any one-on-one time with the father. Third, that X was struggling with the new structure or dynamic of the father’s home under the current arrangements, and that her struggles would become worse if an equal-shared-care arrangement was implemented. Fourth, that Ms D was ‘the problem’ and was unwilling to make peace with the mother stating ‘we have no relationship’. Fifth, that the changes in the father’s living circumstances have had a significantly deleterious effect on his genuine availability to take care of X. Sixth, that further structural change is contraindicated and likely to be adverse to X’s well-being.
In relation to the submissions:
(a)I accept that X’s progress at school has stagnated, however, she is still doing well. She has had significant time out of school. I would not, in the absence of expert evidence, draw the conclusion that all of this has arisen because of the parenting orders of July 2022. There could be any number of causes for what has occurred, including ongoing parental acrimony for which both parents would share in the blame;
(b)The evidence does not support a finding that X no longer has any one-on-one time with her father on an overnight basis, or that her time with him has significantly reduced. Mr Hall attempted to make good the proposition that there was less, or no one-on-one time between the father and X by reference to documents he prepared and tendered, that showed the time the father spent with X both before and after the arrival of Ms D and F. I accept that the father has structured his arrangements so that X is in his home when F is present. That does not mean, however, that there is no, or less, one-on-one-time between the father and X. Ms D, who I regard as a credible and impressive witness, gave various examples of the time the father spends with X. Mr Hall’s documents fail to take account of the incidental contact that occurs when individuals live together. Those documents also fail to take account of the fact that while X was notionally in the care only of her father prior to the arrival of Ms D, it is likely she was also doing her own things during those times, for example, seeing friends or engaging in other activities, and it cannot be assumed she was always with the father. That said, I accept (as noted earlier), that X is adjusting to the new dynamic in the father’s home;
(c)For the reasons given previously, I do not accept that Ms D is ‘the problem’. When asked in cross-examination what gesture she would be willing to make to the mother to create peace between them, Ms D stated ‘I don’t think that this is a situation where Penny and I can have a relationship’. That is an honest answer in all the circumstances of this case. It is more than supported by my earlier observations and findings in respect of the mother and her behaviour.
As to the submission that further structural change is contraindicated, I have accepted Ms D and F constitute a change in the father’s household. I have also accepted that X is struggling to adjust to the change. These are matters I will take into account. I do not accept, however that the weight of the evidence suggests that further structural change is contraindicated. In particular, I have accepted and made findings about the mother undermining X’s relationship with her father, and I am also satisfied given all of the evidence that the mother is seeking to undermine any relationship between X and Ms D. Those matters support changing the present arrangements, as do a number of the observations made by Dr C which I have referenced earlier.
The extent to which the parents have taken the opportunity to participate in making decisions about X
The evidence before me is that both parents have taken the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues affecting X. The mother has explained in some detail in her affidavit, her history of caring for X. Given the mother has been the primary carer of X throughout her life, I accept that she has played the lead role in this respect.
The mother submitted that the father was not supportive of X’s extra-curricular and social activities. That was not put to the father in cross-examination. The evidence does not support the submission made by the mother.
The extent to which each parent has fulfilled their obligations to maintain X
In her affidavit, the mother states she was informed by the Child Support Agency that ‘the percentage of care had been incorrect’ and as a consequence, the father had underpaid her for five-and-a-half years. It is not clear how this situation arose. There was no cross-examination on the subject. It was not an issue that the parties spent any significant time on during the hearing. I decline to make any finding that any party has failed to meet his or her obligations to maintain X.
Parental capacity to provide for the needs of the child including emotionally and intellectually
I have dealt with aspects relating to this consideration earlier, and rely on my earlier findings and analysis. I refer in particular to the role X finds herself in, in relation to her mother and the pressure this puts upon X, the mother informing X about court matters, the mother’s undermining of the father without any regard for the impact that has upon X, and the mother’s failure to engage a psychologist to help with her parenting of X.
The evidence before me is that X has (largely) progressed well at school academically. The mother helps X with her homework and otherwise assists her. There is no doubt that the mother has the capacity to provide for, and encourage X’s academic needs.
The father’s ability to provide for, encourage, and develop X’s intellectual needs is largely untested. That situation has arisen because of the history of care arrangements between these parties. The mother sought to attribute X’s stagnation in progress at school to the increased time she spent with the father since July 2022. For the reasons previously stated, I decline to draw that conclusion.
The question of whether the parents are able to provide for X’s emotional needs is more complex. Clearly X has a good relationship with her mother, and derives emotional support from that. There is other evidence before me however, that I have accepted and referred to earlier, that shows the mother is, among other things, not able to prioritise X’s emotional needs and development. The mother’s behaviours to which I have referred to above and earlier in these reasons mean that there is a real question about whether she can provide suitably for all of X’s emotional needs. All of the evidence before me indicates that mother lacks insight into her own behaviours, and the impact of those behaviours on X.
X identified the father as the one best able to keep her separate from family law matters. X noted that her father also did not speak ill of her mother. Both of these matters suggest that the father has greater awareness and the capacity (when compared to the mother) to support and provide for X’s emotional needs.
The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child
X is now 14 years of age (she was 13 at the time of the hearing). She is described by Dr C as incredibly articulate, and having maturity beyond what might be expected for her years. There seems little doubt that X is a reasonably mature child.
The attitude to the child and to the responsibilities of parenthood demonstrated by each of the parents
Both parents are capable of caring for X.
The mother submitted that the father is less competent than her, at least in part, because he failed to protect her from harm when he used physical force against her in January 2023 following her refusal to go Interstate. I have dealt with this matter earlier and rely on my earlier reasons.
The mother also submits that the father failed to protect X from harm when Ms D made criticisms of the mother. Ms D did make criticisms of the mother. She has acknowledged that and apologised for it. The Court accepts that those criticisms occurred at a moment of heightened tension about a family holiday that was abruptly changed. I would not regard the father as having failed to protect X from harm brought to her by Ms D.
There is then the mother’s attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood. I have made findings about the mother’s evidence, her lack of support for the paternal relationship, and her lack of insight. I rely on those earlier reasons here.
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
X has been embroiled in parental controversy and litigation for most of her life. In approaching this matter, the Court takes the view that this should be the final time there is any litigation between these parents concerning X.
There are risks that whatever set of orders I make in this matter may lead to further litigation. If I make the orders sought by the father for equal-shared-care, there is a small risk that X may vote with her feet and self-place with the mother. If that occurred, that could result in further litigation, including parenting proceedings and recovery orders.
On the other hand, if I make the orders sought by the mother, X’s relationship with her father may deteriorate for all of the reasons I have endeavoured to identify in this decision. If that were to occur, it may also prompt further litigation.
Ultimately, these parties need to take some responsibility for the outcome of these proceedings. They need to abide by whatever orders are made, and they need to reinforce to X the legitimacy of the orders and the need to abide by them. If they do not do that, then further litigation may ensue, and the person most likely to suffer from that will be X.
CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS UNDER SECTION 65DAA OF THE ACT
In the present matter, parental responsibility is shared. The father already has ‘substantial and significant time’. The question before the Court is whether X should have equal time with each parent.
Neither parent submitted that an order for equal time was not reasonably practicable as contemplated by section 65DAA(1)(b) and (5). The focus is, therefore, whether an order for equal time is in X’s best interests.
The mother’s proposal is that X continue to live with her and spend five nights per fortnight with the father. There are certainly advantages to that proposal. The mother is the primary attachment figure, and primary carer for X. X has progressed well academically in her mother’s care. X is also a confident and articulate child of 14 years of age who has at one level, expressed a desire to remain living with her mother. There are changes in the father house, notably the arrival of Ms D and F that X will need to continue to negotiate. These factors, along with other matters to which I have referred earlier all point to leaving matters as they are under the existing set of interim orders.
While there are good reasons for leaving matters as they are, in my view, the best interests considerations in this matter require that an order be made that X live equally between her father and her mother. I am deeply troubled by the mother undermining not only X’s relationship with the father (and to a lesser extent, Ms D), but also undermining X’s confidence in herself. The mother clearly lacks insight into her behaviours and their effect on X. I am concerned that if action is not taken, the father-daughter relationship may fracture. I am deeply troubled that X appears to be taking on responsibility for her mother’s concerns and welfare, which may be adding to X’s anxiety. I am concerned about the mental health risks faced by X if there is no change.
Spending more time at the father’s house will bestow upon X various advantages. She will have a longer period of relief from taking on her mother’s concerns. She will be able to feel protected by the father, who is better placed to shield her from acrimony. She will be able to experience the joy of being a child in a sibling relationship, and can continue to develop her warm and loving relationship with F. Most importantly, a move to equal-shared-care will provide some protection for the father-daughter relationship, and may guard against the risk of X experiencing further mental health issues.
I accept that both the mother (and at least initially, X) will be disappointed with this decision. While that disappointment is understandable, the following matters should be borne in mind. First, the evidence is that X is capable of adjustment. Second, it ought not be forgotten that X will continue to see her mother for seven days in every fortnight. That provides ample opportunity for continued growth in the mother and daughter relationship.
For all of these reasons, I will make an order that X spend equal time living at her father’s house and her mother’s house. I regard such an order as being in X’s best interest.
OTHER MATTERS
Phone access
The father seeks an order that both parents be permitted to have access to X’s mobile telephone and electronic devices, with both parents able to direct X to provide the PIN to each parent on request. The mother opposed the order for the reasons set out at paragraph [76] of her closing written submissions.
The provision of a mobile phone to X appears to be a hot topic between these parents. In closing, Ms McCreadie for the father submitted that the father sought an order for the PIN because he is a parent, concerned about social media and online activity. Ms McCreadie submitted that X will tell her mother the PIN, but will not tell the father.
The difficulty for the Court in dealing with this issue is that while there is plenty of evidence before the Court of the dispute between the parties in relation to the phone, and matters like turning on the parental controls of the phone, there is no evidence before the Court in relation to why it is necessary for the PIN to be disclosed. At a general level, I can accept the father’s concerns about the impact of social media and online activity for teenagers, but he has adduced no evidence about these specific matters.
Given the lack of evidence before me, I decline to make any order that X provide both parents with the PIN for her phone. I observe that X will now live seven nights per fortnight with the father. In that situation, there may be other measures available which the father as a parent can take to limit phone and electronic device use.
First option to care for X
The mother seeks an order that in the event either parent is unable to look after X on an overnight basis, the other parent be given the first option to do so. The mother submitted that such an order was supported given X’s ‘fragile’ relationship with Ms D.
I do not accept that X has a ‘fragile’ relationship with Ms D. It is a developing relationship with positive signs for X. To the extent there are difficulties in that relationship, that has been exacerbated by the conduct of the mother. Granting this order would simply further serve to undermine X’s relationship with the father and in particular Ms D. It could serve to reinforce the notion (already implanted by the mother) that Ms D is not competent to care for X if the father happens to be absent. There is no warrant for making that order given I regard Ms D as a capable, insightful and competent step-parent. There is also no evidence before me that the father spends significant time away from home.
The other aspect of this order in the context of this case is that it gives every impression of X being viewed as a possession to be shared between the parents. Simply because one parent may, for example, be away for work for one or two nights does not mean the child should automatically go to the other parent. It is difficult enough for any person, let alone a child, to have to move constantly between homes on a weekly basis. That situation would be made tolerably worse if a child had to move for single nights at short notice simply because a parent was away. I decline to make the order.
Notice of interstate travel
The mother seeks an order that each party provide reasonable prior notice of any interstate travel. Not much time (if any) was spent by the parties on this issue at trial. There was no cross examination of the parties concerning it. I note Dr C expressed concerns about the parties being required to give each other notice of such travel.
I decline to grant the order. Both parents have equal-shared parental responsibility and both will have equal time with X. Each can decide what they wish to do in their own time. There is some evidence before me of what occurs when notice is given. The father’s trip with X Interstate was derailed when the mother failed to support the trip. A notice provision will simply provide further opportunity for similar behaviour to occur. As Dr C noted, it is better the parties communicate as little as humanly possible. It is not in X’s best interest that such an order be made.
DIPSOSITION
As I noted at the outset, the parties were able to agree on a range of matters relating to the parenting of X. I will make those orders by consent. The other orders will be made as contemplated by these reasons.
I have stepped back to consider the orders the Court has been asked to make in respect of the areas of dispute between the parties. I am satisfied that the orders that I am making, when considered alone, and also in conjunction with the consent orders agreed to by the parties, are orders that are in X’s best interests.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-eight (138) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Blake.
Associate:
Dated: 20 July 2023

File number:	MLC 531 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE BLAKE
Date of judgment:	20 July 2023
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting - history of parental conflict – where child currently spends five nights per fortnight with the father – where father seeks equal shared care – where allegations that mother undermines the relationship between father and child and that mother lacks insight - found that mother undermines paternal relationship and lacks insight – where additional time with the father will protect against mother’s behaviours – order that child spend equal time with each parent. FAMILY LAW – Parenting – where two family reports prepared within 12 months – where Court Child Expert made different recommendations in the second report – whether there is a basis for the different recommendations – degree of weight to be given to the evidence of the Court Child Expert. FAMILY LAW – Practice and Procedure – where orders were made for the filing of trial affidavits – where the Applicant father did not file an affidavit in reply to the mother’s trial affidavit despite orders permitting him to do so - where the mother contended her evidence should be accepted in full because it was unanswered by the father due to his failure to file a reply affidavit – mother’s submission rejected.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CC(2)(a), 60CC(2)(b), 60CC(2A), 60CC(3), 61DA, 65DAA(1), 65DAA(1)(b), 65DAA(5).
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	138
Date of hearing:	27, 28, 29 March 2023
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms McCreadie
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Clancy and Triado
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Hall
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ryan Carlisle Thomas

order made by:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	20 July 2023