Harcourt & Corrington - [2025] FedCFamC2F 825

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825

File number(s): BRC 7915 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE BERTONE

Date of judgment: 24 July 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - Parenting – Where Mother had historically been children’s primary carer – Where Father perpetrated serious family violence including physical violence and coercive control – Where both parents were using drugs during relationship – Where Mother and children were living in shelters for periods of time – Where in January 2022 the paternal grandfather withheld the children after a contact period with their Father – Where the children have been living in the Father’s primary care since January 2022 – Where the Mother has ceased drug use and has engaged in counselling – Where Father uses medicinal cannabis but where there is no medical evidence as to why – Where there are risks to children remaining in the Father’s primary care – Where neither parent seeks supervised time for the other parent - Where the risks can be ameliorated – Where orders are made for the children to live with the Mother.

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 s128.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 68B, s68P, 114Q, Division 12A.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Chapter 7.

Cases cited:
Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23

Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 86

Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71

Bircher and Bircher [2018] FamCA 364

Hall & Hall (1979) FLC 90-713

Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97

Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249

Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26

Whisprun Pty Ltd & Dixon [2003] HCA 48.

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 446

Date of last submission/s: 2 December 2024

Date of hearing: 8, 9, 10 and 25 October 2024

Place: Brisbane

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Collins

Solicitor for the Applicant: BDG Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms G Shepherd

Solicitor for the Respondent: Tempest Legal

Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr M Taylor

Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Mr A Kingston of Norman Kingston Solicitors
ORDERS

BRC 7915 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS HARCOURT

Applicant

AND:
MR CORRINGTON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BERTONE

DATE OF ORDER:

24 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS:
1.All previous parenting orders are discharged.
2.The children are to be released into the Mother’s care from Child Court Services located at … in the State of Queensland on 24 July 2025 after the pronouncement of these Orders.
3.The Mother shall have sole decision-making authority for the children X born in 2018 (‘X’) and Y born in 2020 (‘Y’) for all decisions relating to the children’s long-term care and welfare including decisions regarding:
(a)Education;
(b)Health;
(c)Religious and cultural upbringing; and
(d)Any change to their living arrangements that would make it more difficult for the children to spend time with, or communicate with, their Father.

4.When the Mother is to make a decision about their major long-term care:
(a)The Mother is to email or text message the Father setting out the decision she wishes to make not less than fourteen (14) days prior to making a decision;
(b)The Father is to respond to the Mother’s email or text message with his views about the decision to be made within seven (7) days; and
(c)The Mother will consider the Father’s views and will then make the final decision.

Living arrangements
5.The children shall live with the Mother.
6.The children shall spend time with and communicate with the Father as agreed between the parents in writing, and failing agreement, commencing 1 August 2025 and each alternate weekend as follows:
(a)During the school term, each alternate weekend from 3pm Friday to 3pm Sunday, or such other time as the contact centre is able to accommodate changeover on a Sunday; and
(b)Via Facetime each Tuesday and Thursday nights between 6.00pm and 6.30pm (the time zone being the State in which the children are living) with the Father to initiate and terminate the call.

7.In the event the Father is unable to collect the children from school on Friday afternoon, then changeover is to be effected at 10.00am on Saturday at B Contact Centre at City C, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing.

School holidays
8.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, the children shall spend equal time with their parents during all school holiday periods as follows:
(a)With the Mother for the first half of the April, June/July and September/October New South Wales gazetted school holidays in even-numbered years, and for the second half in odd-numbered years; and
(b)With the Father for the first half of the April, June/July and September/October New South Wales gazetted school holidays in odd-numbered years, and for the second half in even-numbered years; and
(c)During the December/January New South Wales gazetted school holidays, with the Mother for weeks 1, 3 and 5 in even-numbered years and weeks 2, 4 and 6 in odd-numbered years; and
(d)During the December/January New South Wales gazetted school holidays, with the Father for weeks 2, 4 and 6 in even-numbered years and weeks 1, 3 and 5 in odd-numbered years.

9.For the purpose of these Orders, unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing:
(a)The school holidays occurring in April, June/July and September/October shall be deemed to commence at 10am on the day immediately following the last day of the previous school term and shall be deemed to end on the Sunday immediately preceding the commencement of the new school term; and
(b)For the December/January school holidays, the time with each parent is deemed to commence at 10am on the first Saturday of the school holiday period and shall be deemed to conclude at 10am the following Saturday, so that the children spend this school holiday period with their parents on a week-about basis.

Special days
10.Notwithstanding any other order, the children shall spend time with the parents on special days, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents:
(a)With the Mother on Mother’s Day from 3.00pm the day before Mother’s Day until 3.00pm on Mother’s Day;
(b)With the Father on Father’s Day from 3.00pm the day before Father’s Day until 3.00pm on Father’s Day;
(c)Communication via Facetime between 6.00pm and 6.30pm on each of the children’s birthdays with the parent who is not living with the children at that time to initiate and terminate the call (the time zone being the State in which the children are living);
(d)Communication via Facetime between 6.00pm and 6.30pm on each of the parent’s birthdays, with the birthday parent to initiate and terminate the call.

11.Notwithstanding any other order, the children shall spend time with each parent during the Christmas period as follows, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents:
(a)In odd-numbered years, with the Mother from 3.00pm 24 December until 3.00pm 25 December and with the Father from 3.00pm 25 December until 3.00pm 26 December; and
(b)In even-numbered years, with the Father from 3.00pm 24 December until 3.00pm 25 December and with the Mother from 3.00pm 25 December until 3.00pm 26 December.

Changeover
12.Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, changeovers shall occur:
(a)On a school day at the children’s school; and
(b)On a Saturday at B Contact Centre, City C New South Wales; and
(c)On a Sunday at the D Contact Centre at Suburb E in the State of Queensland.

13.During the Christmas period in each year, if neither D Contact Centre nor B Contact Centre is able to facilitate the changeover, then changeover shall occur at McDonald’s Town F, New South Wales, or some other public place that is mid-way between the parents’ residences, as agreed by the parents in writing.
14.The parents are to equally share the costs of the supervised contact centre changeovers.

Communication and Authorities
15.The parents will communicate with each other in writing either via email, text message or parenting application.
16.The communication between the parents shall be polite and respectful and shall be limited to the care, welfare and time spending arrangements for the children.
17.Each parent shall keep the other informed of:
(a)Their current residential address, mobile number and email address and will notify the other parent of any change within forty eight (48) hours of the change; and
(b)The names and contact details of any treating medical or other health practitioners who treat either of the children and will notify the other parent of any change within forty eight (48) hours of the change.

18.This Order shall be sufficient authority to either of the children’s doctors and all other allied health professionals upon whom the child attends to provide eachparent with information relating to the child’s health at the expense of the requesting parent.
19.This Order shall be sufficient authority to either of the children’s school to provide eachparent with all information about the child’s progress at school and provide each parent with copies of reports, photographs, certificates and awards at the expense of the requesting parent.
20.Each parent shall notify the other as soon as practicable of any significant medical condition suffered by either of the children and in the event of an emergency shall notify the other within one (1) hour and will provide that parent with the contact details of the hospital, specialist or medical practitioner upon which the child attended.
21.Each parent is at liberty to attend the children’s school and extra-curricular activities for events to which parents are usually invited including, but not limited to, awards ceremonies, sports carnivals, and concerts.

ENGAGEMENT WITH POLICE OR STATE CHILD WELFARE AUTHORITIES
22.Each parent is to immediately notify the other parent in writing in the event of the following:
(a)That parent, or either child, or any person living in that parent’s household, has any engagement with any police service or any State child welfare agency;
(b)If that parent, or either child, is a victim of family violence, or is exposed to family violence;
(c)If that parent is named as an aggrieved, or the children are named as an aggrieved, on any family violence or protection order; and
(d)If that parent is named as a respondent in any family violence or protection order.

23.In the event of a situation arising as set out in Order 22 hereof, then that parent shall immediately provide a copy to the other parent of any of the following documents:
(a)Any Protection order application;
(b)Any Protection order;
(c)Any Police witness statement given by that parent; and
(d)Any other document provided to that parent by any police service or State child welfare agency about that parent, either child, or that parent’s partner.

Restraints and Injunctions
24.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’), the Father is hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)smoking or consuming cannabis while the children are in his care; and
(b)driving a motor vehicle with the children while they are in his care within 12 hours of smoking or consuming cannabis.

25.Pursuant to section 68B of the Act each parent is restrained by injunction from:
(a)Attending the other parent’s residence or place of work;
(b)Approaching the other parent at any place, including at changeover;
(c)Communicating with the other parent unless expressly in accordance with these Orders; and
(d)Physically disciplining the children or allowing any other person to physically discipline the children.

26.During the time the children are in the care of either parent, that parent shall:
(a)Speak of the other parent respectfully;
(b)Not insult or speak badly about the other parent, that parent’s partner, or that parent’s family directed to either child, or in the presence or hearing of either child; and
(c)Ensure that no other person insults or speaks badly of the other parent to either child, or in the presence or hearing of either child, and shall take prompt action to remove the children from the presence of the person who is doing so.

27.In the event the terms of these Orders are inconsistent with the provisions contained in any Protection order or Family Violence Order, then pursuant to section 68P of the Act, these Orders shall prevail.

SECTION 114Q
28.The parents each have leave, pursuant to section 114Q of the Act, to provide a copy of these Orders to the children’s school and medical practitioners.
29.The parents each have leave, pursuant to section 114Q of the Act, to provide a copy of these Orders, together with Court’s Reasons for Decision, to any psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor engaged by either parent to assist them to comply with these Orders and to help that parent to promote the children’s relationship with the other parent.
30.All applications are otherwise dismissed.

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

These are parenting proceedings pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of X born in 2018 and Y born in 2020 (“the children”).
X is 6 years old, turning 7 in this year. Y is 5 years old.
The Mother was born in 1989 and is 36 years old. She lives in Town G, New South Wales and works as a beauty therapist and also as a retail worker.
The Father was born in 1988 and is 37 years old. He lives in Suburb H, Queensland and he does not work outside the home and is reliant on Centrelink benefits.
The parents commenced living together in or about July 2017 and separated sometime in late 2020, but then had an on/off relationship until in or about June 2021. They did not marry.
The children have been living in the Father’s primary care since January 2022.
The Mother commenced these proceedings on 1 July 2022.
The parents are in dispute as to the future care arrangements for the children.
The final hearing in this matter was initially listed to occur in April 2024 but did not proceed. The matter came before me for final hearing on 8, 9, 10 and 25 October 2024.
The Mother was represented by Mr Collins, of Counsel and the Father was represented by Ms Shepherd, of Counsel.
Mr Taylor, of Counsel, appeared for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Mr Kingston.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTY AT TRIAL
The Mother essentially seeks orders as follows:
(1)That she have sole decision making authority for the children’s major long term issues;
(2)That the two children move into her primary care; and
(3)The children spend time with their Father on each alternate weekend and half the school holidays.
The Father’s position at trial reflected the existing care arrangement that has been in place since January 2022 which is that the children are to remain living in his primary care.
The Father also seeks an order for him to have sole decision making authority for the children’s major long term issues.
In final submissions, the Father proffered a two-step proposal which is as follows:
(1)That if the parents remain living where they currently live, which is three hours apart, then the children will spend time with the Mother every second weekend and half the holidays; and
(2)If the parents move to live within forty-five minutes’ drive of each other’s residence, then the time the children spend with their Mother can increase to five nights a fortnight during the school term in addition to half the school holidays.
The Independent Children's Lawyer largely supported the orders sought by the Father save for the contact the children would have with their Mother during the school term.
Given the three hour distance between the parents’ current residences, the Independent Children’s Lawyer submits that the time the children spend with the Mother during the school term should reduce to every third weekend, rather than every second weekend, so as to ease the travel burden on the children.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues that now require my determination are as follows:
(1)Whether the children ought to remain in the Father’s primary care;
(2)Whether they should move to live in the Mother’s primary care; and
(3)The allocation of decision making authority.
In respect to the allocation of decision making authority, no party sought an order for joint decision making.
The parents each agreed, and this was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, that the parent seized with the children’s primary care ought to hold sole decision making authority.
The Mother’s order for sole decision making authority includes provision for her to consult with the Father and to consider his views.
The Father does not seek an order for his sole decision making authority to include consultation with the Mother.
There seemed to be much common ground between the other orders sought by the Mother and those sought by the Father in respect of ancillary orders, such as exchanging information, keeping the other parent informed and each parent being at liberty to attend school events and obtain information.
The parents each agree to continue to use a supervised contact centre for changeovers that do not occur on a school day.
The parents currently have changeovers on a non-school day occurring at either D Contact Centre, Suburb E, Queensland or at B Children’s Contact Centre, City C, New South Wales.
The Father is content for D Contact Centre to continue to be the changeover venue. The Mother seeks an order for the changeovers to occur instead at B Contact Centre.
I note that the parents agreed to interim consent orders on 25 October 2024 to use both supervised contact centres for changeovers during the school holiday periods while they were waiting for the Court’s orders and reasons to be published.
MATERIAL RELIED UPON
The Mother relied on the following documents:
(1)Case Outline filed 3 October 2024;
(2)Her Amended Initiating Application filed 22 May 2023;
(3)Her Mother’s Trial Affidavit filed 10 September 2024;
(4)Her Affidavit in Reply filed 17 September 2024;
(5)Her Financial Statement filed 8 April 2024; and
(6)Affidavit of Ms J filed 10 September 2024.

The Father relied on the following documents:
(1)Case Outline filed 3 October 2024;
(2)His Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 25 March 2023;
(3)His Affidavit filed 25 March 2024;
(4)His Affidavit filed 19 April 2024;
(5)His Affidavit (Updating) filed 10 September 2024;
(6)His Affidavit (Response) filed 19 September 2024;
(7)His Financial Statement filed 25 March 2024;
(8)Affidavit of Mr K filed 25 March 2024; and
(9)Affidavit of Ms L filed 25 March 2024.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on the following documents:
(1)Case Outline filed 7 October 2024;
(2)Family Report prepared by Ms M dated 7 February 2023 (Exhibit 2);
(3)Affidavit of Ms M filed 15 December 2023;
(4)Affidavit of Ms M filed 29 August 2024; and
(5)Affidavit of Dr N filed 7 March 2023.
Each of the parties tendered some documents during the trial and I have read and considered all the documents relied upon by each of the parties in addition to Exhibits 1 through to 27.
Exhibit 1 contains a Schedule of Objections made to the Father’s Affidavits. By consent of both the Mother’s and Father's Counsel, only those paragraphs conceded by the Father are struck out.
As to the balance of the objections, I do not propose to make any specific rulings. I will have regard only to relevant evidence, and place such weight on all the evidence I consider appropriate.
On the final day of hearing on 25 October 2024, Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer made oral submissions as to the orders sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. I then gave leave for the Mother’s and Father’s Counsel to file written submissions.
The Mother filed her final submissions on 11 November 2024.
The Father filed his final submissions on 25 November 2024, to which the Mother filed submissions in reply on 2 December 2024.
I have considered the evidence and submissions made on behalf of the parties. I am not required to mention every fact or argument put forward by a party, and I do not propose to address every submission made.[1]
[1] Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71; Whisprun Pty Ltd & Dixon [2003] HCA 48.
Where in the reasons that follow I make statements of fact, these should be regarded as findings of fact.
CREDIT
I found the Mother to be generally responsive to questions in cross-examination. I formed the view that the Mother did her best to answer questions honestly, and she made admissions against interests, such as her earlier drug use and the time she felt overwhelmed caring for the children.
The Mother admitted to recording some communications she had with the children without the Father knowing they were being recorded. This became Exhibit 10 and some of the comments the Mother makes in the recording do not show her in a good light.
As to the Father’s credit, I found he was generally not responsive to questions. I formed the view that when asked a question the answer to which would cast him in a bad light, the Father was vague and often took a long time to answer.
The Father made general admissions in his Affidavit evidence that he perpetrated family violence against the Mother of X and Y, and also against his former partner, Ms O, who is the mother of his older child, P. He did not go into any particulars, despite the Mother specifying multiple serious incidents of family violence.
Despite making these general admissions in his Affidavits in these Court proceedings, the Father denied physical violence against the Mother when interviewed by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in Victoria in June 2020[2].
[2] Exhibit 23.
In cross-examination, when the Father was asked questions about the particulars of his family violence, I found that he was that he was either non-responsive or deliberately vague in his answers. I formed the view that he did not want to admit to the particulars of his violence.
I granted the Father a certificate under section 128 of the Evidence Act (Cth) so that the Father could answer questions about his drug use. Despite the certificate, the Father was slow to make any admissions, and was again vague in his answers.
The Father was caught in a lie during cross-examination. His father, Mr K and his step-mother, Ms L, were witnesses in the Father’s case who were waiting in the Court precincts to be called for cross-examination.
During a break in the Father’s cross-examination, he spoke to his witnesses in the Court precincts, despite being told not to do so. The Father was directly asked by Counsel for the Mother if he spoke to his witnesses about the evidence he had given. The Father responded “Not the evidence I’ve given, no.”
This was utterly false.
The Father had been cross-examined about allegations of violence against P’s mother just prior to the break, including an allegation that he had caused her to have a black eye.
Mr K and Ms L were interposed and each gave evidence that the Father exited the Court room and walked over to them and told them of the allegations against him of causing P’s mother to have a black eye.
I formed the view that the Father was an unreliable witness who would lie if he felt the answer would cast him in a bad light.
Where the Mother and Father provide different accounts of the same incident, I prefer the Mother’s evidence.
Where the Father’s evidence about an issue is not supported by other evidence, I do not accept his evidence about that issue.
RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 60CA of the Act provides that when I am deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to the children, I must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
Section 60CC sets out how I am to determine what is in the children’s best interests and s60CC(2)(a) requires me to consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the children including safety from being exposed or subjected to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm of the child and each person who has care of the child.
Pursuant to s60CC(3) of the Act, I must consider the children’s right to enjoy and connect with their Aboriginal culture.
The Mother gave evidence that she has Aboriginal heritage through her mother’s side of the family. This means the children have Aboriginal heritage.
Section 60CG requires that, when considering what order to make, the Court must, to the extent it can do so with the child’s best interests being paramount consideration, ensure that the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
In this regard I may also include in the orders any safeguards I consider necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
Section 4AB of the Act sets out the definition of what constitutes family violence.
Safety is not defined in the Act. This does not mean I must interpret the requirements of the legislation to make orders that ensure the children are safe. Rather I must consider what arrangements promote the safety of the children and any person with caring responsibility.[3]
[3] Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26.
Each parent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer identify risks to the children in each parent’s household.
Where the assessment of safety is an issue, it must involve an identification and an assessment of the risk to that safety. I am able to do so in accordance with the principles set out in Isles & Nelissen.[4]
[4] Trudeau supra, [30]; Isles & Nelissen [2022]FedCFamC1A 97.
FAMILY VIOLENCE
The complexity of family violence, and its impacts, was evident in the three opinions proffered by the Appellate Division in the matter of Pickford & Pickford.[5]
[5] Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249.
As the Honourable McClelland DCJ said: “Family violence is relevant not only to the assessment of future risk, but it is also very much a best interest consideration that may influence an order for a child to spend a particular amount of time with a parent.”[6]
[6] Pickford supra [10].
Neither of the parents, nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer, is asking me to make orders for the children to spend supervised time with the other parent.
That said, I am conscious of my obligations under Part VII and in particular s60B (a), s60CC (2)(a) and (2A), s60CG of the Act.
I need to consider the very serious family violence allegations and make findings where necessary and where possible, because not only will they inform the assessment of risk but they also serve in determining what orders would best keep the children safe from harm, including what, if any, protective orders could ameliorate the risk.[7]
[7] Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 86 [34].
Physical violence
The Father has filed four Affidavits in these proceedings before me.
The Mother has made very specific and detailed allegations of the family violence she says was perpetrated against her by the Father.
The evidence by the Father about his conduct is scant.
At paragraph 114, [8] the Father says he has previously committed acts of domestic violence towards the Mother. He does not specify what those acts of domestic violence were.
[8] Father’s Affidavit filed 25 March 2024.
Later in paragraph 116, the Father says: “I recall that I was not very nice to [Ms Harcourt] and there were occasions where we got physical with each other.” I do not know what the Father concedes by that statement.
In cross-examination, the Father admitted that he slapped the Mother on the face, causing bruising. He said it was one slap. Exhibit 14 shows the heavy bruising caused by the Father on the Mother’s face. I do not accept the Father caused that bruising to the Mother’s face by one slap.
I find that this was an instance where the Father sought to minimise his violence.
Exhibit 15 shows bruising to the Mother’s elbows. The Mother’s evidence is that these bruises were caused in January 2018 where, after an altercation, the Father pulled the rug from under the Mother and she flew up in the air pretty high and landed on her elbows.
The Father admitted to causing this bruising. Therefore, I take it that he accepts the Mother’s description of how he caused that injury.
In cross-examination, the Father was asked multiple questions and took long pauses and failed really to articulate the extent of what family violence he admitted to.
Between June and October of 2020 the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in Victoria, being the Department of Child Safety equivalent, was involved with this family as they were at that time living in Melbourne.
Exhibit 23 contains notes of the summary of the intervention by the Department and it is noted there that the Father denied physical family violence against the Mother. He told the Department Officers that the Mother would follow him if he left the room during an argument and that he acknowledged there was a conflictual way the parents communicated with each other.
It is noted that the Father stated that he had not wanted to engage with a men’s behaviour change program as he did not feel the situation warranted him being placed in an environment with people who are ordered to be there.
Exhibit 23 goes on to say: “It has been noted that the children show little reaction to family violence that has occurred which could indicate that it normally occurs in their presence.”
The Father’s evidence is that from the Department’s perspective, neither he nor the Mother had the capability to look after the children.
The Father’s assertion is not supported by Exhibit 23. It notes that at that time, the Mother and children were being supported by the Department to return to Queensland. Exhibit 23 also notes that the children were in the primary care of the Mother.
The Father was placed outside the home to reside in a motel at the time of the involvement of the Department.
The Father advised the Department officers that he is engaging with a psychologist which will support him to address his mental health and anger management which, they said, was in the children’s best interests should he have future contact with them.
The Mother was referred to a family violence service in Queensland and child protection [in Victoria] have notified their counterparts in Queensland so “monitoring can occur.”
Coercive control
The Mother alleges the Father has engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour during the relationship and since separation.
As the Honourable Justices Aldridge and Carew said in Pickford:[9]
“The focus of the fact finding process is on the behaviour and the impact of the behaviour. It is the behaviour that coerces or controls. It requires action and reaction. A single act is unlikely to be coercive or controlling but it may be. Behaviour that coerces or controls may be innocuous, subtle, capable of different interpretations, complex, undermining, etc. Such behaviour may create impossible expectations for the other family member. It may be transactional and involve punishments for perceived failures. The impact of the behaviour can be insidious. A confident and happy family member may lose their confidence, their self-esteem, question their sanity, shun their family and friends, become depressed, irritable, inefficient, and unhappy. There may be times when they strike out either verbally or physically.
[9] Pickford supra.
When determining an allegation that a person has engaged in behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, I am grateful for the guidance provided by the joint judgment of the Honourable Justices Aldridge and Carew, and with whom DCJ McClelland agreed in Pickford.[10] I must:
(1)Identify the behaviour about which complaint was made;
(2)Identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;
(3)Identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);
(4)Make all relevant factual findings; and
(5)Explain why the behaviour is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour nevertheless can be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.
[10] Ibid cited with approval in Abramsson supra.
Withholding the children from the Mother
The Mother’s evidence was that the paternal grandfather withheld the children after a contact visit with their Father on 5 January 2022.
The Mother said that he did this in retaliation for the Mother obtaining a variation to the protection order against the Father.
The Mother was still breastfeeding Y at that time.
Mr K was cross-examined about this issue by Counsel for the Mother and he conceded that he was aware of the protection order proceedings. He said he felt the Mother was ‘holding onto it and not launching it when it could have been launched, so that Mr Corrington could have had that Affidavit in time to actually seek legal aid or get legal advice on it’.
Mr K conceded in cross-examination that the Mother did talk to him about the Father’s violence against her.
Mr K said in cross-examination that the Mother told him “there had been violence in their relationship, physical violence and also coercive violence I suppose and also verbal violence.”
Mr K said that “she had reported it to police and there were reports made in Victoria, I believe or Queensland.”
In retaining the children, the paternal grandfather enabled the Father to keep the children in his primary care, going against the care arrangement that had been in existence since the children were born.
From that point on, the Father moved in with his parents until he later found his own independent rental accommodation.
I find that the paternal grandfather was clearly aware of the Father’s violence against the Mother because she told him so.
I find the paternal grandfather knew the Mother was obtaining a variation of the protection order against the Father and this prompted him to eject the Mother from his home and retain the care of the children.
This was in the context of the paternal grandfather conceding in cross-examination that he knew the Father had been violent to the Mother.
I find that the Father engaged in coercive control against the Mother when he withheld the children from her on 5 January 2022.
I make this finding because:
(1)The Father was either denying or minimising the family violence he perpetrated against the Mother and to which the children had been exposed;
(2)The Father withheld the children while Y was still being breastfed which I accept would have been traumatic for the Mother and destabilising for the children;
(3)The Father claimed the Mother was emotionally unstable, even though she was suffering trauma from the violence that he had perpetrated in addition to the fact that he withheld the children from her;
(4)The Father knew the Mother was at times living at his parents’ place with the children and he knew that she complained to his parents about letting him stay there too;
(5)The Father was smoking cannabis in January 2022, and indeed he has never stopped. Yet, he pointed to the Mother’s use of cannabis as the pretext for withholding the children;
(6)The Father’s actions either caused or significantly contributed to the Mother’s emotional dysregulation which the Father then used to his advantage;
(7)By having the care of the children, he was able to move to live with his parents permanently, ousting the Mother, this then caused the Mother to be homeless; and
(8)The Father then pointed to the Mother’s homelessness as a reason why she could not regain the primary care of the children.
X’s asthma
The Father did not tell the Mother that X had been diagnosed with asthma. I accept the Mother’s evidence that since September 2023, the Father did not provide her with a puffer for X and tell her to administer it regularly or at all.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that if the Father had done so, she would have treated X with a puffer and followed the directions of her general practitioner.
By failing to inform the Mother, she was not properly informed about a relevant and important health issue affecting X.
The Father then complains that the Mother did not properly treat X’s asthma whilst she was in her care.
On the weekend of 24 and 25 August 2024 when the children were in the Mother’s care, she noticed X was sick.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that when she collected the children from the changeover, there were no notes or medication handed over by the Father at that time. When X became unwell she took X to Q Hospital Emergency Department.
Exhibit 25 contains the text messages between the Mother and the Father about X’s attendance at the hospital.
Instead of engaging with the Mother about X’s health, the Father kept insisting that the Mother needed to attend changeover with the children.
The Father, through his Solicitors corresponding with the Mother’s Solicitors, threatened the Mother with an Application for a Recovery Order if she did not immediately return the children to the Father.
The discharge letter from the hospital for X is Exhibit 24. This was annexed to the Mother’s Affidavit filed 10 September 2024.
Despite having received those documents, the Father in his Affidavit filed 10 September 2024, continues to assert that the Mother withheld the children from him. That is patently false.
I find the Father showed scant regard for X’s health, and instead sought to exert control over the Mother to return the children to him or there would be legal consequences.
Children’s phone calls with Mother
In respect of the phone calls or video calls the children have with their Mother, the Father is the one to end those calls.
He tells me that he lets the phone calls go on as long as the children want, although sometimes he has to intervene to end the phone calls because X in particular wanted the phone call to last all night.

I heard the audio in Exhibit 10 where each of the parents were behaving badly during a telephone call the children had with their Mother.
The Mother would say the Father behaved badly. The Father would say the Mother behaved badly.
What is indelibly etched in my mind is the anguish and upset in X’s voice when she thought her Father was going to end the call, pleading with him not to press the button.
The Father gave evidence that during other calls X has said similar things that she does not want him to push the button to end the phone call.
Because he is the one pushing the button, the Mother does not have a say on when the communication ends.
Then when the Mother acts out inappropriately during the phone call, such as she did in the audio recording in Exhibit 10, the Father points to the Mother’s emotional dysregulation.
I find that the Father is leaving the Mother to guess how long the call will be as a way of controlling her communication with the children, and to keep her unsettled.
The children are then exposed to the Mother’s emotional upset, which is not in their best interests.
I propose to make an order that the telephone time between the children and their parents will be on specified days of the week and for specified times with the parent who calls being responsible for initiating and terminating the call.
This will remove the ability for one parent’s call to be at the mercy of the other parent.
X’s haircut
Sometime in 2023, the Mother says that the Father told her that he needed to cut X’s hair due to split ends. The Mother asked him if she could cut X’s hair next time she saw her as she is a beautician.
She says the Father agreed, and the Mother reaffirmed this a number of times via text, she says, to make sure they were in agreement.
During a Facetime call, the Mother noticed that X’s hair was cut. It seems the Father did not tell the Mother that he had cut X’s hair. She was upset and terminated the call.
In Exhibit 26, in the messages the Mother sent the Father on 3 June 2023 and 3 July 2023, she vents her anger at him and calls him many abusive names. She asks him why could he not wait for her to cut X’s hair.
The Father tells me he was waiting for the Mother to cut the child’s hair, she did not do so, so he did. He then points to the horrible messages sent by the Mother in Exhibit 26 as examples of the Mother’s terrible treatment of him and her emotional dysregulation.
I do not accept there was any urgency in cutting X’s hair. The Father knew the Mother wanted to cut X’s hair and he knew she would be upset and he went ahead and cut X’s hair.
The Father did not inform the Mother in advance of the Facetime call that he had cut X’s hair – he waited until the Mother saw X on Facetime and noticed the haircut.
The Mother acted out emotionally and terminated the call.
Looking at the messages in Exhibit 26, I find this message from the Father to the Mother is particularly pointed and very condescending. He says this:
“It’s absolutely abhorrent that you would hang up on your daughters because [X]’s hair was cut. Do you not have it in you to show them love? I feel so sorry for them.”
These messages really upset the Mother who continued in her expletive laden messages to the Father.
I find that the Father’s conduct in cutting X’s hair sent the message to the Mother that, essentially, that she does not have a say in these children’s lives. This is confirmed when the Father said later in the message thread that the Mother does “very little parenting.”
I find that the Father cut X’s hair on purpose to show the Mother that he is in control of the children, to her exclusion. I find that he would have known his actions would upset her and he was hoping for the reaction that he got – her expletive laden messages that are in Exhibit 26.
Ear piercing
The same issue arose when the Father got X’s ears pierced.
The Mother told Ms M in the second Family Report that the Father did not consult her about getting X’s ears pierced.
The Mother’s evidence in her Affidavit, is that the Father took X to get her ears pierced for her birthday knowing that she had intended to do that as a special girls’ day when X was older.
The Mother told Ms M in the second family report that she used her medicinal cannabis four days in a row in September 2023 because she struggled to sleep after the Father had pierced X’s ears without her consent. She also drank more alcohol that week than she usually did.
The Mother said that after the Father did this, she went shopping with X and bought her new earrings when her ears had healed.
The Mother said the Father took those earrings out and claimed they were cheap earrings and that he would take it up with his lawyers as her ears got sore.
Given that the parents had equal shared parental responsibility on an interim basis, the Father should not have unilaterally taken X to have her ears pierced without consulting the Mother.[11]
[11] Bircher and Bircher [2018] FamCA 364
I find that the Father pierced X’s ears without the Mother’s consent so as to exert his control over the Mother.
I find that this is also why he took the earrings out that the Mother had bought and criticised her for buying cheap earrings.
Father’s violence against P’s mother, Ms O
The Department of Child Safety in Queensland was involved with the Father, his former partner Ms O and their child P in 2014. Exhibits 16 to 20 set out the notifications received and the concerns of the Department at that time in respect of P.
Exhibit 18 is a Child Concern Report Summary dated early 2014 which means that P, who was born in 2013 was two months old at that time.
A history of domestic violence from the Father is noted. Exhibit 19 is a Child Concern Report Summary dated mid-2014. This means P was not yet a year old.
In relation to this incident there are concerns in relation to a domestic violence incident that occurred after the Father was allegedly smoking drugs.
The Father pushed Ms O’s face into the ground and she subsequently left the relationship with the child.
The Father provides only scant evidence as to his relationship with P’s mother. In his Affidavit filed 19 April 2024, the Father does note that P’s mother had a domestic violence order against him but then says they now have a healthy co-parenting relationship for P.
In cross-examination before me the Father admitted he had been violent to P’s mother, but was vague and evasive in answering questions as to the specifics of the behaviour to which he admitted. The Father did admit that there were two or three times the police were involved with him and P’s mother.
When answering questions posed by Counsel for the Mother, I find that the Father tried to mutualise the violence between himself and P’s mother, by saying that he had to restrain her a number of times and that he and P’s mother have mutual protection orders against each other.
Counsel for the Mother put to the Father specific allegations contained in the Department of Child Safety material which included an incident in May 2016 where it was alleged that in an alcohol fuelled rage the Father had abused and hit P’s mother causing her to have a black eye and bruised ribs.
The Father denied giving P’s mother a black eye.
The Father accepted in cross-examination by Counsel for the Mother that when he was violent to P’s mother this would be fuelled by alcohol and sometimes by cannabis.
There was a protection order against the Father in respect of P’s mother and it seems from his criminal history[12] that in mid-2015 the Father was convicted of a contravention of domestic violence order in early 2015. There was no conviction recorded and he was fined $600.
[12] Exhibit 21.
The Father does not depose to this breach nor to the circumstances that gave rise to his conviction.
I find that the Father did engage in serious physical violence against P’s mother.
I find that he did push and shove her as he admitted, but not as he would tell me that it was mutual.
I find that the Father grabbed P’s mother’s face and pushed her causing bruising to her nose and face.
I find that the Father does not take responsibility for his violence against P’s mother.
The Father’s failure to take responsibility for his egregious violence, and failure to change his behaviour, led to the significant family violence he perpetrated against the Mother in these proceedings to which X and Y have been exposed.
Police callout to Father’s home in February 2024
In February 2024, Queensland Police Service attended the Father’s home at approximately at 2:03am.
Exhibit 22 is a Solicitors Office Report details of the call out obtained from Queensland Police Service under subpoena.
At paragraph 55 of the Father’s Affidavit filed 19 April 2024, he annexes an email from his former partner. The Father asserts that this is the same person who attended the Father’s home at 2:03am in February 2024 that resulted in the police call out.
The Father’s former partner was not called to give evidence in these proceedings and the Father seeks to rely on the email that he has annexed to his Affidavit from his former partner.
The police record at Exhibit 22 does not name the person.
Therefore, I do not know whether the person who attended the Father’s home at 2:00am in the morning is the same person who sent an email to the Father.
The Father was cross-examined by the Counsel for the Mother and he had confirmed that he had contacted that person so she could do an email for him.
What I do know is that a person with whom the Father was previously in a relationship, turned up at 2:00am in the morning such that the police attendance was required. This person was intoxicated, became erratic and unstable, was screaming and yelling and was claiming that the Father had raped her several times.
In interview with Ms M for the preparation of the third Family Report, the Father told Ms M that his ex-partner, who attended his home in February 2024, had not accused him of sexual harassment as suggested by the Mother.
Exhibit 22 shows that the person who attended the Father’s home in February 2024 told police that the Father (known as the aggrieved in Exhibit 22) had raped her several times.
I am not prepared to accept there is any material difference between the terms sexual harassment and rape.
Therefore, I find that the Father’s statement to Ms M was false.
The Father told Ms M that his former partner had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder recently.
Exhibit 22, under the heading ‘Aggrieved version’ does not indicate the Father told the police attending his home about any mental health problems suffered by the ex-partner.
I can make no finding about the truth of the allegations made by the Father’s ex-partner.
What I can make a finding about is that:
(1)The Father is not a reliable witness;
(2)A person the Father chose to be in a relationship with allegedly had mental health problems;
(3)This person he chose to be in a relationship with turned up at 2:00am in the morning and banged on the door and behaved so erratically that Queensland Police attended; and
(4)The children were in the Father’s care at this time inside the house.
Father’s allegations of Mother’s violence
The Father wants me to accept that he is remorseful and ashamed of his violence towards the Mother. And yet his Affidavits are replete with references to the mutual violence and toxic relationship of these parents.
The Father alleges Mother was violent towards him and points to the protection order made in his favour against the Mother dated early 2019.
The Mother was charged with a breach of that protection order to which she pleaded guilty.
The breach arose from an incident where the Father alleged the Mother bit his arm and tried to hit his head against the wall.
In cross-examination, the Mother denied biting the Father’s arm but did admit that she pulled his hair and she may have scratched his arm.
She said she did so because she was underneath him trying to break free.
The Mother denied attempting to hit the Father’s head against the wall. She said that she did not have the strength to do that.
I was able to observe both parents in Court before me and I could see the Mother is correct about the significant height difference between them.
The Father is 6 foot 4 inches, and the Mother is 5 foot 2 inches. I could see the Father is much larger than the Mother.
Given their disparate heights and sizes, I do not accept the Father’s version of events. I prefer the Mother’s version that she was trying to get the Father off her.
In or about August 2022, another incident gave rise to the Mother being charged with another breach of the protection order against her.
The parents were at a changeover with the children and the Mother says the Father refused to get the children out of his car.
She said he stood over her and raised her anxiety and then when she was sufficiently triggered, he started to record the exchange.
He then took his recording to the Police to complain about the Mother, who was then charged with breaching the order.
The Mother says that she also had been recording the exchange with her phone in her pocket, but her phone had died so she could not prove her side of the story.
The Mother was cross-examined about this issue, but the Father was not. I am not prepared to make a finding on either party’s version of events.
The Mother pleaded guilty to that breach. The changeovers have since been conducted at a supervised contact centre.
I propose to make an order that where changeovers are not conducted at the school, they should continue to occur at a supervised contact centre.
This will ensure the parents do not come into contact with each other and will eliminate the risk of the behaviour described by each parent.
Men’s group
In the Father’s Affidavit filed 25 March 2024 at paragraph 17, he claims to have sought assistance with his domestic violence behaviour, engaging with a men’s group from June 2021 to understand the domestic violence in the relationship.
The Father does not give evidence about when he realised he need to engage in such a program, given that in August 2020, he had denied the same with the Department of Child Safety in Victoria.
The Father does not depose to any details in his four Affidavits about this men’s group.
In her oral evidence, Ms M said she was under the misapprehension that the Father had engaged in a men’s behavioural change program.
In fact, there is no cogent evidence that the Father engaged with any men’s group in relation to understanding his domestic violence behaver.
The name of the group, R Group only fell from the Father in cross-examination. It was not deposed to in any of his four Affidavits.
This meant that neither the Mother nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer could obtain any further details about this group ahead of the trial.
The Father claims to have done domestic violence related courses through S Centre.
I have no cogent evidence of his engagement with any domestic violence program.
Therefore, I find that the Father has not engaged in any domestic violence program, or men’s behaviour change program that deals with and educates perpetrators of family violence.
Conclusion on family violence
I find the Father has committed serious acts of family violence acts against the Mother.
I also find the Father has sought to coercively control the Mother by his conduct.
I find the children have been exposed to the Father’s family violence and have likely suffered emotional harm as a result.
I am disturbed by the comment, which I accept as accurate, from the Child Safety officers in Victoria [13] that the children showed little reaction to family violence that has occurred which could indicate that it normally occurs in their presence.
[13] Exhibit 23
I do not accept the Father’s assertions that the violence between the parents was mutual.
I do not accept the Father’s assertions that the Mother perpetrated family violence against him. I find that he is trying to blame her for her reactions to his appalling behaviour.
The fact the Father continues to try to mutualise the violence between the parents, as clear in this written submissions filed on his behalf, is a clear indication to me of the Father’s failure to accept responsibility for his actions.
I do not accept that the Father is remorseful. He did get upset during the cross-examination, but I am not convinced that his distress was because he was ashamed of his actions.
I formed the view that the Father was upset being asked to answer hard questions about his physical violence towards the Mothers of his children.
I find the Father tries to minimise his conduct and has failed to take any meaningful action to redress his violent behaviour that started with P’s mother in 2014 and has continued against the Mother of X and Y.
The Father’s failure to engage in any men’s behaviour change program indicates to me that he does not think his behaviour needs to change.
IMPACT OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE
In August 2020, the Mother and children were supported by the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing to return to Queensland.
It seems the parents were separated at that time but continued an on/off relationship until June 2021.
When the Mother and children moved from Melbourne to Queensland, she and the Children were living in a refuge for approximately 4 months.
From April 2021 to around September 2021, the Mother and the two children were living with the paternal grandparents.
This was the time the country was in the grips of the COVID pandemic and the borders were closed at various times.
The Mother’s evidence is that this prolonged her stay with the paternal grandparents, as she was waiting for the vinyl in her caravan to be repaired.
The Mother’s evidence is that the Father was also staying at the paternal grandparents’ house which the Mother did not like. So she moved with the children to her friend Ms T’s place for a short time.
The Mother and the children then moved to U Refuge for seven weeks.
The Mother then moved with the children to an off-grid mobile home to Town W in October 2021 until January 2022.
As stated earlier in these reasons, the paternal grandfather was aware that the Mother had applied for a variation to the protection order against the Father.
The Mother says that the paternal grandfather was upset about the contents of her affidavit for the variation in which she said she did not feel supported and that the paternal grandparents had failed to protect her from the Father like they had promised, because they let him stay at their home when she and the children were staying there.
Mr K conceded that he was aware of the Mother’s proceedings to vary the protection order. He conceded that he was aware his son had been physically violent to the Mother and acknowledged previously seeing the photograph of the Mother’s bruised face, being Exhibit 14.
Both Mr K and Ms L conceded they knew about the Father’s violence towards the Mother and also P’s mother. Mr K kept the children and handed them over to the Father who was then able to stay at his parents’ place with the children.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that after she was evicted from the home of the paternal grandparents, she struggled with homelessness.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that it took a long time to find permanent stable accommodation because the removal of the children from her care meant that she no longer received the parenting payment from Centrelink.
From the time the children were withheld from her, the Mother was limited to the Newstart allowance through Centrelink which she said was $630.36 per fortnight or $315 per week.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that she could not afford to pay rent in south-east Queensland on those Centrelink benefits.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that the support service providers to whom she tried to get help were extremely unhelpful to her because the children were removed from her care and those support services listed her as a single woman, who was not high on the list of priorities for housing.

The Mother commenced these proceedings on 1 July 2022 and an order was made by consent by Senior Judicial Registrar Thiele on 22 July 2022 for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility (as it was then known) and for the children to spend equal time with the parents. I note that this order was made by consent.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that because of the difficulties she had with getting stable accommodation, she could only have the children in an equal time arrangement pursuant to the consent orders, for about 4 months.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that from October 2022 until April 2023, the Mother was forced to live in her caravan, renting space in someone’s backyard for $150 per week.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that in November 2022, she told Ms J that she had returned the children to the Father two days early because she could not keep them for the full amount of time.
I accept that this was due to the Mother not having her own accommodation, living with others and having financial stress.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that from April 2023 until November 2023, she would house and puppy sit at Ms Z’s home where she paid $250 per week.
I accept the Mother’s evidence that at times when she did not have suitable accommodation, she preferred to leave the children with their Father because they at least had a roof over their head at night. I find that the Mother was child-focussed in this decision.
The Father would criticise the Mother over her drug use, her unstable housing and unstable mental health.
The paternal grandparents similarly criticise the Mother for her drug use, unstable housing and unstable mental health.
I find that, in light of the Father perpetrating the family violence and his own drug use, these criticisms are rather obnoxious.
I find that the Mother’s inability to secure stable housing and her periods of homelessness were as a direct result of the serious family violence perpetrated against her by the Father.
The Father’s family violence set off a chain of events that resulted in:
(1)Him keeping the children from her, even though Y was still being breastfed;
(2)The Mother’s mental and emotional state going into freefall;
(3)The Mother’s payments from Centrelink being reduced significantly;
(4)The Mother being unable to afford stable accommodation; and
(5)The Father pointing to the Mother’s mental state, lack of stable accommodation and drug use (even though he was still using drugs) to justify keeping the children in his primary care.
I find that the Mother made every effort she could to find stable accommodation for herself and the children whilst dealing with the trauma of having suffered significant family violence and also the loss of the care of the children.
The Mother commenced counselling with Ms J in April 2022 and has remained engaged with her.
The Mother stopped any illicit drug use in November 2023 and stopped taking any medicinal cannabis at that time.
The Mother obtained rental accommodation in Town G, in New South Wales, in November 2023. She secured a job at a supermarket on a contract for at least ten hours per week. She is a qualified beautician and has been offered casual work at a local beauty salon.
As a result of the Mother finding stable accommodation and permanent employment, she has spent as much time as she can with the children given the three hour distance between her house and the Father’s house at Suburb H.
This means the children have been spending time with their Mother every second weekend.
I commend the Mother for the significant improvement in her life and the home she has created for the children.
MENTAL HEALTH
Mother’s mental health
The Mother’s mental health has been an issue in the proceedings since the commencement of the proceedings.
Ms M said in the first Family Report in Exhibit 2 that the Mother will require support if she has complex PTSD from the violence she experienced.
The Mother says that she suffers anxiety as a consequence of the Father’s violent and controlling violence against her including physical violence.
She says her homelessness was a consequence of the Fathers behaviour and that it was difficult for her to provide for the children in the way they deserved.
The Mother gives evidence that she has never been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Certain documents were returned under subpoena from Queensland Health and the Mother was cross-examined by Counsel for the Father.
Exhibit 3 is a triage screen dated September 2021 which was a referral by Town U emergency department. The Mother denied any suicidal ideation and it is noted on Exhibit 3 that the words ‘impression: – Complex PTSD in current situational crisis.’
Exhibit 5 is a progress note from Town U Community Mental Health Service where the Mother self-presented at the clinic saying that she needed to talk as she has trauma and that she is distressed.
The Mother then engaged with Ms J in April 2022, and she has continued with that counselling on average every 3 or 4 weeks depending on Ms J’s availability.
Between May 2024 and the final hearing in October 2024, the Mother had had 9 sessions with Ms J via telehealth.
Ms J gave evidence on behalf of the Mother and was cross-examined. Ms J is a social worker who works as a health care worker at AA Centre in Region BB.
In cross-examination before me, Ms J said part of her work with the Mother was in respect of relapse prevention plan and she said that upskilling is around not falling back on old behaviours so utilising new skills rather than using drugs to avoid the pain, discomfort, etc.
I accept Ms J’s evidence.
I am satisfied that the Mother appropriately accessed support from Ms J and that she has continued on in with that engagement for more than two years.
Dr N
Dr N, Psychiatrist, was engaged to do a psychiatric assessment of the Mother and his report is annexed to his Affidavit filed 7 March 2023.
The Mother has made clear in her Affidavit of evidence that she does not accept the conclusions of Dr N.
The Mother’s interview with Dr N took place via zoom rather than in person, on 3 January 2023.
She said that she had difficulties with communicating with him due to the virtual communication and also because he had a heavy accent.
The Mother said she was constantly interrupted in her answers to Dr N’s questions and she considered that he had not properly recorded her history in his report.
The Mother has been prescribed mirtazapine, an antidepressant, 7.5 milligrams by her general medical practitioner. Dr N said this is a very small dose and is likely to only help with sleep.
At the time of the assessment, the Mother was prescribed medicinal cannabis, since 2022, to treat anxiety. Therefore, at the time of the Mother’s interview with Dr N, she was on medicinal cannabis for anxiety and was not using other drugs.
The Mother has now successfully ceased any cannabis use since November 2023. She has also engaged in counselling with Ms J as to relapse prevention.
I find that Dr N did not properly consider the context of the Mother’s cannabis use, in light of it being medically prescribed for anxiety, and failed to consider the anxiety caused by, or exacerbated by, the family violence.
I find that Dr N did not properly consider the negative impact on the Mother’s mental health of having the children removed from her primary care, whilst Y was still breastfeeding.
Dr N failed to properly consider the confluence of factors impacting the Mother’s health coming from family violence, trauma caused by the family violence, trauma caused by the removal of the children, financial distress and unstable accommodation.
I find that Dr N unfairly judged the Mother in respect of the choice he said she made to pay for drugs instead of prioritising the needs of the children.
I find that Dr N’s assessment of the Mother was made in the vacuum of failing to consider the trauma she suffered as a result of the serious family violence perpetrated against her by the Father.
I do not accept Dr N’s assessment of the Mother’s parenting capacity.
Father’s mental health
I do not know why the Father was not required to undertake a psychiatric assessment with Dr N.
When the Father attended the first interview with Ms M on 19 January 2023, Ms M reports that the Father told her that[14] he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression when he was 16 years old.
[14] Exhibit 2 paragraph 64.
He said that in the past he felt suicidal, and he spoke to counsellors about his feelings.
The Father told Ms M that he was prescribed anti-depressants from the age of 16 years old until 2020.
The Father was born in 1988, which means that in 2020, the Father was 32 years old. This means that the Father was prescribed anti-depressants for 16 years, which is half his life.
The Father also told Ms M that he was feeling stressed currently.
Exhibit 23 makes clear that the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing had notes that the Father was seeing a psychologist Dr CC on 12 August 2020, who raised significant concerns for the family unit should the Father remain in the home.
Dr CC raised concerns about the ongoing family violence and cannabis use by the parents and recommended that the Father receive long term therapy, a psychiatric assessment and engage with a men’s behaviour change program.
Within Exhibit 23 is the note that the Father told Department Officers that he was engaging with a psychologist which will support him to assess his mental health and anger management, being Ms DD, psychologist.
Department Officers indicated they were not able to reach her for an update.
The recommendation by Dr CC for the Father to undergo a psychiatric assessment was in August 2020. The Father told Ms M that he ceased taking anti-depressants in 2020. This should have raised serious concerns about the Father’s mental health.
The Father proffers no details of, or any evidence from, any counsellor, psychologist or doctor he sees for his mental health.
The Father clearly has anger management problems. The state of the Father’s mental health might either explain, or shed light on, his long-term perpetration of family violence.
There should have been a psychiatric assessment of the Father and the Father should have proffered evidence of his current mental health treatment.
In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary proffered by the Father, I am willing to infer from the evidence that the Father has an anger management problem and he may have an underlying untreated mental health condition that may adversely affect his parenting capacity.
USE OF DRUGS
Both parents admit to using illicit drugs in their earlier years and also during their relationship. And yet it was only the Mother’s drug use and alcohol use that was focussed on by Ms M in her reports.
The Mother’s evidence is that she ceased taking any illicit drugs from November 2023. She told Ms M that staying in the EE Centre assisted her to change her pattern of alcohol and drug misuse.
The Mother complied with my order to undergo a hair follicle drug test, the result of which is annexed to her Affidavit filed 21 October 2024. The result shows the Mother’s drug test was negative.
The Father admitted to smoking cannabis and using alcohol to excess during his relationship with P’s mother.
In respect of his cannabis, he conceded in cross-examination, that at that time he was smoking maybe ten bongs a day. He said that this was a gram or two.
As stated earlier in these reasons, the notes from the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing showed the Father was smoking cannabis during their involvement with the family in August 2020.
The Father gave evidence under the protection of a section 128 certificate that he continues to use cannabis. He claims to have a prescription for medicinal cannabis. He did not produce any medical evidence before me about the reason for the medicinal cannabis, and the date upon which he was first prescribed medicinal cannabis.
Again, the Father would seek to mutualise the illicit drug use by telling me in cross-examination both he and the Mother used drugs together including Ice.
He conceded in cross-examination that when he took Ice he would become angrier. On maybe one or two of the handful occasions he took Ice.
The Father’s Counsel advised the Court that the Father spends $120 per fortnight, being $60 per week on the medicinal cannabis. Neither the Financial Statement nor the Father’s Affidavits stated the cost of the medicinal cannabis.
The Father was ordered to undertake a hair follicle test the results of which were annexed to his Affidavit filed 23 October 2024.
This test results shows the Father tested positive for cannabinoids and specifically Carboxy-THC. The cut off is 0.05 pg/mg and his result was greater than 10 pg/mg.
The medicinal cannabis taken by the Father contains THC, which is why it tested positive on the hair follicle drug test.
Annexed to that Affidavit is a letter from Dr FF from GG Medical Centre dated 22 October 2024. Dr FF indicates that it is not possible to check if the result of cannabinoid use in the Father is indicative of his compliance or exceeds, his prescription. The letter goes no further to articulate why it is the Father is on medicinal cannabis and whether it was Dr FF who prescribed it.
Attached to the Affidavit are some photographs of the container the Father asserts houses his medicinal cannabis. From the label on page 13 the date 12 September 2024. The label indicates that there are eight repeats.
Also on the label are the words “vaporise and inhale 0.5 g before bed *add on 0.1g every alternate day until symptoms control. Maximum of 1g daily- next repeat available from 12/09/2024.”
I do not know what symptoms are expected to clear by the use of this medicinal cannabis.
I do note from as early as his relationship with the mother of P in 2014, the Father was smoking cannabis.
The Father admitted in cross-examination that sometimes when he was violent to P’s mother Ms O, he would be fuelled by alcohol sometimes by cannabis.
Exhibit 21 is the Father’s criminal history in Queensland. In mid-2016 the Father was convicted of all charges of possessing dangerous drugs and possessing utensils. No conviction was recorded and he was on a $330 recognisance.
In early 2019 the Father was again convicted of possessing utensils or pipes that had been used in early 2019. No conviction was recorded and he was fined $250.
I find that the Father has a long history of using cannabis since at least 2014. I do not know if the convictions noted in Exhibit 21 relate to any other drugs besides cannabis.
The Mother in these proceedings has long asserted that the Father’s cannabis use is a risk to the children. She says the Father smokes cannabis around the children.
In her evidence, Ms M said there is no evidence that the Father’s parenting capacity is impaired by his use of medicinal cannabis. I reject this opinion.
The Father has smoked cannabis since at least 2014. In 2020, Victorian child safety officers identified significant concerns for the family unit should the Father remain in the home.
The children were with their Mother and the Father was put out of the home.
This tells me that the Department had significant concerns about the Father’s parenting capacity.
The Father had the onus of proving why he needs to take medicinal cannabis and how that medicinal cannabis affects him and potentially his capacity to parent two young children.
P was exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Father against his mother in 2014, which the Father accepted was at a time he was smoking cannabis and indeed up to ten bongs a day.
X and Y have been exposed to the Father’s family violence against the Mother at a time that he was smoking cannabis because it seems he has not stopped smoking cannabis.
The Father has taken no steps to take anger management counselling and he continues to smoke cannabis.
There is no cogent evidence before me of the medical need for the Father to use medicinal cannabis. This evidence should have been proffered by the Father.
The Mother says the Father would smoke cannabis inside the house and in the bathroom. The Father admitted that he does smoke cannabis inside the house, but not around the children.
Ms L said she does not like the Father smoking cannabis at her house and because it is on acreage he can go outside to smoke.
During the trial, the Father gave evidence that X had an asthma attack overnight of day 2 of the trial and he was up with her at 4.30am.
He admitted that he had last taken cannabis at 10:30pm or 11:00pm the night before.
I asked him this because I was concerned about his demeanour in the witness box - he was asking multiple times for questions to be repeated and he seemed to lack focus.
I have no evidence about the proximity of the children to where the Father is when he smokes cannabis.
I am prepared to infer that X’s asthma is likely to be affected by being in proximity of the Father when he is smoking cannabis.
The Father’s failure to proffer evidence about the medical reason for the prescription for medicinal cannabis raises questions of risk because:
(1)I do not know what the underlying medical reason the Father has for taking medicinal cannabis;
(2)I do not know what affect the underlying medical reason has on his parenting capacity; and
(3)I do not know what impact the medicinal cannabis has on his parenting capacity.
This was a concern that was unaddressed by the Father who had the capacity to adduce the relevant evidence.
As a result of his failure to do so, I cannot be satisfied of the children’s safety in the Father’s care and I need to be cautious.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the Father continuing to take cannabis, whether it is medicinal cannabis or otherwise, poses a risk to the children because:
(1)It likely impairs his thinking;
(2)It likely negatively impacts his behaviour as it did in 2014 and 2020;
(3)It likely impairs his parenting capacity; and
(4)It is likely the children are exposed to the Father’s cannabis smoke.
I therefore intend to make an order that whilst the children are in the Father’s care that he is restrained by injunction from taking any cannabis or driving the children within 12 hours’ of taking cannabis.
The Father will need to engage with his General Medical Practitioners to find a different way to manage whatever the underlying condition is that requires him to be prescribed medicinal cannabis.
PARENTING CAPACITY
Father’s parenting capacity
I cannot ignore the Father’s long history of perpetrating family violence on women, commencing as early as 2014 against P’s mother.
This family violence has included physical violence and coercive control.
It seems to me that nothing has changed for the Father since the recommendations of Victorian child safety officers in August 2020.
The Father has failed to engage in any drug rehabilitation or anger management.
There is no cogent evidence of any psychological engagement.
The Father has not engaged in any reputable men’s behaviour change program.
I find that the Father finds excuses for his behaviour and seeks to blame the women for his violence, seeking to mutualise it.
X has complained to her Mother and to Ms M that the Father smacks her when she is naughty and she does not like it.
The Mother’s evidence is that X told her that the Father has whacked her on the side of the head.
The Father has denied using physical discipline on the children in his Affidavit. Given the difficulties I have with the Father’s credit, I do not accept his evidence.
Given the Father’s family violence history, and given his lack of engagement with any anger management counselling, I consider it is more probable than not that the Father has, at times, used inappropriate physical discipline on the children.
I find the Father inappropriately disciplines the children despite doing the parenting courses he claims to have attended.

I also intend to make an order that neither of the parents is to use physical discipline on these children.
It may be that the Father has an anger management problem and this manifests itself in his inappropriate physical discipline of the children, and may contribute to his family violence.
Or it is possible the Father may be suffering from an underlying mental health condition that causes him to lose his temper and lash out physically.
I have no cogent evidence of the impact of the Father’s drug use on his mental health and on his violence.
It was incumbent on the Father to provide evidence about his use of medicinal cannabis and whether or not it adversely affects his parenting capacity.
The unanswered questions about the Father’s mental health, in addition to his seemingly constant cannabis use and his admitted family violence, leads me to conclude that that the children are at risk in the Father’s care.
Mother’s parenting capacity
The Mother clearly does not trust the Father. She has told him in messages that she hates him.
No doubt the Father’s serious physical abuse of the Mother and his denials of same, fuels the Mother’s views of the Father.
The messages between the parents in Exhibit 27 show that the Mother has said horrible things to the Father and has called him names.
The period of time of these messages is 8 September 2022 to 9 February 2024.
I can see that there has been some improvement in the way in which the Mother communicates with the Father.
The Mother is very quick to think the worst of the Father including being concerned that he may have sexually abused the children.
I heard the Mother being cross-examined about her concerns of inappropriate sexual conduct by the Father.
It seemed to me that the Mother was viewing the children’s behaviour through her lens that has been shaped by what the Father has done to her.
I do not accept that the children have been sexually abused by the Father.
I hope the Mother will continue to engage with Ms J and take advice from her trusted medical practitioners to understand the way in which her view of the Father may colour her perception of, and raises her suspicions about, the Father and his interactions with the children.
Despite the Mother’s deep suspicions of the Father, she has continued to abide by the Court’s orders for the current parenting regime.
I am satisfied that the Mother’s orders show that she supports the children spending time with their Father and that she supports their relationship with him.
I am satisfied that the Mother is capable of promoting the children’s relationship with their Father and that she will abide by my final orders.
FAMILY REPORTS
Ms M prepared three Family Reports in this matter, the first dated 9 February 2023 (Exhibit 2), the second annexed to her Affidavit filed 15 December 2023 and the third annexed to her Affidavit filed 29 August 2024.
Ms M had regard to multiple documents and met with the parents and children on at least three occasions.
Ms M’s recommendations for the children’s care arrangements have been consistent in all three of her reports. That is, that the children should remain living in the Father’s primary care.
Ms M’s recommendations are based on the documents she has considered and based on her interviews with the parents and observations of the children.
I am not bound to accept Ms M’s recommendations.
As the Full Court said in Hall & Hall[15]:
“… there is no magic in a [Single expert report] a Judge is not bound to accept it and there should never be any suggestion that the [expert] is usurping the role of the Court or that the Judge is abdicating his responsibilities.”
[15] Hall & Hall (1979) FLC 90-713.
The Full Court said in Albert & Plowman[16]
“…expert witnesses are not witnesses of fact except as to matters that they directly saw or heard, including for example, that which occurs during interviews they conduct. They express opinions by applying their qualifications and experience to certain factual assumptions. Their opinions can only ever be as reliable as the facts upon which they are premised. If at trial, the facts assumed by the expert to be true are either not proven or are proven to be incorrect, then the opinion evidence will necessarily be compromised. Moreover, expert witnesses usually breach their remit if they are drawn into and express an opinion about the underlying factual conflict.”
[16] Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23.
I do not accept Ms M’s evaluation and recommendations in her reports for the children to remain living with the Father because:
(1)I am not satisfied that Ms M properly considered the impact of the Father’s significant family violence on the Mother;
(2)I am not satisfied that Ms M properly considered the impact on the children, who are young and vulnerable, of having been exposed to the Father’s family violence;
(3)Ms M relied on the fact that the Father said he had engaged in a men’s behaviour change program, and other domestic violence courses, and that he was seeing a psychologist. I have no cogent evidence about any of these things;
(4)I am not satisfied that Ms M properly considered that the emotional dysregulation she observed in the Mother was either caused by, or substantially contributed to, by the Father’s family violence;
(5)I am not satisfied that Ms M properly considered the impact on the Mother of having the children withheld from her in January 2022 when she was still breastfeeding Y;
(6)I find that Ms M seemed to minimise the Father’s earlier acts of family violence on P’s mother and how that pattern of violence continued in his relationship with this Mother;
(7)Ms M has, in my view, overly focused on the Mother’s vulnerabilities, such as her drug use and her mental health and showed no curiosity for these same risk factors in the Father; and
(8)In cross-examination, Ms M conceded that she did not ask the Father why he was prescribed medicinal cannabis and she should have. In my view, she should have ascertained from the Father what the underlying reason was for his medicinal cannabis prescription so that she could properly assess the impact that condition, plus the medicinal cannabis would have on the Father’s parenting capacity of these two young children.
MOTHER’S ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
The Mother is exploring her heritage and her evidence is that she is in touch with the community so that she can learn more about her culture.
The Mother has connections with HH Country because her mother lives in Region JJ. She said she became aware of her heritage when she was pregnant with Y and her mother started to talk about it a lot more as she was digging into the maternal family history.
By the Mother exploring her Aboriginal heritage, I am satisfied that the children will have the opportunity to explore their Aboriginal heritage.
The children will have the opportunity to connect and maintain connection with their family, community, culture, country and language through their Mother’s side of the family.
Given the distance between the parents where they currently live, if the children remain living with their Father, the children will have the opportunity to engage and connect with their Aboriginal heritage but it would be over a shorter period of time.
If the children move to live with the Mother, they will have a greater opportunity to connect with their heritage and to have more extensive contact with their extended family and culture.
IMPACT ON THE CHILDREN OF A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE
The children have been living with the Father since January 2022. If I were to make an order for them to live with their Mother, it will be a significant change in their circumstances.
However, but for the Father’s significant family violence perpetrated against the Mother, the children would have remained in the Mother’s primary care.
She was their primary carer since their birth. She was breastfeeding Y at the time the Father withheld the children.
The children love both of their parents and the children are familiar with being in each parents’ household.
Whilst it would be a significant change for the children to move to live with Mother, they have already spent significant overnight time with her.
I accept that X, in particular, said she wants to live with her Mother.
The Mother, the Father and Ms M have noted that X is difficult to separate from her Mother at changeovers.
The children will continue to see their Father on a regular basis and so the significant change in circumstances will be somewhat softened.
If the children move to live with their Mother, they will have to change schools.
The Father was unclear in his evidence about whether he would move from his current house and so it is possible that the children will have to change schools even if they stay in their Father’s care.
The children are young and in their early years at primary school.
I am satisfied that the children will adapt to a new school with the support of both their parents.
The paternal grandparents live in Region BB. Their evidence is that they see the children about twice per month.
I am satisfied that if the children move to live with their Mother, they will still have the opportunity to spend time with their paternal grandparents without there necessarily being a reduction in that time.
ORDERS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS
In considering what orders to make I have to consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the children, including safety from being subjected to or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm.
I am not obliged to make orders that ensure the children are safe. Rather, I must consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the children and anyone with caring responsibility.[17]
[17] Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26.
Where the assessment of safety is an issue, it must involve an identification and assessment of the risk to that safety.[18]
[18] Ibid.
As I have stated earlier in these reasons, the Father’s significant perpetration of family violence against the Mother, to which the children have been exposed, is the history upon which I have to look to determine what orders would promote the safety of the children in the future.
As the Appellate Division said in Isles and Nelissen[19] I must only be satisfied as to the risk in terms of possibilities not probabilities.
[19] Isles supra.
I would have been greatly assisted in this matter by expert evidence about:
(1)The Father’s mental health;
(2)The Father’s underlying medical condition for which he is using medicinal cannabis;
(3)The Father’s long-standing use of cannabis and the impact on his mental health; and
(4)The Father’s violent offending and whether there is a connection between that violence and the Father’s mental health and ongoing cannabis use.
As I do not have that evidence, I intend to proceed cautiously.
I find that the children are at risk in the Father’s care by his untreated violent offending, his longstanding cannabis use and his questionable mental health.
I am satisfied that the risks to the children can be ameliorated by:
(1)The Father being restrained by injunction from smoking cannabis whenever the children are in his care;
(2)The Father being restrained by injunction from driving anywhere with the children if he has taken cannabis in the 12 hours prior to the driving;
(3)The Father being restrained by injunction from physically disciplining the children. He will have to find another way to discipline them;
(4)The children spending only weekends during the school term with their Father. This means the Father will not have the stress of getting two young children off to school every day and tending to all their needs over extended periods of time; and
(5)Spending time with the Father over the school holidays without the pressure of school and will therefore be less stressful.
I am satisfied that moving the children to their Mother’s primary care will promote their safety.
I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children for the Mother to have sole decision making authority. She has agreed to consult with the Father about a decision and I have made that order.
The parents will need to ensure that their communications are respectful and child-focused.
I will make an order for the children to spend time with their Father on alternate weekends during the school term from after school Friday until 3:00pm on Sunday.
In the event the Father is unable to collect the children from school on the Friday, then changeover will occur at 10:00am Saturday at the B contact centre.
I will make an order that the children will communicate with the Father via Facetime on Tuesdays and Thursdays each week from 6:00pm to 6:30pm.
The Father is to initiate, and terminate, the call.
The parents agreed to the children spending half the school holidays with each parent and I consider it is in the children’s best interests for this to occur.
With respect to the December/January school holidays, given the children are still young, I consider it is appropriate for this holiday period to be week-about, with changeover occurring on a Saturday at 10am.
I will make an order that the changeovers that do not occur at the children’s school will continue to occur at a supervised contact centre. The parents already use two centres – being D Contact Centre and B Contact Centre – and continuing to use these centres will ensure the children are protected from any conflict between the parents.
I consider it is in the children’s best interests to spend time with their parents on special days, such as Christmas.
Given the supervised contact centres may not be able to facilitate a changeover on the Christmas special days, I will make an order for changeover to be at McDonalds Town F, New South Wales, which is about half-way between the parents’ homes.
Effecting changeovers this way will ensure the Mother and the children are not exposed to family violence by the Father and will promote their safety.
X is not yet 7, and Y is only 5. X has told the Mother she wants to live with her.
The Father acknowledges this but submits that X is too young for me to place weight on her views and wishes.
I do not propose to place determinative weight on X’s wishes, but I do take them into account.
The Father’s evidence was that he has engaged X with a psychologist. I have no cogent evidence about X’s counselling.
If X is having psychological support, and if this support has been beneficial to X, I would expect the Mother to take all necessary steps to have X continue to engage in therapeutic support.
There is a practical difficulty for the children to spend time with each parent, given they live 3 hours apart.
The children will continue to have to travel about 3 hours one way to spend time with their Father just as they have been travelling that distance to spend time with their Mother.
If the parents remain living that far apart then the children will continue to travel as they have had to travel since November 2023 when the Mother moved to Town G. They are familiar with having to travel that distance.
The Father criticised the Mother for moving to Town G and even criticised her choice of rentals. He provided evidence of his searches for rentals in the Town G area that he says are under $375 per week.
I take this evidence to mean that there is available accommodation in Town G should the Father wish to move closer to the Mother so as to reduce the children’s significant travel time.
The parents will each be at liberty to attend the children’s school events and I expect the parents to each behave in a child-focused manner.
The Father can choose to properly engage with counselling for his family violence and work towards ending his dependence on medicinal cannabis but I do not make an order requiring him to do so.
He has to want to change for there to be any chance of long-term success.
I will make an order that in the event either parent has engagement with State Police or a State child welfare agency, then they are to provide details and documents to the other parent.
This will keep the parents informed of any family violence or other child welfare issue arising in the other parent’s household which may place the children at risk in that household.
I will make an order that the parents can provide a copy of the Court’s reasons to any psychologist, psychiatrist or counsellor engaged by either parent to assist them to comply with these Orders and to help that parent to promote the children’s relationship with the other parent.
I am satisfied that the Orders I have made at the outset of these reasons are in the children’s best interests and I make those orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four hundred and forty-six (446) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Bertone.
Associate:
Dated 24 July 2025

File number(s):	BRC 7915 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE BERTONE
Date of judgment:	24 July 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW - Parenting – Where Mother had historically been children’s primary carer – Where Father perpetrated serious family violence including physical violence and coercive control – Where both parents were using drugs during relationship – Where Mother and children were living in shelters for periods of time – Where in January 2022 the paternal grandfather withheld the children after a contact period with their Father – Where the children have been living in the Father’s primary care since January 2022 – Where the Mother has ceased drug use and has engaged in counselling – Where Father uses medicinal cannabis but where there is no medical evidence as to why – Where there are risks to children remaining in the Father’s primary care – Where neither parent seeks supervised time for the other parent - Where the risks can be ameliorated – Where orders are made for the children to live with the Mother.
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 s128. Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4AB, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 68B, s68P, 114Q, Division 12A. Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Chapter 7.
Cases cited:	Albert & Plowman [2020] FamCAFC 23 Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 86 Baghti & Baghti and Ors [2015] FamCAFC 71 Bircher and Bircher [2018] FamCA 364 Hall & Hall (1979) FLC 90-713 Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26 Whisprun Pty Ltd & Dixon [2003] HCA 48.
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	446
Date of last submission/s:	2 December 2024
Date of hearing:	8, 9, 10 and 25 October 2024
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A Collins
Solicitor for the Applicant:	BDG Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms G Shepherd
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Tempest Legal
Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr M Taylor
Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer:	Mr A Kingston of Norman Kingston Solicitors

BRC 7915 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS HARCOURT Applicant
AND:	MR CORRINGTON Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BERTONE
DATE OF ORDER:	24 JULY 2025