Ismailov & Jones
[2025] FedCFamC1F 153
•14 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Ismailov & Jones [2025] FedCFamC1F 153
File number(s): SYC 8679 of 2022 Judgment of: BEHRENS J Date of judgment: 14 March 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation with respect to parenting issues – Where the child has been exposed to parental conflict – Where the child has only spent supervised time with the Father since late 2022 – Where at the commencement of the trial the Mother sought that the child’s time with the Father continue to be professionally supervised – Where the Mother significantly modified that position by the conclusion of the trial – Where the issues in dispute between the parents are relatively narrow – Where a finding cannot be made that the Father used coercive or controlling behaviour – Where by the conclusion of the trial a finding is not sought that the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm in the care of the Father – Where both parents seek the restoration of the child’s relationship with the Father through a therapeutic process – Where therapeutic process has been commenced pursuant to interim orders made on the last day of the trial – Where travel to Country B has been a significant and ongoing issue between the parents – Where neither parent is found to be a flight risk – Where international travel will assist the child to build a relationship with extended family and engage with aspects of their culture – Where orders made for the parents to have joint responsibility for decision-making with respect to all major long-term issues – Where orders made for the parties and the child to continue to participate in family therapy and for the Father and child to undertake therapeutic contact – Where orders made for staged and gradually increasing unsupervised time with the Father – Where orders made for school holiday time with the Father to commence with the last stage of unsupervised time – Where orders made for time with each parent on special occasions – Where orders made for international travel and the location of the child’s passport – Where certain restraints on the parents made by consent Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 60CG, 65Y
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 78 Date of last submission/s: 7 February 2025 Date of hearing: 3-7 February 2025 Place: Sydney Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Spain with Mr Cummings SC on 6 February 2025 Solicitor for the Applicant: Barkus Doolan Winning Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Singh Solicitor for the Respondent: Opal Legal Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Dr McConaghy Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Christina Lam and Associates ORDERS
SYC 8679 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS ISMAILOV
Applicant
AND: MR JONES
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
BEHRENS J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.All previous parenting orders are discharged, other than Order 2 of the interim orders made 7 February 2025.
Decision-making authority
2.The parents will have joint responsibility for making major long-term decisions in respect of X born 2016.
Live with and spend time with
3.X will live with the Mother and spend time with the Father as agreed between the parents and failing agreement in accordance with these orders.
Stage One
4.The parents will continue to attend at family therapy and therapeutic contact and will otherwise continue to comply with Order 2 of the interim orders made 7 February 2025.
5.The parents will continue to participate in, and to facilitate X’s participation in, family therapy for a minimum period of 12 months.
6.The parents have leave to provide to the family therapist and any mental health professional upon whom they or X attend:
(a)The Single Expert Report of Dr C dated 2 November 2023;
(b)The Reasons for Judgement of Behrens J; and
(c)A copy of this Order.
7.Upon completion of eight sessions of family therapy, followed by three sessions of therapeutic contact, X shall commence spending two months (subject to Order 9 below) of unsupervised time with the Father:
(a)On each alternate Friday from after school or 3.00 pm until 7.30 pm; and
(b)On each alternate Saturday the day after she has spent time with the Father on Friday:
(i)If X has tutoring, from 1.30 pm, with changeover to occur at tutoring, until 7.00 pm; and
(ii)If X does not have tutoring, from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm.
8.Should the Mother cancel or fail to facilitate X’s attendance at a session of family therapy or therapeutic contact, she shall within 24 hours of the missed session provide the Father with a medical certificate specifying the illness preventing X from attending family therapy or therapeutic contact.
Stage Two (overnight time commences)
9.Upon the conclusion of Order 7, or within six months of the date of these Orders, whichever is the earliest date, and for a period of two months X will spend unsupervised time with the Father each alternate weekend from after school or 3.00 pm Friday until 5.00 pm Saturday.
Stage Three (two nights a fortnight)
10.Upon the conclusion of Order 9 and for a period of one month, X will spend time with the Father each alternate week from after school or 3.00 pm Friday until 5.00 pm Sunday.
Stage Four (three nights a fortnight)
11.Upon the conclusion of Order 10 and for a period of one month, X will spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from after school or 3.00 pm Friday until before school or 9.00 am Monday.
Stage Five (four nights a fortnight)
12.Upon the conclusion of Order 11, during school terms X will spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from after school or 3.00 pm Friday until before school or 9.00 am Tuesday.
School Holidays
13.Upon the commencement of Order 12, X will spend time with the Father during New South Wales school holidays as agreed in writing between the parents and failing agreement as follows:
(a)For half of all term school holidays, being the first half with the Mother in odd-numbered years and the first half with the Father in even-numbered years;
(b)On a week about basis during the summer holidays until X commences year 7 at school, commencing in the first week with the Mother in odd-numbered years and the first week with the Father in even-numbered years;
(c)For half of the summer holidays upon X commencing year 7 at school, being the first half with the Mother in odd-numbered years and the first half with the Father in even-numbered years.
14.For the purpose of school holiday time:
(a)The school holiday period shall commence after school on the last day of the school term;
(b)The school holiday period shall conclude at the commencement of school on the first day of school term.
Special occasions
15.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these orders, upon the commencement of Order 7 above and thereafter, X shall spend time with the Mother and Father during special occasions as agreed in writing or failing agreement as follows:
(a)With the Father from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on Father's Day if not already in the Father's care;
(b)With the Mother from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm on Mother's Day if not already in the Mother's care.
(c)On X’s birthdays as follows:
(i)If X’s birthday falls on a school day, X will spend time with the parent who has care of X on that day and with the other parent on the day following X’s birthday from after school or 3.00 pm to before school or 9.00 am the next day if the following day is a school day and from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm if the following day is a non-school day, provided that, if X’s overnight time with the Father has not yet commenced then she shall spend time with him during the day only;
(ii)If X’s birthday falls on a non-school day, X will spend time with the parent who does not have care of X on that day as agreed between the parents in writing and, failing agreement, from 11.00 am until 5.00 pm.
(d)On the Islamic festive days:
(i)in odd-numbered years, with the Father from 6.00 pm on the day before the first day of Eid Al-Fitr until 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Fitr;
(ii)in even-numbered years, with the Mother from 6.00 pm on the day before the first day of Eid Al-Fitr until 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Fitr and with the father from 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Fitr until 6.00 pm on the second day of Eid Al-Fitr;
(iii)in even-numbered years, with the Father from 6.00 pm on the day before the first day of Eid Al-Adha until 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Adha and with the Mother from 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Adha until 6.00 pm on the second day of Eid Al-Adha;
(iv)in odd-numbered years, with the Mother from 6.00 pm on the day before the first day of Eid Al-Adha until 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Adha and with the Father from 6.00 pm on the first day of Eid Al-Adha until 6.00 pm on the second day of Eid Al-Adha.
Provided that, if X’s overnight time with the Father has not yet commenced, she shall spend time with him during the day only.
Changeover
16.Unless agreed otherwise between the parents in writing, changeover (except at the commencement of time under Order 7(b)(i)) is to occur as follows:
(a)The parent starting time with X is to collect X from school at the conclusion of school on the school day;
(b)The parent finishing time with X is to deliver X to school at the start of the school day.
(c)Should any changeover day fall on a day when X is not at school, then changeover shall take place outside Suburb D McDonald's.
International Travel and Passport:
17.Pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), either party may travel overseas, including to Country B and Country E, with X, in accordance with Orders 18-20 below.
18.Subject to compliance with Order 20 below, either parent may travel overseas with X during times when X is otherwise living with or spending time with them pursuant to these orders, but not including time when X is spending make up time with the other parent pursuant to Order 19(c) below.
19.In addition, subject to compliance with Order 20 below, from 18 months following the making of these orders, either parent may travel overseas with X for a period of up to 14 days once in each calendar year provided that:
(a)in even numbered years, only the Mother can travel overseas with X in the June/July or September/October school holidays and only the Father can travel overseas with the child in the April school holidays or those that commence in December;
(b)in odd numbered years, only the Father can travel overseas with X in the June/July or September/October school holidays and only the Mother can travel overseas with X in the April school holidays or those that commence in December;
(c)the travelling parent will provide the other parent with at least 30 days’ notice of their intention to travel with X;
(d)X will spend make up time with the other parent for the same number of days which X missed with the other parent in the following school holiday; and
(e)the travelling parent will facilitate X contacting the other parent at least twice a week by FaceTime or similar.
20.For the purpose of international travel the following conditions apply:
(a)Except for Country B and Country E, international travel may only be to a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;
(b)Travel may only take place during school holiday periods, unless otherwise agreed in writing;
(c)The travelling parent must provide the other parent with copies of or written confirmation of return airline tickets for X, a detailed itinerary of where X will stay and travel to for the duration of their time in that parent’s care, and contact details for X while they are away as soon as that information is available and at least 14 days prior to the intended travel;
(d)The travelling parent must provide copies of or email confirmation of online check in on the flight and boarding passes for the child as soon as they are available.
21.The parties will do all such things as are necessary to have X, born 2016 removed from the Airport Watchlist.
22.Within seven days of a request to do so, the parents will sign all such documents as are necessary to renew an Australian passport for X, and shall share equally in the cost of such renewal.
23.In relation to X’s Australian passport and Country B National Identity Card (“X’s travel documents”):
(a)X’s travel documents will held by the Mother until the Father gives the Mother notice that he intends to travel overseas with X on a particular date, when the Mother will forthwith deliver them to the Father;
(b)Thereafter, the parent who has travelled overseas with X will provide X’s travel documents to the other parent within seven days of returning from international travel with X;
(c)The parent who is holding X’s travel documents will deliver them to the other parent forthwith upon being given notice that the other parent intends to travel overseas with X on a particular date.
24.The parent holding X’s travel documents will provide a copy of those documents to the other parent upon request of that other parent.
Therapeutic Counselling
25.The parties are restrained from allowing X to continue counselling with Ms F, save for X having one final session.
26.Upon the commencement of X’s overnight time with the Father, the parents will facilitate X attending upon an appropriately qualified and experienced psychologist as agreed between them and, failing agreement:
(a)At least 14 days prior to the commencement of overnight time the Mother will nominate three proposed psychologists;
(b)Within a further seven days the Father will select one psychologist from the three nominated;
(c)The parents will pay the costs of X’s attendance on the psychologist in equal shares.
General
27.Each parent shall be permitted to communicate directly with X’s school/s, sporting bodies, and medical practitioners to obtain any necessary information and/or documents about X’s progress and this Order shall constitute sufficient authority for such communication.
28.Each parent is entitled to attend all school events and extra-curricular activities that a parent would ordinarily be invited to attend.
29.Each parent shall do all reasonable things necessary to ensure that they facilitate X participating in her scheduled extra-curricular activities during such periods that X is spending time with them.
30.Both parents shall keep the other advised of the health of X including any serious illness, medication or hospitalisation of X as soon as reasonably practicable and to allow the other parent to visit X if hospitalised.
31.Both parents shall keep the other advised of the names and contact details of all of X’s treating medical practitioners, dentists and allied health professionals.
32.Without admissions, when X is in their respective care, each parent is restrained from:
(a)Physically disciplining X or permitting any other person to do so;
(b)Denigrating the other parent, the other parent's extended family, or a person with whom the other parent has a relationship in the presence or hearing of X, or permitting X to remain in the presence or hearing of any other person denigrating the other parent, the other parent's extended family, or person with whom the other parent is in a relationship, with the parent's knowledge or in their presence;
(c)Permitting X from having access to any of the documents filed in these proceedings;
(d)Communicating any information intended for the other parent through X; and
(e)Causing X to be a medium in any way between the Mother and the Father or between the Mother and the Father and any other person.
33.The Mother is restrained from allowing the maternal aunt, Dr G, from attending changeovers and from attending on and communicating with X’s psychologist and therapists (including family therapist).
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
BEHRENS J
The applicant mother in these proceedings is Ms Ismailov. The respondent father is Mr Jones. Ms Ismailov and Mr Jones are the parents of an only child, X, who is eight years old. X’s interests were represented in these proceedings by an experienced Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) who I was told last met with X on 24 January 2025.
Both parents were born and lived their early lives in Country B. Mr Jones immigrated to Australia in 2007 and Ms Ismailov in 2009. X was born here. Both parents practice the Muslim faith. Ms Ismailov is a health professional. Mr Jones has run various businesses, is working in the transport sector and has recently started studying.
X’s parents separated shortly after her birth. This is the third set of parenting proceedings about her.
At the time of separation, the family was living in Brisbane. On 23 July 2018, Mr Jones commenced parenting and property proceedings in the Brisbane Registry of what was then known as the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Those proceedings were ultimately resolved by consent, such that, by orders made 28 April 2020 (“the 2020 orders”), Ms Ismailov was given permission to relocate X’s place of residence to Sydney or Queensland and X was to spend four nights a fortnight with Mr Jones (with such time to occur in either Sydney or Queensland – wherever X was residing – if the parents did not reside within 50 kilometres of each other following X’s relocation with her mother). Ms Ismailov relocated to Sydney with X at the end of 2021. At around that time, Mr Jones commenced proceedings seeking orders restraining that relocation. He soon discontinued that application. Having travelled from Brisbane to spend time with X during 2022, Mr Jones moved to Sydney in January 2023, where he continues to reside.
Ms Ismailov commenced these further parenting proceedings on 6 December 2022, following what she said were X’s disclosures indicating that X was at risk in the care of Mr Jones. Since that time, X has spent only supervised time with Mr Jones. X has at times expressed reluctance to attend, or a wish to leave early. During 2024, on more than half of the scheduled times, X has not attended. On 27 January 2025, in response to Ms Ismailov’s invitation to try supervised time again, Mr Jones indicated to Ms Ismailov that he preferred to focus on therapy “for [X] and me to work on repairing our bond” (Exhibit ICL23). Accordingly, when the matter came before me, X had not spent any time with Mr Jones since 7 December 2024.
A Family Report was prepared by the single expert, Dr C, and released to the parents on 2 November 2023 (Exhibit ICL1). Dr C recommended that X spend significant and substantial time with Mr Jones and outlined a possible transition plan that involved Mr Jones and X attending therapeutic contact, followed by unsupervised daytime contact, and ultimately graduating to more substantial time. Dr C answered some queries by way of a letter dated 22 March 2024, which was attached to an affidavit filed 28 January 2025 and received into evidence (Exhibit ICL2).
During the five-day proceedings, both parties, Ms Ismailov’s witnesses and the single expert were cross examined. At the commencement of the trial, Ms Ismailov was seeking sole responsibility for major long-term decision-making with respect to X, and that X’s time with Mr Jones be professionally supervised. By his further amended Response filed 16 November 2023 and his Case Outline filed 28 January 2025, Mr Jones sought joint decision-making responsibility for all issues and therapeutic contact between himself and X, followed by a rapid progression to equal time. At the commencement of the trial, Mr Jones adopted the ICL’s preliminary Minute of Order, which provided that the parents would have joint decision-making responsibility for all issues except those relating to X’s education, there would be engagement in a therapeutic process, Mr Jones’s unsupervised time with X would gradually increase and ultimately reach four nights a fortnight, and that Mr Jones would also have special occasion and school holiday time with X.
By the final day of the trial, Ms Ismailov’s position had considerably softened, such that it was agreed that: she and Mr Jones would share responsibility for major long-term decision-making for X (save that Ms Ismailov did not agree that responsibility for decision-making with respect to educational issues for X should be shared); the family would engage in family therapy involving therapeutic contact between X and Mr Jones and, following that, X’s time with Mr Jones would progress to include unsupervised overnight and holiday time. By the conclusion of the trial, the positions of Mr Jones and the ICL had also modified, such that they were now seeking that the parents share decision-making responsibility for all major long-term issues for X, and that X’s time with her father during school terms progress to five nights a fortnight.
These changes in position reflected the evidence as it emerged at trial. By the conclusion of the trial, it was clear I would be satisfied that Mr Jones poses no unacceptable risk of harm to X, and that he has much to offer her. By consent, I was able to make interim orders which commenced family therapy and the progression towards therapeutic contact and then unsupervised time.
The parents and the ICL ultimately consented to orders generally in the terms of final Orders 3, 4, 5 (save that the mother sought this continue for 18 months), 7(a), 8, 9 (save for the reference to six months), 10 (save the mother sought that this stage go for two months), 11 (save the mother sought that this stage go for two months), 15 (save for the time at which special occasion time with the Father commences and save for (c)(ii) – the parents and the ICL omitted to propose a birthday order for a non-school day), 16, 25 and 27-33.
ISSUES REMAINING TO BE DECIDED
The significant issues remaining for me to decide are therefore relatively narrow:
(1)Whether X’s parents should have joint responsibility for making all major long-term decisions for X (as sought by Mr Jones and the ICL), or for all decisions except education decisions (as Ms Ismailov sought);
(2)Whether X should be able to travel with Mr Jones to Country B (as sought by Mr Jones and the ICL, but opposed by Ms Ismailov, along with travel to Country E) and, if so, when and on what conditions and when other international travel should be permitted;
(3)Where X’s passport should be held – that is, whether by Ms Ismailov (as she sought), at the Court (as Mr Jones and the ICL sought) or in some other way;
(4)Whether X’s school term time with Mr Jones should progress to five nights a fortnight (as sought by Mr Jones and the ICL) or to three nights a fortnight (as Ms Ismailov sought), and how quickly such progression should occur;
(5)How X’s time in the school holidays should be divided between her parents.
For the reasons set out below, I make orders such that:
(6)X’s parents will have joint responsibility for making all major long-term decisions for X;
(7)Both parents will be permitted to travel internationally, including to Country B and Country E, with X, subject to certain conditions;
(8)X’s passport will be held initially by Ms Ismailov and then by the parent who did not last travel internationally with her and provided to the travelling parent on receipt of notice that they intend to travel internationally with X;
(9)X’s time with Mr Jones will progress to four nights a fortnight during school terms;
(10)Upon the commencement of four nights a fortnight with Mr Jones during school terms, X will spend half of each school holiday with each of her parents, but week about during the summer holiday until she is in year 7. There will be special arrangements when either of her parents wishes to travel overseas with her.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
By her case outline filed 29 January 2025, Ms Ismailov relied upon the following documents:
(1)Amended Initiating Application filed 23 November 2023;
(2)Her affidavit filed 16 August 2024;
(3)Her updating trial affidavit filed 19 December 2024;
(4)The affidavit of her sister, Dr G, filed 16 August 2024;
(5)The affidavit of Ms F, X’s psychologist, filed 11 December 2024.
By his case outline filed 28 January 2025, Mr Jones relied upon:
(1)His affidavit filed 18 December 2024;
(2)The Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence or Risk filed 14 December 2024.
In his case outline, Mr Jones indicated that he also sought to rely upon the Child Impact Report of Ms H, but this was not pressed on the first day of the trial, and I did not receive this report into evidence.
The affidavit of Ms F was received with its annexures. I received the affidavits of the parents into evidence without their annexures. Some of those annexures were subsequently tendered. I also received into evidence the Family Report of single expert Dr C, which was dated 2 November 2023 and became Exhibit ICL1, and an affidavit of Dr C filed 28 January 2025.
The ICL filed a case outline on 30 January 2025.
RELEVANT FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE S 60CC FACTORS
Relevant Law (Parenting Orders)
When making parenting orders, X’s best interests are the paramount consideration. In working out what is in her best interests, I am required to have regard to the matters in s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). As X is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, the matters that apply only to such children are not extracted below.
60CC How a court determines what is in a child’s best interests
Determining child’s best interests
(1) Subject to subsection (4), in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must:
(a) consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and
(b) …
General considerations
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:
(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i) the child; and
(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b) any views expressed by the child;
(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:
(a) any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(b) any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.
I am also required to apply s 60CG of the Act which provides:
(1) In considering what order to make, the court must, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure that the order:
(a) is consistent with any family violence order; and
(b) does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the court may include in the order any safeguards that it considers necessary for the safety of those affected by the order.
Safety
At the commencement of the trial, there were allegations by both parents that the other had used family violence against them during the relationship and in its aftermath. As set out below, Ms Ismailov also made allegations about Mr Jones’s behaviour towards X which she said went to what arrangements would ensure X is safe from harm.
In closing submissions, I was not asked to make any findings in relation to family violence as between the parents. The fact that a parent has used family violence is not just relevant to safety from harm – it also goes to parental capacity and is therefore relevant to the issues still in contest between the parties. I return to it below in that context.
Since late 2022, Ms Ismailov has reported various disclosures she says X has made about Mr Jones’s behaviour – including him slapping her (including on the bottom) and yelling at her – to various medical professionals, the Department of Communities and Justice, and to police. Evidence was adduced during the trial which indicated that X has told other people that Mr Jones has slapped her and smacked her on the bum. New South Wales and Queensland police investigations have resulted in no further action. Ms Ismailov has also suggested there may be a sexual aspect to Mr Jones’s touching of X, and at the commencement of the trial I was told by counsel for Ms Ismailov that one of the issues I would have to decide was whether X is at risk of sexual abuse by Mr Jones if her time with him is unsupervised.
In response to allegations that X is at risk in the care of the father, the single expert opined at page 51 of the Family Report:
… [X] is at risk of psychological harm if she continues to live with [Ms Ismailov] for significant time without intervention. [Ms Ismailov] has a firmly held belief about [X’s] experience of abuse by her father, as well as his friend[s] and family. While she remains steadfast in her belief about this abuse occurring, she is unable to understand the role her own attention and attributions make to maintaining [X’s] current rejection of her father. While it is important to be open to a child’s disclosures of harm, [Ms Ismailov’s] own low threshold for abuse, suggests that she sees any behaviour as signalling risk and from this place of fear, she acts in dysregulated and unhelpful ways that reinforce [X’s] difficulties.
By the conclusion of the trial, I was not asked to find that X was at any unacceptable risk of harm in the care of either parent – such a finding would have been inconsistent with the orders each parent was by then seeking, and was not supported by the evidence.
There were issues raised by the evidence of Dr G (X’s maternal aunt). In particular, it became clear that she did not value X’s relationship with her father, and that she had a very poor view of Mr Jones to the extent that she believed X was at risk of sexual abuse by him. It also emerged that Dr G had often been present on occasions when X refused to spend time with Mr Jones. To the mother’s credit, she consented to an order that she be restrained from allowing Dr G from attending changeovers and from attending on and communicating with X’s psychologist and therapists. Such a restraint will enhance the prospect that the orders will achieve the restoration of the relationship between X and her father, and the normalisation of X’s time with Mr Jones – this being something both Ms Ismailov and Mr Jones now seek. Mr Jones and the ICL sought that the mother be restrained from allowing Dr G to attend upon and communicate with X’s teachers. I am not satisfied that is appropriate to make that order – the aim of the restraint is to assist with changeovers and therapy, not generally to curtail Dr G’s involvement in X’s life.
I am satisfied that international travel does not pose a risk of harm to X. On two occasions in 2017, Mr Jones and X travelled to Country B with Ms Ismailov’s consent. In 2016, with Mr Jones’s consent, Ms Ismailov travelled to Country B with X. There is no suggestion that such travel has been other than an enjoyable and rewarding experience for X. Neither parent poses a “flight risk” – both have worked hard to be able to live in Australia, work here, have family living and working here, and have always returned to Australia from international travel. I am satisfied that any health risks to X will be appropriately managed by her parents. As I set out below, there are good reasons why X should be able to travel to Country B with each of her parents – particularly her father.
There is a hostile relationship between X’s parents, as well as a lack of trust, and a history of poor or no communication. If that continues, it is likely X will be harmed whatever orders I make. It is positive that Ms Ismailov and Mr Jones have agreed to engage in a therapeutic process with a view to ameliorating those aspects of their relationship.
X’s views
X is only eight years old. It is not contested that she has consistently expressed – including to the single expert and to her psychologist, Ms F – her wish not to spend time with Mr Jones, even if that time is supervised. The reasons for this are not clear. Ms Ismailov has assumed this view reflected X’s experience of time spent with Mr Jones and in his care, including a resultant fear of him. Mr Jones has assumed X’s views reflected negative things that Ms Ismailov must have said about him to X. The single expert conveys a more nuanced explanation (Family Report, page 51):
Given [X’s] high level of alignment to her mother, it is likely that her current wishes are informed, at least in part, by her desire to please [Ms Ismailov]. The instability of [X’s] visits with her father is also a likely contributor. For these reasons, her wishes should be seen as representative of the strength of her relationship with her mother and the level of conflict between the parties.
I accept the single expert’s evidence that X is currently feeling tension and conflict from her “torn loyalties” between her parents. In oral evidence, the single expert explained that X is feeling a “loyalty bind” – she is aligned with Ms Ismailov, knows Ms Ismailov does not trust Mr Jones, and is therefore endeavouring to please Ms Ismailov by not spending time with her father, in the belief that such avoidance is consistent with her mother’s wishes.
In any case, both parents now agree that, notwithstanding X’s views, it is in her interests to spend unsupervised time with Mr Jones. One of the difficulties which will need to be overcome through the therapeutic process which the parents have agreed to participate in is that, as the single expert identified, X now genuinely believes Mr Jones has behaved towards her in the ways she has reported to Ms Ismailov and others.
X’s needs
X is doing well at school and is happily engaged in a number of appropriate activities. There appear to be no issues with her behaviour. Her psychologist described her as “pretty happy” during most sessions. She has close relationships with her maternal extended family.
Her parents come from a common cultural and religious background, and it is important that she is able to share that background with her parents, as well as her extended family, and to travel to the country where both her parents are from. The orders I have made will facilitate such connection and sharing.
X has been in the unfortunate position of having her parents caught in litigation about her for much of her life. It is important for her wellbeing that such litigation now ends.
Each parent’s capacity to meet X’s needs
At the conclusion of the trial, the major differences that remained between the parents had arisen from Ms Ismailov’s concerns about Mr Jones’s parenting capacity, and her associated anxiety.
There were allegations by both parents that the other had used family violence against them. The use of such family violence goes not just to issues of safety from harm (which, by the conclusion of the trial, was not an issue in this matter), but also to parental capacity. It therefore cannot be ignored, even if (as here) no finding is sought as to unacceptable risk. That having been said, on the evidence I am only able to make very limited findings in relation to each parent’s use of family violence in this matter.
Family violence orders were made in Queensland in late 2018 for the protection of Ms Ismailov from Mr Jones and for the protection of Mr Jones from Ms Ismailov. They expired in 2023. I am not persuaded that Mr Jones used controlling or coercive behaviour towards Ms Ismailov, nor that he used any physical violence against her, nor that Ms Ismailov was in fear of Mr Jones. Mr Jones was dependent upon Ms Ismailov for sponsorship of his visa, and she withdrew her sponsorship at separation. There was considerable evidence about Ms Ismailov driving the separation negotiations in the direction of her own interests, and I find this to be the case. I did not believe her evidence that she was forced to write documents which effectively protected her own interests. Ms Ismailov was able to obtain Mr Jones’s agreement to move to Sydney, and Mr Jones ultimately did relocate to Sydney so that he could spend time more easily with X. Both parents admitted to calling the other names. Ms Ismailov admitted that she had called Mr Jones a dog in Country B language and said that she could have called him a word in Country B language which means an uneducated person. Mr Jones admitted he had called Ms Ismailov a “fucking bitch” “once or twice”. In 2021, Ms Ismailov pleaded guilty to a breach of a family violence order in circumstances where I am satisfied, notwithstanding Ms Ismailov’s denials, that she caused Mr Jones to suffer a physical injury (being a cut) by throwing a coffee cup at him while he was in the car at changeover. She was fined, but no conviction was recorded.
The evidence is consistent with what the single expert opined is “… a pattern of bi-directional violence, hostility and poor communication that has existed between [Ms Ismailov] and [Mr Jones] from early in their relationship” (Family Report, paragraph 105).
The reports of the early supervised visits between Mr Jones and X (which took place in 2023) support the view that they had a close and happy relationship. At the time of the single expert’s interviews with the parties and X, being July 2023, with follow-up contact with the parents occurring in September and October 2023, the single expert opined that “[t]he interactions between [X] and her father were … warm, familiar and indicative of a positive bond” (Family Report, paragraph 126). This relationship has apparently deteriorated over the time since in a context where X has only been spending supervised time with Mr Jones.
The single expert had opined in the Family Report that Mr Jones needed to improve his emotional attunement to X, be able to accept some responsibility for the breakdown in his relationship with her, and be more reflective about his parenting. At the time of the trial, Mr Jones was in the process of completing the Circle of Security program and had completed the Triple P parenting program. He is engaged with a psychologist. He has done some work with his psychologist on being more emotionally attuned to X, as well as work in relation to anger management/emotional regulation (the notes of his psychologist became Exhibit M5). Mr Jones was able to recognise that he had contributed to some of the difficulties in his relationship with X by not having a stable place for her to stay with him in Sydney during 2022 (when he travelled from Brisbane to spend time with her in Sydney) and I accept that he is committed to doing what he needs to do to reestablish his bond with X with the assistance of the agreed family therapist.
Mr Jones has demonstrated his commitment to X by first travelling to spend time with her in Sydney, and then ultimately relocating to Sydney. He explained his ongoing and significant child support debt on the basis that he has been in a very difficult financial situation, which has arisen in part because of the cost of travelling to Sydney to spend time with X, and his contributions towards the costs of supervision. Mr Jones indicated that he is now getting back on his feet financially, and has savings which he intends to pay towards his significant child support debt. I was unable to understand why he would not have already taken such action to reduce the amount owing.
Quite a deal of time was spent cross examining Mr Jones as to his financial capacity to meet X’s needs. He has very modest financial resources, but I am satisfied that he will be able to meet X’s needs – and whether she lives with him three nights a fortnight (as Ms Ismailov seeks), or five nights a fortnight (as he seeks), will make no difference to this.
Mr Jones came across as a thoughtful and gentle man who was able to demonstrate some insight into the current situation, and has much to offer X. Ms Ismailov’s criticisms about Mr Jones’s attitude towards X’s education were not supported by the evidence as tested during the trial.
He has the support of family members in Sydney, and at the time of the trial was expecting further family members to move to Sydney to live.
To his credit, Mr Jones had taken the initiative of booking appointments with the recommended family therapist so that any orders made to that effect could be immediately implemented. He gave thoughtful evidence about his wish to be guided by the therapist as to when time with X ought to progress to unsupervised. He made clear that he does not want X to be forced to spend time with him.
Ms Ismailov has worked hard raising X while completing the onerous requirements of her specialisation and engaging in paid work. In so doing, she has been a good role model for X. Mr Jones’s criticisms of Ms Ismailov’s focus on her work and training are unfortunate – particularly in a context where he has a significant child support debt. Appropriately, he accepted under cross examination that, apart from her role in the rupture of his relationship with X, Ms Ismailov is a good mother. He accepted that Ms Ismailov should continue to be X’s primary carer.
The single expert raised that Ms Ismailov exhibited signs of anxiety which were unhelpful for X and interfered with Ms Ismailov’s ability to remain attuned to X (Family Report, paragraph 125). The single expert opined that “[Ms Ismailov’s] own anxiety may be driving an overly negative and biased opinion of [Mr Jones], which is impacting [X’s] relationship with her father” (Family Report, paragraph 128). Ms Ismailov has engaged with both a psychotherapist and a relationship counsellor to assist her with these issues. The single expert opined that the continuation of this work will be important, including so that Ms Ismailov’s ability to assess risk can be challenged.
I was concerned about Ms Ismailov’s evidence that, upon her return from an overseas trip at the end of 2021, during which time X was left in the sole care of Mr Jones for between 10 to 12 days, she immediately assumed that X’s apparently disturbed behaviour might reflect abuse perpetrated in Mr Jones’s household, and within hours of her return took X to the J Hospital for assessment. This episode was the most prominent example of Ms Ismailov assuming the worst of Mr Jones and consequently acting in a way which was likely to contribute further to X’s distress. Ms Ismailov appears now to be able to accept that X’s behaviour might have been because she had not seen her mother for around 12 days, and that it would likely have been more appropriate to wait and settle X down rather than taking her straight to hospital.
I am satisfied that Ms Ismailov has inappropriately involved X in, and exposed X to, parental conflict and negative views about Mr Jones. I am satisfied that, in Ms Ismailov’s household, X has been exposed to negative comments about Mr Jones and his conduct. When spoken with by New South Wales Police in late 2022, X is reported to have said, in response to a question about whether she was scared to stay with Mr Jones in the future, that she was not scared of her father and was happy to see him again (Exhibit F3). However, later during the same interview, X advised Mr Jones “ … is a bad guy, he treats me bad like he treated mum and my grandparents. He stole my grandparents (sic) [business] from them, but he will give it to me so it is still mine” (Exhibit F3). The most likely source of this account is Ms Ismailov’s household. Based on the report of supervised time on 7 December 2024 (Exhibit ICL5), I am satisfied that Ms Ismailov told X to ask Mr Jones whether she could travel overseas. To Ms Ismailov’s credit, she admitted that on a number of occasions – including in relation to this matter – she could have behaved in a more appropriate manner.
Under cross examination by counsel on behalf of the ICL, Ms Ismailov accepted that, going forward, it is important that X is not exposed to adult conversations, conflicts and concepts. Ms Ismailov recognised that it is regrettable X has been exposed to significant adult issues, and she took some responsibility for what has occurred. Such recognition is all to her credit – and hopeful for X. Mr Jones also indicated that he understood the importance of children not being exposed to parental conflict and expressed his commitment to do better in this regard.
The single expert opined that, for X to be free of the “loyalty bind” she is currently experiencing, Ms Ismailov will need to support time with Mr Jones, will need to encourage and want X to go to visits with her father and will need to show that she believes X needs a relationship with her father.
Benefit to X of relationships with her father and paternal extended family
Previously, X enjoyed a warm and loving relationship with her father. Her parents now agree that it is important for her future development that this relationship is re-established and strengthened. It is also important for her development that she has relationships with both her maternal and paternal extended families.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
Decision-making authority
The ICL originally sought orders that the parties have joint decision-making for X, but also sought a continuation of the 2020 order which gave Ms Ismailov the ability to make decisions in respect of X’s education. Mr Jones adopted that Minute at the commencement of the trial. By the conclusion of the trial, their positions had shifted, such that they sought orders for joint decision-making, including with respect to educational matters. Ms Ismailov’s position also shifted such that, rather than seeking sole decision-making authority for all major long-term decisions, she sought that such authority be shared with Mr Jones except as to decisions about X’s education.
The single expert opined at page 52 of the Family Report that:
[i]t appears that major decision making is difficult for the parties to achieve together, with the relocation requiring Family Court Orders. Given the level of animosity, this is likely to remain a challenge and will require support if shared parental responsibility is allocated.
There is benefit to X having both parents involved in educational decisions. The exclusion of this topic from the 2020 orders was presumably on the basis that, at that time, the parents would likely be living in separate states when X commenced school. Ms Ismailov made various claims about Mr Jones not attributing the same value as her to X’s education. The evidence did not support that this is the case. Mr Jones agreed during cross examination that Ms Ismailov had made appropriate educational decisions for X. That does not mean that X will not benefit from his input in future decisions. It is important that X does not grow up with the view that her father is somehow less able to contribute to decisions about education than is her mother.
The parents have agreed to engage in family therapy. This is a positive indicator for joint parental responsibility, as is the fact that they have agreed to hold joint parental responsibility in respect of all other issues.
For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that it is in X’s best interests for her parents to have joint responsibility for making major long-term decisions for her, including those about her education.
Time
While the parents both modified their positions (Ms Ismailov most significantly), such that both sought that X live with Ms Ismailov and spend unsupervised time with Mr Jones following family therapy and therapeutic contact, they were not able to reach agreement about the details of that time.
X has now not spent unsupervised time with her father since late 2022.
The single expert opined at page 58 of the Family Report that:
… [X] would be best served by a significant and substantial time arrangement. A transition plan, that involved 2-3 instances of therapeutic contact, followed by a month of unsupervised daily alternate weekend contact before moving back to the overnight alternate weekend arrangement as per the Final Orders in 2020 would be suitable.
Time after therapeutic contact
Stage one of the reintroduction of time is broadly agreed between the parents and the ICL, was embodied in the interim orders made on the final day of the trial, and involves attendance at family therapy and therapeutic contact for eight and three sessions respectively, and then the commencement of unsupervised day-time with Mr Jones. Ms Ismailov’s position was that those sessions and two months of unsupervised day-time should occur before a move to unsupervised overnight time. The ICL and Mr Jones sought that, irrespective of whether the therapy and two months of day-time time had concluded, unsupervised overnight time should occur at the expiry of four months from the date of these orders.
The interim orders made on 7 February 2025 provide for sessions to occur on a weekly basis or, if that is not possible, on a fortnightly basis. The evidence was Mr Jones’s first session was to take place on 18 February 2025 (Exhibit M6). If appointments occur weekly from that date, then X’s unsupervised time with Mr Jones will commence about three months from the making of those interim orders, or about two months from the making of these final orders. If the appointments occur fortnightly, the commencement of unsupervised time will take double that time. There is then to be two months of unsupervised day-time only, with the consequence that X may not spend overnight time with Mr Jones for seven months from the date of the interim orders. If she misses some sessions due to illness, that period may be even longer.
I am satisfied it is in X’s best interests (including her interests in the appropriate progression of the family therapy and therapeutic contact) that unsupervised overnight time commence within six months of the date of these orders, even if the family therapy and therapeutic contact envisaged in stage one is not yet complete. Six months rather than four months is preferred because it increases the prospects that the envisaged process will have completed by the time overnight time commences. Mr Jones gave evidence that he would take into account the recommendations of the family therapist; the parents can always agree between themselves to a further delay if they decide that is appropriate.
Timing of progressions
It is in X’s best interests that changeovers into the father’s care occur at school or tutoring. The changeover from tutoring during stage 1 is an arrangement sought by Ms Ismailov. That arrangement is likely to carry the lowest risk of X refusing to go with her father. The ordered initial stage of unsupervised contact therefore involves a transition into the father’s care from school on Friday and from tutoring (if it occurs) on Saturday as sought by Ms Ismailov.
I am satisfied that, once unsupervised time has commenced, it should progress at a steady pace and should soon reach the point of X being picked up from school and taken to school, so as to avoid interactions between the parents. The first two stages of time will last for two months (subject to unsupervised overnight time occurring within six months of the date of the orders if that period of time elapses before the completion of stage one as contained in Order 7). The final stages before the commencement of four nights a fortnight will last for a month each; the single expert opined that, once overnight time has commenced, an extra night could be added every month.
Three nights or five?
Ms Ismailov sought that X’s time with Mr Jones progress to three nights a fortnight. Mr Jones and the ICL originally sought that X spend four nights a fortnight with Mr Jones during school terms. Towards the end of the trial, they both changed that position and instead sought that X spend five nights a fortnight with Mr Jones. This change reflected an opinion expressed by the single expert, in response to a question I posed, that it may be appropriate for X to spend more than four nights with Mr Jones if I was satisfied that there was an unreasonably negative attitude towards Mr Jones in Ms Ismailov’s household. The single expert opined that facilitating additional experiences of Mr Jones’s household may assist in countering the negative attitudes encountered by X when in the care of her mother.
I am satisfied that three nights a fortnight will not give X sufficient experience of, or time with, her father. Such time would also confine the kinds of activities she could experience with him largely to weekend or holiday type activities. Four nights a fortnight means there is one day a fortnight when Mr Jones can both drop her at school and pick her up afterwards. Such experience is likely to deepen their relationship.
I have considered carefully whether to progress the time to five nights a fortnight and have decided against such a progression. While I do not doubt that Mr Jones has the capacity to care for X five nights a fortnight, I am satisfied that a progression to four nights a fortnight, with school holiday and special occasion time, strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, X’s need to know and experience her father and his household and, on the other hand, the benefits of the familiarity and comfort of her mother’s household, where her needs (apart from those pertaining to her relationship with her father) have generally been appropriately met. This is particularly so in circumstances where Ms Ismailov has appropriately modified her position and agreed to attend family therapy. I am also concerned that stretching the time too far from what is proposed by Ms Ismailov may cause her additional anxiety and overreaction, which in turn will impact upon X. The single expert agreed with counsel for Ms Ismailov that that is a risk.
Special occasion and holiday time
The parents were in agreement as to the detail of the special occasion time orders, save that no order was proposed for X’s birthday if it fell on a non-school day. I assume this was an error and am satisfied that both parents should spend time with X on this day in such a way that one can have a lunch-time celebration with her and the parent with whom she is otherwise living on that day can have the early morning and an evening celebration with her. I am satisfied that special occasion time should commence as soon as X is spending unsupervised time with Mr Jones, provided that should only include overnight time if she has already commenced unsupervised overnight time with him by the relevant special occasion.
School holiday time will commence once the final stage of the regular “spend time” arrangements has been reached. Until then, the regular alternate weekend time will continue through the school holidays. Given that, by the time of the first school holidays following the commencement of Order 12, X will have been spending four nights a fortnight during school terms with Mr Jones, there is no need to gradually introduce holiday time, save that half of the long summer holiday will not start until X is in high school and, as the single expert opined, is better able to cope with being away from each of her parents for about a three week stretch each summer.
Mr Jones and the ICL sought that, after a period of phasing in, the term school holidays be alternated between the parents to enable overseas travel. This would be an unusual arrangement and would mean that X has no holiday time with one of her parents for a long stretch, even if the parent with whom she is spending the holidays is not travelling overseas with her. I have instead dealt with the issue of international travel by allowing either parent to take X overseas once a year for 14 days, with X’s time with the other parent to be made up in the next school holiday.
International Travel and related issues
International travel has been a contentious issue between Ms Ismailov and Mr Jones since at least 2020.
The 2020 orders provided that both parents could travel with X to Country B and Country E. Ms Ismailov gave confusing evidence about what she, at that time and subsequently, understood these orders to mean. At the time of the making of the 2020 orders, Ms Ismailov had legal representation. She is a highly intelligent woman and has no language difficulties. I am satisfied she understood that she was agreeing to such travel, and she appeared to concede that in cross examination. In 2021, she approached Mr Jones about travelling herself to Country B with X. That proposed travel was outside the terms of the 2020 orders, such that Mr Jones’s consent was required. Mr Jones did not so consent because of COVID-19 and Ms Ismailov left X in the care of Mr Jones while she travelled to Country B alone. In 2022, Mr Jones attempted to take X to Country B as he was permitted to do pursuant to the 2020 orders. He apparently only notified Ms Ismailov of his intention to do so one week before the intended travel (Exhibit ICL3). Ms Ismailov required that significant additional requirements were met. There was then insufficient time for the travel to occur and ultimately Mr Jones and X did not travel to Country B.
In early 2023, Mr Jones placed X on the Airport Watchlist. He explained his action on the basis that court proceedings had started again, and he was worried Ms Ismailov may not bring X back from the United States of America in circumstances where she had previously wanted to move there. That seems an extreme position to have taken. I am satisfied that, just prior to that travel, Ms Ismailov was notified by a letter from the father’s solicitors that such international travel had not been agreed and X’s name was on the Watchlist. Ms Ismailov had apparently made inquiries with the New South Wales Police in the leadup to her intended travel, and had been advised that X’s name was not on the Watchlist. When Ms Ismailov attempted to travel, she and X were stopped at the airport. The evidence from the contact reports and in the Family Report is clear that X is well aware of the reason she has been stopped from travelling internationally, and blames her father.
Ms Ismailov gave evidence in her trial affidavit that a reason for her opposing the father’s international travel is that she believes he is a flight risk, deposing at paragraph 148.3 that “I am concerned that [Mr Jones] will not bring [X] back, and [Country B] is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”.
In oral evidence, however, she was clear that she did not believe that Mr Jones presented a flight risk, but rather was concerned about issues such as the quality of medical care, and prevalence of disease in Country B. Nonetheless, she conceded Mr Jones would get appropriate medical care for X as and when needed.
The parents both appear to have taken a “tit for tat” approach to this issue which does neither of them any credit. Such behaviour has caused X distress and may well have contributed to the deterioration in her relationship with Mr Jones.
International travel is not just an issue because of the importance of X having the cultural experience of holidaying in Country B, but also because such travel will enable her to develop her relationships with her paternal grandparents, who have not been able to travel to Australia (although other paternal relatives have). The single expert referred in oral evidence to the fact that X distinguishes between “my family” and “dad’s family”, and opined that more time with Mr Jones’s family would assist her to see that they too are her family.
I have found that travel to Country B with her father (or with her mother) does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to X.
I am satisfied that it is in X’s best interests to be able to travel overseas (including to Country E and Country B) with her parents. Both parents sought that travel be limited to countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (apart from Country B and Country E in the case of the father). I will make orders that they can so travel when X is otherwise in their care, but, upon the expiry of 18 months from the date of these orders, can also do so for a longer period (up to 14 days) on one occasion in a calendar year when X would otherwise be in the other parent’s care. That time is to be “made up” with the other parent in the next school holidays. To reduce the risk of conflict between the parents, I have adopted the scheme from the 2020 orders of nominating the holidays when each of them may take X overseas. It is in X’s best interests that there be a period of 18 months before travel overseas for up to 14 days outside of usual time is permitted because by then, she will have had some holiday time with her father in Australia and will be 10 years old. This 18-month delay before the parents can travel with X for 14 days overseas, and the opportunity during this 18-month period for X to experience holiday time with her father, will assist both with X’s ability to cope with being away from her mother for that amount of time and with Ms Ismailov’s likely anxiety about such travel. The practical effect of the orders taken together is that, subject to compliance with conditions:
(1)Ms Ismailov will be able to travel internationally with X immediately, provided such travel occurs when X would otherwise be in her care pursuant to these orders, and such travel does not interfere with X’s time with Mr Jones as provided by these orders;
(2)Once X’s holiday time with Mr Jones has started, he will be able to travel internationally with her, provided such travel is during the time X would otherwise be in his care pursuant to these orders;
(3)In 18 months, either parent will be able to travel internationally with X for a period of up to 14 days once in a calendar year on the additional conditions set out in the orders.
The international travel issue has caused so much difficulty between the parents that I am concerned that either may not provide X’s travel documents to the other parent in time to enable international travel. I have therefore made orders that those travel documents are to be returned to the other parent immediately after overseas travel and then held by the parent who has not last travelled with X. This order differs from the passport orders sought by Mr Jones (namely, that the passport be held by the Court) and by Ms Ismailov (who sought that she hold the passport). Given I am satisfied there is not a flight risk with either parent, an order requiring the Court to hold the passport is not warranted. The issue of timely access to X’s passport is best dealt with by the orders I have made, which will ensure that the parent most likely to travel next with X will have her travel documents.
Other matters
The parents did not agree entirely on the following additional issues, which I resolve as follows:
(1)Ms Ismailov sought that Order 5 provide that the parents continue in family therapy for 18 months. Mr Jones consented to 12 months. In circumstances where the “spend time” orders are not contingent on the continuation of family therapy beyond the stage of therapeutic contact, I am only prepared to make such orders as are consented to.
(2)The parties agreed that some new and further therapeutic assistance for X would be in her interests. However, as X will be engaged for a number of months in family therapy then therapeutic contact, I am not satisfied that introducing a new psychologist at this stage is in her best interests. I have therefore made orders for her to commence with a new psychologist upon the commencement of overnight time with Mr Jones.
(3)The restraints on what could be said to or asked of X as sought by Mr Jones and the ICL go beyond what is necessary for X’s protection. It is important that X can have normal conversations with each parent about what she has done while spending time with the other, and it is likely the parents will need to have conversations with X about some the issues raised in these proceedings at least in the process of family therapy. I have made only those restraints which both parties sought and am satisfied on the evidence that they are appropriate.
I certify that the preceding seventy-eight (78) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Behrens. Associate:
Dated: 14 March 2025
0
0
2