Kaufman & Kaufman
[2025] FedCFamC1F 357
•30 May 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Kaufman & Kaufman [2025] FedCFamC1F 357
File number(s): BRC 2135 of 2020 Judgment of: HOGAN J Date of judgment: 30 May 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children are now 15 years old, 13 years old and 10 years old – Where the children have not spent time or communicated with the father since the end of 2016 – Where the eldest child made an allegation in 2016 that the father had sexually abused him – Where the mother holds a firmly fixed belief that the eldest child was sexually abused by the father – Where the children do not wish to spend time with the father – Where the father sought that the children be ordered to engage in reunification therapy – Where such orders are not in the best interests of the children – Where orders are made for the children to continue to live with the mother and spend no time with the father Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Cases cited: M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; [1988] HCA 68 Division: First Instance Number of paragraphs: 33 Date of hearing: 24, 25, 26 and 27 July 2023; 5 October 2023 (information provided by email) Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Neaves of Counsel Solicitor for the Applicant: R A Solicitors Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Chekirova of Counsel Solicitor for the First Respondent: Cornerstone Law Offices Second Respondents: Joined as parties to the proceedings by an Order made in Chambers on 10 August 2023; final parenting order made that day by consent Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Kenny of Counsel Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid Queensland ORDERS
BRC 2135 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MS KAUFMAN
Applicant
AND: MR KAUFMAN
First Respondent
MR B KAUFMAN AND MS C KAUFMAN
Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
HOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS BY WAY OF FINAL ORDER THAT:
1.All parenting plans and previous parenting orders as between the parents are discharged.
2.The children X, born in 2010, Y, born in 2012 and Z, born in 2015, live with the mother.
3.The father shall spend no time and have no communication with the children other than as is provided for in these Orders or instigated by the children.
4.The mother have sole parental responsibility in respect of all major long-term issues (as that expression is defined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) relating to the children.
5.The mother inform the father, by email, of any decision made in the exercise of her sole parental responsibility within seven (7) days of making the decision.
6.The father has liberty to send letters, cards, photographs, and/or gifts to the children on special occasions such as Christmas, Easter and their birthdays.
7.The mother is restrained and an injunction issue restraining her from denigrating the father in the presence or hearing of the children.
8.By this order, any school at which the children attend is hereby authorised to provide to each parent, at that parent’s request and cost, all such information about the children as may lawfully be provided to parents including, but not limited to, records, details of educational progress and other school related activities, school reports, newsletters, copies of certificates and awards obtained by the children.
9.Within seven (7) days of becoming aware of any of the children being diagnosed with a serious medical condition, the mother shall inform the father by email of the same.
10.The mother is restrained and an injunction issue restraining her from relocating the children to live outside of Australia.
11.The mother is at liberty to remove the children from Australia for the purpose of overseas travel or to cause them to be removed from Australia for the purpose of overseas travel.
12.Pursuant to and for the purposes of s 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passport Act 2005 (Cth), the children X, born in 2010, Y, born in 2012 and Z, born in 2015, are permitted to have an Australian travel document (as that term is defined in that Act) and to travel internationally.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
13.Each parent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer has leave to provide a copy of the Order made 30 May 2025, the Reasons for Judgment published in support of the same and the Family Reports authored by Ms D to the school at which the children attend, to any therapist upon whom the parents and/or the children attend for the purpose of therapy and to the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety and/or the authority of any State or Territory responsible for child protection and, if necessary, to any member of the Queensland Police Service, the police service of another State or Territory and the Australian Federal Police.
14.Save as is otherwise ordered herein, no party is permitted to use the documents provided to them in the course of this proceeding for any purpose other than this proceeding or any appeal in respect of these Orders.
15.The Independent Children’s Lawyer is discharged unless a Notice of Appeal is filed by any party within the time prescribed or such other time as allowed by Order.
16.All outstanding parenting applications are otherwise dismissed and removed from the list of cases requiring finalisation.
17.Pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the particulars of the obligations these Orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these Orders and details of who can assist parties to adjust to and comply with an Order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached and these particulars are included in these Orders.
IT IS NOTED THAT:
A.There is no Court known by the name “Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia”.
B.The design of the seal affixed to this order issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) has been determined by the Attorney-General pursuant to the undated Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Seal) Determination 2021 signed by the Attorney-General.
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 the pseudonym Kaufman & Kaufman has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT[1]
HOGAN J:
[1]In finalising the matter, I have revisited the affidavits relied on by the parties, the transcript of the proceedings and the Exhibits.
These proceedings require the determination of those parenting orders which are in the best interests of 15 year old X (who was born in 2010), 13 year old Y (who was born in 2012) and 10 year old Z (who was born in 2015).
In determining the competing applications, I may, subject to s 61DA[2] and s 65DAB[3] and Division 6 of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), make such parenting order as I think proper in the circumstances of this case.[4] In arriving at such order, I must have regard to the Objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles which underpin those Objects;[5] I must regard the children’s best interests, determined by having regard to the considerations expressed in s 60CC of the Act, as the paramount consideration.[6]
[2] Presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.
[3] Parenting plans.
[4] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D.
[5] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B.
[6] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA and s 65AA.
The children have not spent time or communicated with the father since no later than the end of 2016, at which time they were six, four and not quite two years of age respectively. None of them have any relationship with the father, let alone a meaningful relationship.
There has been no substantive communication between the parents since the end of 2016; they do not have a co-parenting relationship; since the end of 2016 at the latest, they have not had any contact other than that associated with legal proceedings.
Final parenting orders have previously been made, by consent, in terms which provide for:
(a)the children to spend time with their paternal grandparents every four weeks between 3:00 pm and 6:30 pm on Sundays; and
(b)the paternal grandparents to not allow the father to have any contact with the children whilst they are in their care; and
(c)the paternal grandparents to be at liberty to attend any school or extra-curricular activity or event in which the children are involved or which they attend.
Speaking generally, such orders continue the time the children had spent with their paternal grandparents since the first interim orders were made in September 2020 to regulate the same.
Whilst the father’s position until the submissions stage of the proceedings was that orders should be made for the children to move to live with him and for there to be a moratorium imposed over their time with their mother for a specified period of time, this was abandoned by his Counsel at the start of the submissions made on his behalf. Whilst the father did not, in one sense, advocate that the children’s best interests would be served by orders which see them continue to live with their mother, this is the reality of his ultimate position.
The father’s position in relation to the issue of parental responsibility also changed at the submissions stage of the proceedings: whilst he had previously advanced that the children’s best interests would be met by an order according their parents equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the major long-term issues relating to them, it was ultimately submitted on his behalf that the mother should be accorded sole parental responsibility for the major long-term issues relating to the children, albeit that such order should be accompanied by orders which required her to share information with him about the decisions made in the exercise of that responsibility.
Counsel for the father submitted that the father’s position following the taking of the evidence was that orders should be made to require the children to participate in a therapeutically-facilitated process of reunification with him and, simultaneously, they should be required to spend supervised time with him – albeit that the proposal for supervision lacked particularity about matters such as how supervision was to occur, other than that it was ultimately submitted that the therapist engaged for the process of reunifying the children with the father may be able to suggest the person or organisation by whom supervision could be provided.
Such orders were advanced by the father in a context which includes that he clearly regards the mother as entirely responsible for the genesis of the breakdown of the children’s relationships with him and as a person who has deliberately influenced the children to make the comments about him that they have to Ms D, the author of the two Family Reports prepared in the course of these proceedings; he clearly does not accept that such expressed views represent the children’s actual views – he does not accept that the children are fearful or scared of him (as X and Y have told Ms D that they are) or that they do not want to spend time with him.
Instead, the father considers that such expressed views are the consequence of the mother’s influence on the children; his position is that, given the children’s reactions when the paternal grandparents have given them presents from him and X’s conduct (captured by video) in verbally thanking him for a present, the children would not, in fact, resist spending time with him or, I infer, resist participating in a therapeutic process designed to remedy the current lack of relationships with him.
The Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother both proposed that the orders in these children’s best interests are orders which will see a continuation of the parenting regime which has been in place since no later than the end of 2016 – namely, the children living with their mother and spending no time and having no communication with the father, other than that which is inherent in him continuing to be able to send letters, cards, photographs, and/or gifts to the children on special occasions such as Christmas, Easter and their birthdays. Both the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother opposed the making of orders which would require the children to participate in a therapeutically supported process of reunification which would, in essence, be undertaken for the purpose of creating relationships between the children and the father.
The complete cessation of the children’s interaction with the father arose after X alleged that the father had made him touch his (the father’s) penis. After this allegation was reported by the mother to authorities, X was interviewed by police (at which time he was about six and a half years of age); the father was subsequently charged with indecently dealing with X; after a criminal trial, at which the mother and X were cross-examined by Counsel on behalf of the father, the father was acquitted.
The acquittal did not change the mother’s belief that X has been sexually abused by the father. Her evidence before me was such that I am easily persuaded that nothing will ever change this view.
The mother has consistently expressed that she believes X’s account of the father’s conduct toward him; she has consistently expressed that she believes that the father sexually abused X and that her job as a mother is to protect the children from the risk she believes the father to pose to all of them. She has consistently said that, given the allegations made against the father, she refuses to put the children at risk, will not place her children in danger again and will not expose them to any further distress in having contact with the father – consequently, she thinks, resolutely, that the children should not spend any time with the father; she has been clear in saying that she will not facilitate the children spending time with the father. She has also said that she feels guilty that X has been harmed.
It was also clear, in my view, that any findings made by the court about the allegations which have been the subject of investigation by the child protection authority and the police will not change the mother’s beliefs or her mind about what she considers to be the appropriate response to protect the children from the father – namely, that they have no contact or communication with him. Any such finding will not alleviate what I accept, despite the inconsistencies in aspects of her evidence, is the mother’s genuine fear for the children’s wellbeing and safety if they were required to spend time with the father.
Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the father, the mother’s views, attitudes, beliefs and fears and her maintenance of the same need, in my view, to be considered in the context that:
(a)when interviewed by police in late 2016, X told them, amongst other things, that the father grabbed his hand and made him touch his private part; and
(b)after they interviewed X, police charged the father, and the matter proceeded to trial; and
(c)when interviewed by the Department in December 2016, X said that he had told the police the truth when he was interviewed by them; and
(d)after conducting an assessment, the Department concluded (as at January 2017), amongst other things, that the children were deemed to be at high risk and should not spend unsupervised time with the father and that X had provided consistent accounts about having been sexually abused by the father; and
(e)during cross-examination in mid-2018 for the purpose of the criminal trial[7], X confirmed that everything he had told the police in late 2016 was the truth; and
[7]The hearing of which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and did not occur until late January 2021.
(f)Ms D recounted, in essence, in her 2021 report that:
(i)when interviewed, X told her, amongst other things, that he stopped seeing his father “because he made me touch his private parts between the toilet and bathroom, I told mum and mum told the Police”; and
(ii)X had spoken generally in very negative terms about the father and had shared his views that he felt scared and worried about spending any time with him – he shared that he did not welcome a relationship in any way with him; and
(iii)the events which predated the report had created dynamics within the family that would continue to impact on the children and their ability to rebuild (and, I infer, create) relationships with the father if this was ordered; and
(iv)any process which related to the children’s future parenting arrangements was likely to be emotionally and psychologically difficult for the children and would likely add more stress to the family and, particularly, to the mother; and
(v)any plans for the children to rebuild their relationships with the father needed to occur in a planned and therapeutically informed manner – such a process may cause significant stress to the mother and it was highly likely the children would be negatively affected and influenced by her responses to stress, which would in turn impact negatively on their ability to engage in any process of rebuilding or establishing their relationships with the father; and
(vi)the children’s mental health needed to be prioritised – their focus needed to be on their physical, cognitive, social and emotional development and they needed stability and consistency to assist them to navigate those developmental changes which can be difficult enough to manage absent stress and upheaval within their family; and
(vii)the fact that the father was not convicted at the criminal trial did not mean that the alleged sexual abuse did not occur – it only meant that there had not been enough evidence to convict him; and
(viii)the reality is that X and Y continued to hold negative views of their father and felt fearful of him and X had maintained the allegations against him – given this, it was likely to be very difficult for them to engage in rebuilding a relationship with the father: if forced to do so, this would likely result in them being stressed and suffering emotional harm and may also undermine their relationships with their mother; and
(ix)before the children spent any time with the father (supervised or otherwise), the family should engage in “robust and long–term family therapy” with a suitably qualified professional which would involve the children and the parents so that it could be determined whether a process of reunification for the children with the father would be in their best interests; and
(g)Ms D recounted in her second report, in essence, that:
(i)in a sexual violence risk assessment of the father prepared by Dr E (a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist), the clinician had noted, amongst other things, that:
(A)the collateral information X had provided was the same information across several different interviews to different professionals (the Department and police); and
(B)the Department had deemed the allegations to be credible and had substantiated harm of sexual abuse against X; and
(C)there appeared to be enough information to deem the allegation as credible for the purpose of the risk assessment; and
(ii)X told her that he was worried he would be made to see the father when he did not want to do this; and
(iii)Y told her that she worried about having to be with the father, wanted a life without him, would feel unsafe if she saw him under supervision and did not want to spend time with him; and
(iv)given the duration of time over which the children have not had a relationship with the father, they may not perceive his absence as a loss; and
(v)all three children continued to express strong views of not wanting to see or spend any time with the father and of feeling unsafe with him; and
(vi)if the children did not feel heard or acknowledged, this could lead them to feel anxious and overwhelmed and to be resistant to situations and parenting arrangements that did not align with their wishes and to seek to assert their views and independence – if they were forced into spending time with the father (supervised or otherwise) in a manner that failed to take their views into account, it was likely their resistance to this would increase.
Whilst the mother was clear in saying that she does not speak about the father with the children, it seems to me that it would be naïve to think that the children are unaware of her views and beliefs – especially given the fact that both she and X were actual witnesses in the criminal trial.
Given Ms D’s account in her second report that:
(a)when she discussed her concerns about the children, the mother was, at times, emotional and protective; and
(b)the mother was highly anxious about the children spending any supervised time (or otherwise) with the father and would not agree to this,
it would be naïve to conclude that the children are completely unaware of their mother’s reaction to the prospect of them being required to interact or communicate with the father in any way.
It would also be naïve, in my view, to think that requiring the children to engage with a therapist for the purpose of beginning a process of being reunified with their father would see them immediately abandon the views about him that they have expressed to Ms D. Insofar as X is concerned, such views include that, if orders were made for him to spend time with the father, he would not go.
Given:
(a)that authority makes it clear that the resolution of allegations of sexual and other abuse are “subservient and ancillary” to this court’s determination of those parenting orders which are in the children’s best interests;[8] and
(b)my conclusion that any findings made about the allegations about the father’s conduct toward X will not persuade the mother to change her views and beliefs about the same; and
(c)that Ms D’s support (which remained despite cross-examination) for the making of orders for no time and communication between the children and the father was expressed to be independent of findings about whether the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children,
I am not persuaded, in the particular circumstances of this case, that it is necessary to express any particular conclusions about whether the children would now be at an unacceptable risk of harm if required to spend unsupervised time with their father.
[8] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 and the numerous authorities which have followed it.
What is clearly established, in my view, is that the children do not want to spend time with the father and any attempt to force them to do so would not be supported by the mother and would cause her significant stress and anxiety to which the children would inevitably be exposed.
Insofar as X is concerned, he has been clear in expressing his attitude to spending time with the father, including by telling Ms D that, if the court made orders for him to spend supervised time with him, he would not go. This comment needs to be seen in the context that:
(a)when interviewed by police in 2016, X told them, amongst other things (in summary), that on a date he could not remember when he was visiting his father’s house with his baby sister Z, his four year old sister Y and his older sister:
(i)they had been watching television in the lounge room and his father had been at the toilet peeing and had called out to him to “come here”; and
(ii)he had seen his father standing in a part of the house near the toilet and bathroom (which are next to each other) and his father had told him to “come here and touch it” and had taken his pants halfway down; and
(iii)when he said, "No I don't want to it's rude and I'll get in trouble”, his father grabbed his arm and forced him to touch his private parts – he tried to pull his arm away but his father was too strong; and
(iv)he gestured in a way that indicated his hand had been forced around the entire shaft of his father’s penis; and
(v)he only touched it for a short time and then went and washed his hands; and
(vi)he said he had felt sick and gross from touching his father’s penis; and
(b)when interviewed by Ms D in August/September 2021, X told her:
(i)he had stopped seeing his father “because he made me touch his private parts between the toilet and bathroom, I told mum and mum told the Police”; and
(ii)he did not want to see the father or his paternal grandparents and wanted to be at his mother’s home “all the time”; and
(iii)when asked how he would feel if the judge said he needed to see his father and to keep seeing his paternal grandparents, that “I’d be sad, I hate seeing them. I’m better with mum, when she’s near us at the park”; and
(iv)he could not remember any positive memories with the father other than one occasion when he took him to the movies (which he then said he had not enjoyed); and
(v)his mother did not like his father after he (X) told her what he had done and she had said that it was not what a dad should do; and
(vi)he did not have any worries other than that he did not want to stay with his father because he did not feel safe; and
(vii)his three wishes were “to never be with my dad, have all of the passports back and to have lots of money to buy stuff.”
Insofar as Y is concerned:
(a)when interviewed by Ms D in August/September 2021, she told her, amongst other things:
(i)that they had stopped seeing the father and that they did not like him – “When I was a kid he kept drinking and smoking, I remember it. He always fights with mum. When I was a little kid, I hid behind mum and he kept throwing a glass to the ground in front of me”; and
(ii)when asked how she might feel if the judge ordered her to spend time with the father, she said she would “feel scared that he might hurt us and throw glass” and worried that she might have to change schools; she also said she would like her mother and her sister Ms F to be present if she had to spend time with her father “to protect me”; and
(b)when interviewed by Ms D in June 2023, she told her:
(i)that she worried about having to live with her father or be with him – she said she had “bad dreams” about him; and
(ii)she was worried the father would want to hang out or talk to her and “something might happen”; and
(iii)when asked what it would be like if she saw the father whilst someone supervised her, she said, amongst other things, that she would feel unsafe and would not want to go; and
(iv)when asked what she would wish for if she had three wishes, one wish was a life without the father; and
(v)again, at the end of her interview, that she felt unsafe around the father and did not want to go to spend time with hm.
Given Z was only six months of age when her parents separated in September/October 2015 and that she was about 15 months of age when she last had any interaction with the father, it is accepted that she does not know him and that she has no relationship with him. Whilst her comments to Ms D when interviewed in June 2023 have to be seen against this background, it is relevant, I think, to note that, when interviewed, Z told Ms D:
(a)that she did not want to go with her father, and liked her mother best – she could not remember what the father looked like, although she said the mother had a picture of him from a long time ago; and
(b)when asked what it would be like to see her father if someone supervised and made sure everything was okay, that “I wouldn't be impressed, my family is more important than one member of my family. X and Y would say no, they don't like him, they think he does bad things”; and
(c)that all her father wanted to do was to see her, but she did not want this to happen.
Whilst Z’s age at the time of her parents’ separation suggests that she is unlikely to have any independent recollection of the father’s behaviours toward the mother, the following seems to me to be relevant to the consideration of whether, as the father contended, the other children’s comments about him to Ms D are nothing more than recitations of the mother’s view of him or, as the mother contented, reflect their own experiences of him:
(a)when interviewed by Ms D in August/September 2021:
(i)X told her that he remembered his parents having lots of fights and “swearing at each other” and that the father used to tell his mother to make dinner and lunches – he said his parents would fight if his mother asked his father for help; and
(ii)Y told her that the father always fought with her mother and she had hidden behind her and he “kept throwing a glass to the ground in front of me”; and
(iii)Ms F (who was born in 2003 and was then 18 years of age) told her that she had experienced domestic violence – she had seen her mother being abused by the father: when under the influence of alcohol, he had grabbed her mother by the face and slapped her because she would not get him his keys; Ms F also said that she had been pushed over by the father during this event.
Is it in the children’s best interests to be required to participate in a process designed to reunify them with the father?
Given:
(a)the children’s consistently expressed opposition to having any relationship with the father or interacting with him in any way; and
(b)the fact that the children will continue to live with a parent who remains completely opposed to them having any interaction with the father and who is fearful and anxious about the prospect of them being harmed if this was to occur, and whose parenting capacity and mental health is likely to be adversely affected by any requirement to support the children to participate in any reunification process; and
(c)Ms D’s evidence about what engaging in the “robust and long–term family therapy” mentioned in her report would require the children to do – which included likely attending a number of individual sessions to enable the therapist to ascertain their attitude to engaging in process of being reunited with the father, in circumstances where, as a consequence of their repeated expression of opposition, this attitude is already known; and
(d)that the evidence about X’s “thanks Dad” comment (made in the context of him receiving a gift of his first pair of jeans and recorded by his half-brother G) needs to be seen in the context that, as was made clear by the paternal grandfather’s cross-examination, such comment was made after someone told X “oh you can thank your father”; and
(e)my assessment that any requirement for the children to engage in a process of reunification would cause them stress and anxiety and adversely impact upon their general functioning; and
(f)my conclusion that it is much more likely than not that, if orders were made for the children to have supervised time with the father they would simply refuse to attend and they would be supported in this response by the mother,
I am not persuaded that it is in the children’s best interests to be required to participate in any process intended to attempt to reunify them with the father or that orders are made for them to spend supervised or any time with him.
Given the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that the only possibility for the children to have a relationship with the father will be if they decide, at some time in the future, to seek such a relationship. I note, in this regard, that, when interviewed by Ms D in June 2023, X told her that, if he changed his mind about spending time with his father, he would likely tell his mother who would arrange for him to see him and Y said that, if she wanted to see the father, she could talk to her mother and her mother would support whatever she wanted to do – she would not force her to see him and would not stop her from seeing him and she would let her be “free”.
Is it in the children’s best interests for there to be an order requiring them to attend therapy and/or to attend on a therapist for the purpose of having the orders explained to them?
When she was interviewed by Ms D in June 2023, the mother said that she did not feel it was appropriate for the children to have to go to family therapy and thought that their emotional well-being needed to be protected. She also said that she did not think she could cope with the stress of engaging in therapy or any further assessments and that being required to do so would impact too significantly on her mental health.
Despite this, Counsel who appeared for the mother at trial submitted that the mother agreed with the Independent Children's Lawyer’s proposal that orders be made to require her to facilitate the children attending on a GP for the purpose of obtaining a mental health care plan for the purpose of engaging in ongoing therapy with a therapist that specialises in child and adolescent mental health and that she ensure, if such therapist recommends it, that the children attend all scheduled appointments.
Despite the agreement of the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer, I am not persuaded that it is in the children’s best interests for their mother to be compelled by order to act in such manner. Rather, it seems to me that whether the children need supportive therapy and whether they are willing to participate in the same at any particular time are matters within the purview of the exercise by the mother of her parental responsibility to them; I also note that, when she spoke with Ms D, Ms F advised her, in essence, that the mother had previously arranged for the children to engage in therapy with J Organisation and that this had been helpful.
Despite the agreement between the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer that the mother would make the children available to have the orders explained to them, the circumstances of this case and the terms of the orders to be made are such that I am not persuaded that such order is now in the children’s best interests.
For the reasons expressed, I consider that the orders set out at the commencement of these Reasons are the orders which, on the evidence before me, are orders which are in the children’s best interests and proper.
I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan. Associate:
Dated: 30 May 2025
0