Ingram & Bouali (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2F 906
•4 July 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ingram & Bouali (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 906
File number(s): PAC 5977 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS Date of judgment: 4 July 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – application for review – orders of registrar dismissing application under section 65DAAA – application out of time – substantial issue to be tried – delay not prejudice the respondent – review allowed out of time – significant change of circumstances but not in children’s best interests to revisit the final parenting orders – application for review dismissed. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAAA
Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r. 14.05, 15.06
Cases cited: Defrey & Radnor [2021] FamCAFC 67
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30
OP & HM (2002) FamCA 454
Sharaf & Nouri [2022] FedCFamC1F 898
Sharp & Sharp (2011) 50 Fam LR 567
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 56 Date of hearing: 13 June 2025 Place: Melbourne – via Microsoft Teams Representative for the Applicant: Appearing in person Representative for the Respondent: Appearing in person ORDERS
PAC 5977 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR BOUALI
Applicant
AND: MS INGRAM
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:
4 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant father be granted leave to proceed with his Application for Review out of time.
2.The Applicant father’s Application for Review filed 20 May 2025 be hereby 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 JENKINS:
This is a parenting matter concerning two children, X (“X”), born in 2012, who is now 13 years old, and Y (“Y”), born in 2016, who is nine years old (collectively “the children”).
The parties are the applicant father, Mr Bouali (“the father”), and the respondent mother, Ms Ingram (“the mother”).
The father seeks to review orders (out of time) made by a senior judicial registrar (“SJR”) refusing his application to revisit final parenting orders made in 2023.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
The parties were in a de facto relationship from June 2011 to 17 July 2022.
On 29 November 2023, the parties consented to final parenting orders, which provided for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father as agreed, or failing agreement, on each Sunday from 10.00am until 5.00pm (to be supervised for the first six months), and a weeknight visit in the other week, as well as limited day time on special occasions (“the final orders”).
The father filed an application on 27 November 2024 seeking to change the final orders.
The father’s application was heard by SJR Evans on 28 March 2025, adjourned on that date for judgment delivery, and dismissed on 15 April 2025.
The father filed an application to review those orders (out of time) on 20 May 2025. It is that application which was before this court.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
The father relied upon the following documents:
·his application for review filed 20 May 2025;
·his affidavit filed 20 May 2025;
·his affidavit filed 14 May 2025;
·his affidavit filed 4 April 2025;
·his affidavit filed 26 February 2025;
·his affidavit filed 27 November 2024;
·his notice of child abuse, family violence or risk filed 27 November 2024; and
·his application for final orders filed 27 November 2024.
The mother relied upon the following documents:
·her affidavit filed 1 May 2025;
·her affidavit filed 21 March 2025;
·her affidavit filed 12 March 2025; and
·her response to final orders application filed 28 January 2025.
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
The matter proceeded by way of submissions over Microsoft teams.
As both parties were self-represented, the process was explained to them at the outset, as well as the matters the court was required to consider in determining the father’s application.
I have had regard to each of the submissions of the parties and the evidence as it related to same. Just because I have not referred to a particular submission or piece of evidence, does not mean I have not taken it into consideration.
LEAVE OUT OF TIME
Rule 14.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Family Law) Rules 2021 (“the Rules”) prescribes that a party may file an application for review of an order made by an SJR within 21 days of the date of the order. The court has a general power to grant an extension of time prescribed by the Rules within which to take a particular step,[1] including extending time to permit the later filing of an application for review.
[1] Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 15.06(1).
In Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30 (“Gallo v Dawson”) McHugh J stated as follows at [480]:
… The grant of an extension of time under this rule is not automatic. The object of the rule is to ensure that those Rules which fix times for doing acts do not become instruments of injustice. The discretion to extend time is given for the sole purpose of enabling the Court or Justice to do justice between the parties. This means that the discretion can only be exercised in favour of an applicant upon proof that strict compliance with the rules will work an injustice upon the applicant. In order to determine whether the rules will work an injustice, it is necessary to have regard to the history of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the litigation, and the consequences for the parties of the grant or refusal of the application for extension of time.
(Footnotes omitted)
In OP & HM (2002) FamCA 454, the Full Court of the Family Court (Kay, Coleman & Rose JJ) held at [19] that:
The principles to be applied in determining an application for extension of time are fairly well settled. Whilst there is a broad discretion, the fundamental issue is whether an extension of time will enable the court to do justice between the parties. This is normally shown by an applicant demonstrating that there are adequate reasons which explain the delay, that there is a substantial issue to be raised on the hearing of the application and that no hardship or injustice will be caused to the respondent which cannot be compensated by orders as to costs or otherwise…
(Emphasis added)
Whilst a mere loss of a right to pursue an application does not constitute hardship in and of itself,[2] the authorities have made it clear that the court should be liberal when assessing the hardship that may be caused to an applicant if they are not permitted to proceed out of time.[3]
[2] See Sharp & Sharp (2011) 50 Fam LR 567 at [17].
[3] Sharaf & Nouri [2022] FedCFamC1F 898 at [3].
Substantial issue to be tried
The father argues that numerous matters have arisen since the final orders were made which would constitute a significant change of circumstances, including that the mother has remarried, and that she and her partner now pose a risk to the children. It is unclear if the mother has actually remarried, but she agrees that she has re-partnered with Mr B (“Mr B”) although, she says they are not currently living together. I am satisfied that this, in combination with the allegations of abuse, constitutes a substantial issue to be tried.
Delay and any prejudice to the mother
In terms of delay, the father says he engaged a solicitor who tried to file his application for review on or about 12 May 2025. (Although I note this was already out of time, albeit only about six days). The application appears to have been rejected by the registry. The father says he was unable to afford to continue to use the solicitor and thereafter filed the application himself. The mother did not take issue with the reasons provided by the father for the delay in bringing his application, and did not assert that she would be prejudiced if the father was allowed to proceed with his review out of time.
I am satisfied that there is a substantial issue to be tried, that there is sufficient reason for the delay, and the mother would not be prejudiced if the father were permitted to proceed with his application out of time. Accordingly, the father is granted leave out of time to proceed with his application for review.
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
Being a review hearing this was a hearing de novo.
Section 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides as follows:
Reconsideration of final parenting orders
(1) If a final parenting order is in force in relation to a child, a court must not reconsider the final parenting order unless:
(a) the court has considered whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made; and
(b) the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances (and taking into account whether there has been a significant change of circumstances since the final parenting order was made), it is in the best interests of the child for the final parenting order to be reconsidered.
Has there been a significant change in circumstances?
In his oral submissions, the father asserted that there were numerous bases on which the court should find that there has been a significant change of circumstances. Upon a thorough reading of his affidavit material, it was apparent that there were an even greater number of matters raised within his evidence. As the father was self-represented, I have done my best to sift out these concerns, noting that in many cases they involved vague assertions which overlapped with other issues, and that his material was both dense and repetitive.
It has not been possible to include each and every concern raised by the father. However, as best I can establish the father asserts the final orders should be revisited because of the following:
·the final orders were made under duress;
·the mother has mental health issues;
·the mother maybe using drugs;
·the mother has abused him and threatened him (including sending someone to threaten him) and the children;
·the mother has abused the children;
·the mother drives dangerously;
·the mother’s nephews/nieces are now supervised in her care;
·the mother has failed to attend to the children’s health issues;
·the children are struggling at school;
·general concerns about safety and wellbeing of children;
·the mother travelled overseas and left the children with persons unknown to the father;
·there have been two incidents of sexual abuse involving Y;
·the mother’s partner may have abused X;
·the father suspects the mother’s new partner is using steroids;
·the children have been exposed to polygamy;
·the children are being radicalised;
·the mother has breached the final orders over 350 times; and
·the children are alienated from him.
I shall attempt to address each of these assertions.
The final orders were made under duress
The father asserts that “the circumstances surrounding the original consent orders have not been fully disclosed or scrutinized [sic].”[4] He says that at the time that he consented to the final orders he was “fearing for [his] life,”[5] that he was depressed due to the domestic violence he suffered at the hands of the mother,[6] that he was under financial duress,[7] and that that his lawyers failed to explain the orders to him properly.[8]
[4] Father’s affidavit filed 20 May 2025 (“Father’s May affidavit”) at [23.14].
[5] Father’s May affidavit at [24.15].
[6] Father’s May affidavit at [103.29].
[7] Father’s May affidavit at [26.18].
[8] Father’s May affidavit at [232.4].
I note that the father had an opportunity to appeal the orders but did not do so. It is otherwise unclear to the court how any of these matters could constitute a significant change of circumstances, as they are asserted to have existed at the time the final orders were made.
The mother’s mental health
The father asserts that the mother has mental health issues, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and narcissism, which he says she failed to disclose when the final consent orders were made.[9] He also says that she has subsequently failed to seek help for her mental health issues.[10] The father does not say on what basis he asserts the mother has such mental health issues, nor how they impact her parenting of the children.
[9] Father’s May affidavit at [27.19].
[10] Father’s May affidavit at [103.29].
The Department of Children and Justice (“the DCJ”) investigated the mother and Mr B in 2024. The mother attaches a comprehensive report from the DCJ which summarises their investigation (“the DCJ report”) to her affidavit filed 12 March 2025.[11]
[11] Mother’s Affidavit filed 12 March 2025 (“Mother’s March affidavit”) at annexure “MRB” at [29] – [46].
In the DCJ report, they state:
… There is no information to indicate [Ms Ingram] has any current emotional, psychological, cognitive or physical conditions that impair her ability to supervise, protect or care for [Y] and [X]. [Ms Ingram] advised she does not have any diagnosed mental health conditions but has been experiencing situational depression and anxiety due to the current DCJ and police involvement and ongoing issues with [Mr Bouali] post-separation. [Ms Ingram] advised that she is not prescribed any medication for her mental health and has started going to the gym with [Mr B] and enjoys going for walks and talking to her best friend of 10+ years when she is feeling stressed or anxious. [Ms Ingram] advised she had attended counselling in the past and found it helpful and is considering re-engaging with her psychologist following DCJ involvement.[12]
…
There is no evidence in this assessment to indicate [Ms Ingram] has any historical or current mental health problems. Review of DCJ records [redacted] does not indicate any mental health concerns for [Ms Ingram]. [Ms Ingram] is a qualified [health care professional] and runs her own private practice. [Ms Ingram] advised she does not have a mental health diagnosis and is not prescribed any medication for her mental health.[13]
(Emphasis added)
[12] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [45].
[13] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [33].
The mother may be using drugs
The father says that during the relationship, the mother took unprescribed Panadeine Forte and tramadol and admitted to past use of marijuana.[14] He says that the mother’s family are drug users, and that her father offered him marijuana on many occasions. The father suspects the mother may now be using drugs based on her dramatic weight loss,[15] and ongoing abusive behaviour.[16] He says further that the children have told him “that everyone is using drugs.”
[14] Father’s May affidavit at [55.1].
[15] Father’s May affidavit at [58.4].
[16] Father’s May affidavit at [59.5].
However, the DCJ in their report concluded:
DCJ acknowledge the current report raises concerns [Ms Ingram] is using drugs however there is no evidence in this assessment to indicate [Ms Ingram] has a historic or current alcohol or drug problem. Review of DCJ records and [redacted] does not indicate any concerns for substance use by [Ms Ingram]. [Ms Ingram] has denied any past or current drug use and stated she does not drink alcohol. CW [Mr G] did not observe any alcohol or drug paraphernalia in the home and [Ms Ingram] presented as a calm, coherent and appropriate.[17]
(Emphasis added)
The mother has abused the father and threatened him (including sending someone to threaten him) and the children
[17] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [33].
The father says that that the mother has subjected him to “physical abuse … verbal, mental, emotional, financial, legal, spiritual, parental alienation and coercive control abuse.”[18] He says that the mother has hit him ten times, broken his phone, tried to “run [him] over and threaten[ed] to call her brothers to bash [him]”[19] and that the mother’s “associates” threatened to kill him.[20] The father also alleges the mother threatened to harm the children if he tried to change the final orders.[21]
[18] Father’s May affidavit at [100.26].
[19] Father’s May affidavit at [100.26].
[20] Father’s May affidavit at [41.33].
[21] Father’s May affidavit at [148.8].
For the most part, the father failed to particularise his allegations or provided only limited information. For example, he alleges that on 14 March 2024, the mother threatened to harm or kill him via messenger,[22] and yet he failed to state exactly what was said.
[22] Father’s May affidavit at [45.37].
The father relied upon information provided by the police pursuant to the section 67ZBD order (“the police material”), and in particular, an event recorded under the mother’s name as ‘….’ Next to that event number is recorded the words “domestic violence episode,” the date of 22 July 2024 and “person named.”[23] There is otherwise no further information provided in relation to that incident. Nor does the police material contain specifics of any other “incidents” recorded under the mother’s name. (In this regard, the father appeared to be under the misguided belief, which he also refers to in his affidavit material, that the court ought to have subpoenaed the police file so that more would be known). It is, however, apparent from the available police material that the mother has only one conviction going back to 2009, and that this concerned failing to provide the identity of a person driving a motor vehicle.[24]
[23] Section 67ZBD response from NSW Police Force (“the police material”) at [11].
[24] The police material at [20].
The police material also shows the existence of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (“ADVO”) taken out by the police on behalf of the mother, against the father, in late 2024.[25] The father says the mother used the ADVO process to coerce and control him, however the application made by the police, annexed to the mother’s affidavit, reports as follows:
Since their separation the PINOP [the mother] has received multiple emails, texts, phone calls and other contact from the Defendant [the father] on alternate social media platforms. As a result of no longer wishing to speak to her partner [the father] unless engaging every fortnight regarding the pick up and drop off of her children. The PINOP [the mother] has tried to delete, block and manage the contact with the Defendant [the father] however this only results in the Defendant [the father] making alternate accounts to continue the contact.
About 9:00am on Monday 9th September 2024, police attended [C Street, Suburb D]. Police obtained a written statement from the PINOP [the mother] in relation to ongoing harassment obtained from the Defendant [the father]. Due to the sheer volume of emails received from the Defendant [the father], police only obtained images of emails received by the PINOP [the mother] from the Defendant since the 9th August 2024. It is evident in the emails that the PINOP [the mother] is only responding on Sunday’s when she is required to do so to organise a location to drop off her children. The PINOP [the mother] has previously requested that he [the father] not contact her however as an alternative to causing further conflict, she chooses only to reply when needed and about the children.
The nature of emails differ however on certain days the PINOP [the mother] receives emails in excess of 3-4 times per day. The Defendant [the father] often sends screenshots of legislation whereby alleging the PINOP [the mother] is grooming her children. “Just remember: religiosity does not mean the person is safe. Did you not tell me about the Quran teach in [Suburb E] who molested a 12 years old female student [Ms Ingram]”. The Defendant [the father] makes mention of the PINOP’s [the mother’s] new partner stating, “Every time I see [Mr B] , I get very angry and I want to scream in his face that he is a child molester , home wrecker (encouraged to divorce so he can marry you) and a criminal (a threat in [Suburb F]).”
The nature of the emails are inconsistent, erratic and the volume of emails would reasonably be considered as harassment by any person. Images have been uploaded to ViewIMS and are available for viewing.
Police hold reasonable fears that given the Defendant [the father] has been asked to stop on multiple occasions and continues his erratic behaviour and harassment that it will continue to be an issue if an ADVO is not put in place to protect the victim [the mother].[26]
(Emphasis added)
[25] The police material at [11].
[26] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [54].
The mother’s dangerous driving
The father alleges the mother has driven at over 40km per hour with the children in the car and that she almost ran over X four or five times.[27] Again, despite such serious allegations, the father does not provide any further particulars, and if it was reported to the police or the DCJ they do not appear to have taken any action.
[27] Father’s May affidavit at [64.10] and [65.11].
The mother’s nephews/nieces are now supervised in her care
The father says that the DCJ “has reportedly changed the respite care for the children’s uncle’s daughters from unsupervised and sleep over to supervised visits (three hours) due to complaints about Ms Ingram and her husband under sharia law.”[28] The father does not say in his evidence what he means by “reportedly,” and in his oral submissions he told the court he had been informed about this by the children. In any event, it is clear the DCJ are aware the mother is a respite carer and have not noted any concerns about the mother.
[28] Father’s May affidavit at [49.1].
The mother has failed to attend to the children’s health issues
The father says “evidence indicates” that Y may have autism, and the mother has been reluctant to seek professional help for him.[29] He says further that X has depression, and the mother refuses to take her to a psychologist.[30] The father again fails to particularise these concerns or to provide any evidence in corroboration.
[29] Father’s May affidavit at [50.2] and [192.26].
[30] Father’s May affidavit at [191.25].
Furthermore, in the DCJ report it is noted:
There is no evidence in this assessment to indicate that [Y] or [X] have been neglected or abused by [Ms Ingram] or her new partner [Mr B]. [Ms Ingram] does not blame [Y] or [X] for the current DCJ investigation or police involvement and has stated on several occasions she would not put her children at risk of harm and would not be with [Mr B] if she thought he was capable of causing harm. [Ms Ingram] stated that she is very aware of the impact of childhood abuse and neglect as her brother’s children are under the care of the Minister due to ongoing child protection concerns…[31]
(Errors as per original and emphasis added)
[31] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [35].
The children are struggling at school
The father made submissions that the children were struggling at school. The mother has attached school reports to her affidavit, which do not raise serious concerns about the children’s academic progress.[32] Indeed, the reports show that “[X] is a delightful and warm student who quietly excels in her studies,”[33] and that [Y] has “made continuous growth … in all key learning areas.”[34]
[32] Mother’s March affidavit at p.14 – 21.
[33] Mother’s March affidavit at p.21.
[34] Mother’s March affidavit at p.17.
General concerns about the safety and wellbeing of the children
For the most part the father’s evidence consists of motherhood statements without details as to what he alleges has occurred and when.[35] Furthermore, I again note the DCJ thoroughly investigated the mother and did not substantiate any concerns. In particular, the DCJ concluded:
There is no evidence in this assessment to indicate that [Ms Ingram] does not provide physical care consistent with [Y] and [X]’s needs. The current report did not raise concerns for the level of physical care [Ms Ingram] provides to [Y] and [X] and review of DCJ records does not indicate any prior concerns. During the home visit (HV) on 23/07/24, caseworker (CW) [Mr G] ([Mr G]) observed [X] and [Y] to be dressed in clean, well fitting and weather appropriate clothing and there was plenty of food in the kitchen which [Y] helped himself to during the visit.[36]
(Emphasis added)
[35] Father’s May affidavit at [20.11].
[36] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [33].
The mother travelled overseas and left the children with persons unknown to the father
The father says the mother and her partner, Mr B, travelled overseas in or about late 2024 and left the children behind with people he did not know. The father reported the mother to the police as he was allegedly in fear for the children, and because he believed the mother was in breach of the final orders. The police investigated and, on the father’s evidence, were satisfied the children were safe and with someone “trustworthy.”[37] Despite this, the father attended at the children’s school to try and see the children.
[37] Father’s affidavit filed 27 November 2024 at [30].
There have been two incidents of sexual abuse involving Y
The father alleges that Y has been sexually abused on two occasions whilst in the mother’s care, being in January and July 2024.
In relation to the January 2024 allegation, the father says that he found out about this incident when he read the police material. He says that he does not know who allegedly sexually touched Y, but he remains concerned that the mother failed to protect Y from this abuse. All that can be established from the police material is that in January 202
4Y was recorded as a victim of sexual touching.[38] It does not say what the sexual touching was, who the offender was, or what happened with the allegation.[39] However, the DCJ have not raised this as a concern.… On the balance of probabilities, [Region H] Metropolitan Joint Child Protection Response Program (JCPRP) have not substantiated actual sexual abuse of [Y] by POI [Mr B] in accordance with Section 23 (c) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. The decision not to substantiate is based on the following: [Y] was interviewed by […] on 23/07/2024 did not make an disclosure of sexual abuse by [Mr B] or any other person. [redacted] and review of DCJ records does not indicate any prior concerns for sexual abuse perpetrated by [Mr B] and [Mr B] has cooperated with DCJ for the purposes of this assessment [sic].[40]
(Emphasis added)
[38] The police material at [8].
[39] The police material at [8].
[40] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [34].
The mother’s partner may have abused X
The father’s evidence is that X told him she wants to obtain a gun and kill the mother’s new husband.[41] The father submitted that this raised concerns about X being mistreated by Mr B in some way. It is unclear in what way Mr B is alleged to have abused X or if this specific issue was reported to the DCJ, but it is not raised as a concern in the DCJ report.
[41] Father’s May affidavit at [25.17].
The father suspects the mother’s new partner is using steroids
The father’s evidence is that he has heard “from the community” that Mr B is a drug user and steroid user, and notes his “muscular physique at the age of 54.”[42] The father also says the children report being told that “steroid use is acceptable.”[43] Even at a summary hearing, the court cannot make a determination based on such assertions.
[42] Father’s May affidavit at [60.6].
[43] Father’s May affidavit at [61.7].
The children have been exposed to polygamy
The father has been told by “the community” that the mother’s partner is still married to his first wife by way of an “Islamic marriage.”[44] It is unclear whether the mother has married Mr B (either legally or under Sharia Law), and I note the DCJ refer to the mother being “Islamic [sic] married,”[45] however, the mother refers to Mr B as her partner, who sleeps over occasionally but does not live with her. Regardless, the court cannot rely on the alleged comments of unknown community members.
[44] Father’s May affidavit at [158.5].
[45] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [40].
The children are being radicalised
The father says the children are at risk of being taken overseas and raised in “an extremist environment.”[46] Again, the father does not say on what basis he alleges such a risk, save that he says the mother’s partner is from Country J, which he says is “filled with religious extremism,”[47] and that the mother has subjected him to “spiritual abuse,” by which he means putting pressure on him “to conform to her ‘extremist belief system’ and criticising [his] religious views.”[48]
[46] Father’s May affidavit at [89.15].
[47] Father’s May affidavit at [163.10].
[48] Father’s May affidavit at [151.11].
The mother has breached the final orders over 350 times
The father attests to in excess of 350 breaches of the final orders, although does not particularise the dates and other details of such breaches.[49] I am therefore unable to assess the strength of the father’s allegations. The father is entitled to bring a contravention application, but has not done so.
[49] Father’s May affidavit at [6].
The children are alienated from the father
The father makes a number of broad statements, which he says are examples of the “mother’s parental alienation tactics.”[50] However, like the majority of his allegations, the father again fails to particularise what the mother is said to have done and when.
[50] See father’s May affidavit [115] to [137].
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
Being a summary hearing, the court is required to take the father’s evidence at its highest.[51] Accordingly, I have carefully considered the father’s allegations and to a large extent have ignored the mother’s response. However, as repeatedly stated throughout this judgment, the father’s allegations regarding a change of circumstance are, for the most part, vague and unparticularised. Furthermore, the court has had the benefit of material provided by the police and the DCJ, who appear to have thoroughly investigated the father’s concerns. None of the concerns raised by the father have been substantiated by the DCJ, nor acted upon by the police.
[51] Defrey & Radnor [2021] FamCAFC 67.
The only change of circumstance that may be significant is the mother’s relationship status, and even that is unclear. However, the court must still be satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the children to revisit the final parenting orders.
The mother presented at this hearing as being worn down by the father’s ongoing allegations and the need to defend herself, yet again, at this review hearing. As a result of the father’s allegations, which have all been found to have no basis, the mother and/or her partner have been involved with extensive police and DCJ investigations. Furthermore, the father has reported the mother, who is a[health care professional], to the body regulating her profession, potentially putting her livelihood at stake.[52] I have no doubt that if the father were permitted to reopen parenting proceedings, that he would continue to raise allegations against the mother in a way that could only be categorised as systems abuse. Such a process, if it has not already occurred, would likely impact the mother’s emotional wellbeing, and in turn, her parenting of the children. This could not be in the children’s best interests.
[52] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexures “MRB” at [50].
Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence before the court that leads me to conclude that a court is likely to change the parenting arrangements that were put in place in the final orders. Rather, the father’s own evidence raises ongoing concerns about coercive and controlling family violence. These concerns are corroborated by the police who have expressly identified the risk the father poses to the safety of the mother.[53]
[53] Mother’s March Affidavit at annexure “MRB” at [53] – [55].
For all of these reasons, I find that it is not in the best interests of the children to reopen the parenting matters. The husband’s application for review filed 20 May 2025 will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Jenkins. Associate:
Dated: 4 July 2025
0
3
2