Orlova & Florea - [2025] FedCFamC1F 156

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Orlova & Florea [2025] FedCFamC1F 156

File number(s): ADC 5570 of 2021

Judgment of: CARTER J

Date of judgment: 14 March 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer do not seek any orders for time between the father and the child –Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where time between the father and the child was previously supervised – Where supervised time between the father and the child was suspended on the fourth visit – Where the father has not spent time with the child for a significant period of time – Where the father has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Where the psychiatrist assessing the father considers that the father will not be able to improve without therapeutic intervention – Where the father does not wish to attend upon any psychologist – Where it is not currently in the best interests of the child to spend time with the father – Orders made for mother to provide father with written updates regarding the child twice a year and to provide the father with a photograph a year of the child – No orders for time made.

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 60, 102, 114

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Amendment (2024 Measures No.1) Rules 2024

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8

Cases cited:
Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91–330

McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93–405

Division: Division 1 First Instance

Number of paragraphs: 142

Date of hearing: 17, 18 & 20 February 2025

Place: Melbourne

Counsel for the Applicant: Litigant in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Jelbert

Solicitor for the Respondent: Camena Legal

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Fuda

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: The Family Law Project
ORDERS

ADC 5570 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:
MR ORLOVA

Applicant

AND:
MS FLOREA

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

CARTER J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother have sole responsibility for making decisions in relation to major long term issues in relation to the child X born 2020.
2.The child live with the mother.
3.The mother provide to the father by email to his address at …@...:
(a)a written update as to the child’s progress in June and December each year: and
(b)a recent photograph of the child in May each year.

4.The father is at liberty to provide a copy of these orders and reasons for judgment to any medical or allied health professional upon whom he attends for treatment or assessment.
5.Order 1 of the orders dated 8 September 2022 appointing the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.
6.All extant applications are otherwise dismissed.

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

The issues in dispute in this matter regard the parenting arrangements for the child X, born 2020. X is almost five years old.
The applicant father is Australian. He is 53 years old. In 2000 he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), having been a victim of abuse as a child. He is not medicated, and he has not received formal treatment for his PTSD. He is not in paid employment. He currently resides in a temporary accommodation, although he hopes to be provided with a two-bedroom unit soon. The father was previously married to Ms C for about 20 years before they separated. Ms C has now deceased. The father has two adult sons, Mr D and Mr E, and the father was also a stepparent to Ms C’s daughter Ms F. The father has had two relationships since separating. His current partner lives in Country G.
The father proposed that he and the mother have shared decision-making responsibility for X. He agreed X should live with the mother, and proposed he have three or four visits at a supervised centre, before progressing to another four short daytime visits unsupervised, then moving to full day visits. He sought that in around six months, time could progress to 9.00 am Saturday to 3.00 pm or 4.00 pm Sunday each alternate weekend.
The respondent mother is aged 41. She is from Country B but has lived permanently in Australia since 2012. She is in good health. This was also a second relationship for the mother. She has no other children and has not re-partnered. It is the mother’s case, and that of the Independent Children's Lawyer that X should live with the mother, and she should have sole decision-making responsibility. She is agreeable to providing the father updates as to X’s progress via email.
The father was unrepresented at Court. An order had previously been made pursuant to s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), on a discretionary basis. However, the father had significant issues securing representation – as he parted ways with three separate firms of solicitors that were provided to him through that scheme. The Legal Services Commission then refused to allocate further legal representation to him. The order prohibiting personal cross examination was discharged on the first day of hearing, as I was of the view that the father ought to have the opportunity to test the mother’s evidence. This was particularly so as the mother’s position and that of the Independent Children's Lawyer was for the father to have no time or communication with X. The mother then gave her evidence via video link from another room in the Court building.
As required, I explained to the father at the commencement of the trial the procedure of the final hearing, which he appeared to understand. He was provided with a copy of the s 60CC factors of the Act. He was also provided with a copy of the mother’s trial affidavit (which he said he had not received) and a copy of the Family Report (which he also said he had not previously received). Mr Jelbert for the mother advised the father had been served with the mother’s affidavit on 3 February 2025 but without the exhibits. The exhibits were text messages between the parties and correspondence sent to the mother from the father. As to the Family Report the notations on the Court order dated 23 November 2023 record that the father had received the Family Report. The father was not, in my view, prejudiced by the provision of the documents. As noted, he had received the mother’s reasonably short affidavit two weeks before the trial, and the exhibits to that – being his own communications – could not have been a surprise to him. He was able to spend a full day reading the Family Report on 19 February, as court did not sit that day. That gave him ample opportunity to consider the report and prepare his cross examination of the writer.
The Court has significant sympathy for the father. It is beyond doubt that he deeply loves X and wishes to be meaningfully involved in her life. However, it is apparent from the mother’s evidence, the evidence of the Family Report writer, and that of Dr H, as well as his presentation at Court that the father continues to be highly critical of the mother as well as experiencing significant symptoms of PTSD. Regrettably, for the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that it is not in X’s best interests for her father to play a role in her life at this time.
THE EVIDENCE
It has not been possible to include every aspect of each of the parties’ evidence. However, I have taken all the evidence into account. Just because I have not mentioned something in these reasons does not mean that I have not considered it.
Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) sets out that the standard of proof in these proceedings is to a balance of probabilities.
The father relied on his Further Amended Initiating Application dated 8 January 2025 and his affidavits dated 1 January 2025 and 4 February 2025. However, as set out, the orders he sought were not those in his application for final relief.
The mother relied on her Amended Response to Initiating Application dated 1 February 2025 and her affidavit dated 3 February 2025.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied on an Outline of Case dated 13 February 2025 and the affidavit of Ms J dated 30 June 2023 annexing the observational reports of the supervised visits and the psychiatric report of Dr H dated 5 April 2023.
Notwithstanding r 8.15(3)(e) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) I ruled that all exhibits to the affidavits filed were admitted into evidence. This was substantially to assist the father so there was no confusion on his part as to what documents were before me and relieving him of having to work out what he might want to tender.
In addition, the Family Report of Ms K dated 30 October 2023 was admitted into evidence.
An earlier Child Impact Report had been prepared by Ms L, dated 3 August 2022. The Independent Children's Lawyer did not seek to rely on that report. The father said he wanted to cross examine Ms L, as her report was inaccurate, and he wanted to challenge its contents. I explained that as no-one was relying on the report, it did not form part of the evidence before me, and in circumstances where he also did not agree with its contents, there was no reason for Ms L to give evidence. I have not read or had any regard to that report.
The mother tendered two documents:
(a)R1 is an email written by the father dated 30 June 2023 addressed to Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Country B and Judicial Registrar Schirripa together with all the attachments to that email; and
(b)R2 is a printout produced by the father following his enquiry with M Company in March 2023 as to the cost of aeroplane travel for himself and the child to Country B.
The father, the mother, Dr H and Ms K all gave evidence.
To his credit, the father mostly conducted the proceedings respectfully. However, he frequently referred to matters and documents not in evidence before me.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the mother over that of the father where they differ. This is not because I formed the impression that the father was deliberately lying or seeking to mislead the Court. Rather, I accept that he has tried to accurately report his perceptions and memories. However, it was often very difficult to follow the father’s narrative – both when giving his own evidence and when he was cross examining witnesses – as he made long winded statements, with curious details and little context. Under cross examination the father gave long, rambling answers, that were frequently unrelated to the questions asked of him. He made many self-serving statements, was critical of the mother, and – crucially– demonstrated little insight into his behaviours and the impact they have on the mother and on his parenting ability.
The father’s recall of dates and times was inaccurate on occasion. For instance, he maintained he had been actively engaged in X’s life for the early months. However, it is not in dispute that the father left the home and travelled to Sydney in mid-2020 – when X was a baby – and that he did not return to live in the house when he came back to Adelaide the following month.
The father also misread or misunderstood parts of the affidavits and reports. For instance, he challenged the Family Report writer that she had mis-recorded that the father’s accommodation had a bedroom for X, when it did not have any separate bedroom. However, the report did not refer to there being a separate bedroom. Rather the report writer wrote that the accommodation had two double beds and a single bed “so had room for [X].” The father also challenged Dr H for describing him as “frail” in his report. There was no reference to the father being frail in the report. Similarly, the father accused the mother of saying in her affidavit that the father’s sons “hate” him. Again, that was not in the mother’s affidavit. What she had deposed was that the father had been estranged from his sons in the five years before the parties commenced their relationship. There seems to be some corroboration of that in the father’s email addressed to the mother dated 20 February 2021 in which he referred to his first wife Ms C having “alienated me against [Mr E]”. The father also asserted the mother said he had never held X in a loving embrace. That was not her evidence – and indeed the annexures to her affidavit included photographs of the father holding X when she was an infant. The father also repeatedly asserted that experts had called him a “bad man”, which again is not what any expert has asserted.
I remain uncertain that the father understood how he had misconstrued the reports and affidavits. I do not regard the father as having deliberately misconstrued events or misread the material. Nor did I form the impression that he was being deliberately difficult or evasive in giving lengthy and often non-responsive answers. Rather it appeared that his world view – and his strong sense of distrust and frustration – influenced his narrative and the matters that he regarded as being important to relate to the Court. This was also his presentation when he was cross examining the witnesses.
These matters caused me to treat the father’s evidence with caution.
Conversely, the mother presented as a genuine, candid and forthright witness. I am satisfied that her recollection of events is likely more accurate than the father’s recollection of the same events.
BACKGROUND
The parties were in a relationship from around late 2018 – living together from late 2018, until around mid-July 2020 when X was a baby. During that time there were periods of separation – with the mother describing the father as experiencing serious emotional dysregulation. She deposed that he would leave the house following arguments sometimes for a day or two, that he was quite critical and controlling of her, that he could become angry over very little, that he was argumentative, his moods were erratic and that he had sudden, angry outbursts about issues that were difficult to understand or follow.
After living together for around four months in Sydney, the father moved out of the parties’ shared home following an argument. The mother then stayed with a friend before returning to live in Adelaide. At some point in 2019, the parties resumed their cohabitation – with the father relocating to Adelaide. X was born in 2020.
I accept that the mother was X’s primary carer following her birth. The father also played a role in caring for X, providing some assistance to the mother in feeding and nursing her, and tending to household tasks. I accept the mother’s evidence that she felt very unsupported following X’s birth, and that despite her having undergone a caesarean section, the father helped in caring for X somewhat begrudgingly. The mother became visibly upset at this point in her evidence, and it was plain she remained distressed at the lack of support she felt she received at a time that she was very vulnerable.
In about mid-2020, the father left the matrimonial home following an argument with the mother over financial matters. He subsequently travelled to Sydney where he gave evidence at a government enquiry in mid-2020 regarding the abuse he had experienced as a child. The parties did not resume living together after the father left. In a letter written by the father on 15 February 2021 he said when he left for Sydney he was not sure if he was going to come back.
The mother said the parties communicated whilst the father was in Sydney via text messages, in which she told the father he could not see X until he had commenced attending therapy to address his erratic behaviour and anger. She said at that time that she felt unsafe around the father, and only offered the father supervised visits.
In mid-2020 the father returned to Adelaide. He stayed in at the home of a friend, Mr N. The father said this was because he was required to quarantine having travelled to NSW during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The mother attended with X at Mr N’s home the day after the father’s quarantine period concluded. The father refused to see X or speak to the mother. The father’s explanation was that there were problems with his vehicle that he was trying to repair, but he was very frustrated and covered in grease and told the mother to go away. He said he was holding a hammer and a socket, that “she was egging me on” and that he told her to go away as he was “just so angry because of the [vehicle]”. The mother said the father told her to leave within 20 minutes, or she ‘would regret it’. The father’s evidence was that he did not want the mother to attend the home that day as he was angry and she turned up anyway. I accept that the mother was frightened by the father’s angry presentation, was concerned about his mental health, and worried he presented a risk of harm to X and to the mother.
The parties then communicated largely by text message on multiple occasions throughout August 2020. In none of the text messages produced did the father request to see X until a text message sent on 27 August 2020 in which the father said the mother was being “a smart ass”, that he would:
…sue you for the house and and try to get [X] as much as I can [Ms Florea] I might just go and speak to the pastor of the church as well again you prove to me you are not a nice girl.
(as per the original)
The mother facilitated a visit between X and the father on 4 September 2020.
It is common ground that commencing on 24 February 2021 the father sent a series of long and rambling emails to the mother which included significant criticisms of the mother.
The email dated 24 February 2021 is addressed to X. In that email the father wrote:
[X] i have walked away not from you ok from what your mother dd to me ok on page P1.P2.P3 THAT IS THE STATENT THAT I GAVE TO THE FAMILY LAW COURT ok that is what has happened to me via your mother
…
[X] P6 AN P7 are pics of you and me taken in what was a very nice home but evil moved in i don’t know why but again what your mum did was so wrong.
[X] i know you are [an infant] and you might be saying wow i am only [an infant] and getting stuff like this but with a sad broken heart it is what it is not my doing ok [X]. [X] i am giving these to TWO of my mates their wives will be getting in touch with you when you are 14 yrs old to give you all the letters that i will be sending you encase your mother doesn’t give you these letters that i send to her to give to you or your mother puts them in the bin and you never see them.
[X] i am at words to say how i am felling as i said befor i am a broken man and my heart has gone for your mother as it stats in my letter to the law court i believe your mum USED me for your berth
…
[X], please know this i never wanted to leave your mum ok i do say that in my emails, anyway [X] this is the fist letter to you ok not nice but i just had to let you know i do know that your mother and her family will put shit on and say to you the wrong things about me so this is why i have done this first. [X] i must go now ok you will NEVER EVER BE FORGOTEN OK YOU ARE MY LITTLE PRINCES OK PLEASE DONT THINK I WILL FORGET YOU AND I DO HOP THAT I CAN HAVE YOU OVER WITHOUT YOUR MOTHER INTERFERING IN OUR LIFES OK [X]
(as per the original)

Attached to that email is a three page statement written by the father dated 15 February 2021, in which he sets out his version of the parties’ relationship, including that the mother “abused [him] in front of the staff” at a supermarket; that she was aggressive to him; that she told him to “Fuck Off”; that he believes the loss of his lawsuit played a part in the end of the relationship; that the mother became angry when the father’s Centrelink payments ceased and she was aggressive and spiteful to him about that issue; that the mother threatened that her father would “FUCK YOU OVER AND KILL YOU” and that when he left to go to Sydney to give evidence in mid-2020 “i wasn’t sure if i was going to come back”.
The father also wrote that he believed Mr N provided information to the mother during the time he had his mobile home at Mr N’s house, which led the mother to believe he was psychotic. The letter concludes that after leaving Mr N’s house:
i went bush for 4 days i hade no food no cash just my cloths and myself i lived like a rat for that 4 days i stoll food and i was not happy for that but it is what it is since i have payed back there is about 100 texess from me to [Ms Florea] to explain the rest [Ms Florea] hase never said to me I am a mental nut case or a idiot untill [Mr N] told her what i was saying i say this i hade a fight with [Ms Florea] drove to sydney fpr my court case drove back to SA for [X] sayed in a broken van hade no cash stayed in the bush like a rat I TOLD [MS FLOREA] ALL THIS AM I SUPPOSED TO BE HAPPY I DONT THINK [MS FLOREA] WANTED ME TO COME BACK TO SA as i told her but i do have [X] my daughter everthing els we have texes this statement is true and i swear on it
(as per the original)
On 20 February 2021 the father sent a further email to the mother’s email address, the email of R Lawyers and to another email address. The correspondence was addressed to the mother. In that correspondence the father wrote that he “will not be attending on Tuesday” (which I understand was for mediation) and that he was “walking away” from “this situation”. He wrote that he was “appalled disgusted baffled in the way you are as a mum”, describing the mother as “morally bank rapt”, that she has “no morels as a human bean” and that she had threatened to have her father “KILL ME Fuck ME over” (as per the original). The email continues:
I will be writing to [X] reguli to say hello and just to let her know her dad loves her and when [X] is at age to come and see me without her mother’s interference and the family Law courts interference as well, Monday i will inform the FDR and the family law court of this and i will be sending 3 other letters about you, at the end of the day my heart has gone for you ok i will be deleting and blocking you from my phone…
[Ms Florea] i say this to you as a human bean you stink ok as a fair mum you stink ok you have had so much time ([…] mnths acutly to do the right thing with [X] but you failed)
(as per the original)
On 26 April 2021 the father wrote another email addressed to X. In that email the father wrote:
I am just saying hello to you I am sorry [X] but your mother has still NOT allowed me to see you ok, [X] don’t know why your mother is acting this way for but I say again your mother is acting in a way of I just don’t have the words ok she is behaving in a nasty evil way. [X] am so DISCUSSED in your mother. [X] I have told you in 4 other letters that your mother is barbaric and unhuman…[X] do you see what I am trying to say your mother is NASTY ok she is so bad [X] there is a word ok its called PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME THAT WHAT YR MOTHER IS….I am a good dad [X] ok Just meet the wrong Person witch sux…I will be takeing Legal action to get you I do know it will get NASTY ok your mother will not do the right thing buy you and I so I have to do this [X] your mother has said to a few people not nice things about me
(as per the original)
The mother deposed that additional communications were sent in May, June, July, August and September 2021, the contents of which continued to criticise the mother. She deposed that reading the communications made her feel scared, uncomfortable and depressed. When asked by the Independent Children's Lawyer about the communications she received from the father in her oral evidence the mother became visibly upset. She said reading the emails made her very sad – they made her feel “so small, make me not a mother”. It became so upsetting for her to read the emails she would get a friend to read them instead.
It is the mother’s evidence that the father called her workplace in August 2021. She said that made her feel scared and in September 2021 she reported the father’s behaviour to the police. Notwithstanding the tone and content of the correspondence, it appears the police formed the view that the father’s behaviour did not warrant a caution or any protection order. This is consistent with the father’s evidence that when he was interviewed by the police, he was told no action would be taken against him.
I am at a loss as to how the communications were not taken more seriously by the police. They were clearly abusive, belligerent and threatening.
Notably, the father did not resile from any of the statements he made in the communications referred to. On several occasions during the hearing, he told the Court he had apologised to the mother at an earlier directions hearing. However, he also maintained that he still regarded the mother as vindictive, cruel and nasty. He demonstrated no insight into the impact the receipt of such communications would have on the mother. He maintained it was appropriate that X be informed of “the truth” about her mother.
The father commenced these proceedings on 15 November 2021. Orders were made by consent on 7 April 2022 for X to commenced spending supervised time with the father at a contact centre.
In the Outline of Case prepared by the Independent Children's Lawyer it is recorded that in late 2022 the father made a report to the police that the mother tricked him into getting pregnant and alleged the mother had raped him. It was a part of the father’s narrative at trial that the mother had tricked him into becoming pregnant, that she had raped him, that her relationship with him was all “a ruse”, that she lost all interest in him after she became pregnant.
The first supervised visit took place on 10 February 2023.
In an email that appears to have been sent to the father, by the father, dated 11 February 2023 the father set out his description of the first supervised visit, which included complaints about one of the supervisors – Mr S. He said in the email that he did not like Mr S, that he disrespected the father and tried to make him angry. Complaints about Mr S were a recurring theme in his oral evidence at Court. The father also wrote that he was “ashamed and angry with [Ms Florea] for what she has done to me” and that he told the workers “why don’t i go to head office for the police and have [Ms Florea] charged with what she has dine to me” (as per the original). He also wrote that he told the workers that he would attend the supervised visit the following week saying:
yes i will be her for my Daugther [X] not like the other scumbags that don’t care about the children in this place i them walked out to my [motor vehicle] and rang my mate i cried so much in my [motor vehicle]
(as per the original)
The second visit occurred on 24 February 2023.
The third visit occurred on 10 March 2023.
In March 2023 the father made enquiries with M Company and obtained a quotation for the costs of airline tickets for him and X to travel to City O for 8 nights, leaving 23 May 2023.
A further visit was scheduled for 24 March 2023. However, on that day the supervisor discovered the father had brought a weapon to the visit and time was cancelled.
There have been no further visits.
The father received a copy of the observational reports on 23 November 2023. It is the father’s case that the supervisors have lied about the visits. He does not accept the supervisors’ reports. None of the supervisors were called to give evidence.
On 30 June 2023 the father sent an email addressed to a Judicial Registrar of this Court, to the complaints department at the Department of Social Services, the Country B embassy and to the Australian Prime Minister with the subject “[X]”. In that email he wrote as follows:
To Whom it may concern
Mr Anthony Albanese PM of Australia
[…] PM of [Country B]
Legal Case Manager Jr Schirripa
Clair Ralfs CEO Of [T Family Services]
Sapol
And Others
[…]
Prime Minister of [Country B]
I am writing to you in hope that you can be some help to me, i have a Daughter called [X] i have att emailed letters to different people but as i always get wrong done by. […] there are people in Australia that are [Country B] citizen [Ms Florea] is one of them she is my Daughters mother she has lied to the Family Law Court so many times about me if you can may you please write to her and ask her to keep in mind that we are parents ok she has stopped me from being with my little princess, Yes Prime minster […] i was sexually abused […] but that does not stop me being a father dad to [X]. that's what [Ms Florea] is now using against me. Prime minister […] I would love to bring [X] over there to see her roots and show her some of her back ground in time
Mr Anthony Albanese
Prime Minister of Australia
i am asking you please help me with this horrifying mess that i am in. its not fair to me and its not fair to My Daughter [X], i have been accused of so much stuff in the family law court that IS NOT TRUE reports have been done that are no way right People from [T Family Services] have lied about this to me i have att a email to show you what has happened to me, its not right ok PM they have done this out of spit so it looks like i am a bad person Pm Albanese i am a bloody good man ok i help when needed to say this to you my dad was dying i drove to […] NSW to see him while i was going though this mess i did a 6 week course for the program co parent and stuff for my sexual abuse re the [people] that abused me, in the middle of that my FATHER DIED but i held up and did what we do as a dad please Prime Albanese help me
To the Family Law court
Judicial Registrar Schirripa
i am asking you to not pass judgement on me as i email you this email ok i am a human bean and a dad ok i have been though hell and now with this it's just not fair and wrong what has happened to me [Ms Florea] has told so much lie about me she has tyred to have me charged with things she has told her family things that are not true she has lied to the COURT about me that is just not true ok please read and look at all of this and please let me and my daughter do what we do as a dad and a father should be doing
at the end of all this and in short i am a dad ok i am a good man yes i was sexually abused […] BUT that dose has no issue of me being a dad to [X] i have spoken to the Australian Federal Police about what [T Family Services] has done i will be emailing them a full email as well they have lied in a federal document in the family Law court about me that's not fair as you can see i said this back in Feb 2023
After all this i am saying I AM JUST A DAD
[Mr Orlova]
(as per the original)
The father attached several emails he had sent to other people and organisations substantially complaining about the way he believes he was improperly treated during the supervised visits. The attachments included the communications written by him on 15 and 20 February 2021.
On 20 November 2024 the matter was set down for final hearing. The notations to the order included that the father intended to rely on the evidence of himself and that of Mr P and any partner he is living with. The father did not file material from any other witness. He said his current partner is living in Country G. He said Mr P had told him he would not be available to give evidence in Adelaide on the dates the final hearing was listed.
DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE
The Father
The father’s presentation in Court was quite unusual. As set out, much of his evidence was muddled, confusing, difficult to follow, and full of unnecessary and irrelevant details. At times he was agitated and spoke in an elevated tone. He holds the following highly negative and suspicious beliefs about the mother:
(a)the mother had tricked him – and raped him – to fall pregnant. He said the mother “only wanted a child out of me” and that she would “stop at nothing” to achieve that goal. At one point, the father said this was a view shared by his daughter in law who – according to the father – had recognised early on that she did not like the mother and tried to warn the father to end the relationship as she was “using” the father to get a child. That the relationship was a ruse for the mother to fall pregnant was a repeated theme in the father’s narrative and it was difficult to direct him towards matters more relevant to my determination. In relation to the allegation of rape, the father said “four police officers had a look at it. They said it was rape”. He also said, “I regard it as rape, the stuff that she did to me”. The mother has never been interviewed by the police in relation to this allegation. The father insisted he had text messages from the mother which confirmed she had raped him. However, when asked to produce such text messages the father was able only to quote one text message, sent by the mother early in the parties’ relationship, in which the mother invited him to have sex with her. There was absolutely no admission or suggestion of a forced sexual encounter. The allegation of trickery and rape were put to the mother and denied by her. I reject the allegation that the mother tricked and/or raped the father;
(b)the relationship fell apart once the mother became pregnant, as she lost interest in maintaining the relationship after achieving her goal of becoming pregnant. The father said, “the minute I found that pregnancy test is when it all fell apart”. He said he found the test “in the bin upstairs” rather than being informed by the mother. The mother’s evidence was that she had genuinely pursued the relationship and was not only using the father to fall pregnant. The father said the mother lied to him about her intentions about the relationship and insisted “she is still lying”. I reject this assertion by the father. It is not consistent with the fact that the relationship did not cease upon the mother falling pregnant. Rather, the relationship continued during the pregnancy and further efforts were made by the mother after the father left for Sydney to address their relationship issues. For instance, the mother sent the father text messages in August 2020 saying “I still want to make it work between us” and referring to the parties both attending counselling to talk about their future;
(c)the mother was only interested in the father’s money and potential payout, and that the relationship turned sour after he lost his appeal in relation to a payout he was to receive by way of compensation. I do not accept those assertions. The mother referred in text messages in July 2020 to being upset by the father’s friends saying she was only interested in him because of his money or because she wanted a baby. In a text message to the father dated 13 August 2020 she wrote “as I told you when we first met I never care or never expect anything from that […] money”. As already set out, the mother’s text messages continued to suggest the parties might work on a future even though the father had by that time lost his court action for compensation. I reject the allegations that the mother pursued the relationship for the purposes either of getting pregnant or for financial gain; and
(d)that the mother is inhumane, cruel, nasty, barbaric, vindictive and a liar. The father described the mother in these terms in his written communications, to Dr H, to the Family Report writer and at trial. The Family Report writer said at interview the father frequently referred to the mother as barbaric, vindictive and inhumane and described it as difficult to redirect the father to other matters. At trial the father said he “stands by” his descriptions of the mother and continues to maintain these views – although he also said on one occasion in Court some time ago, he had apologised to the mother. The father said his negative views of the mother were shared by at least four police officers with whom he had discussed the mother’s behaviours in refusing to allow him time with X, and who had agreed the mother was vindictive. The father also told the Family Report writer that he had been “alienated” from his adult sons by the mother because he was required to remain in Adelaide for these proceedings. In an earlier affidavit (which was an exhibit to the father’s trial affidavit) he asserted – without providing any particulars – that the mother has “significant anger management issues” and that “her inability to control her anger is a factor that may potentially place [X] at risk of harm”. He deposed further that the mother terminated his relationship with X “out of pure malice and vindictiveness, and for no other good reason”. In his closing submissions the father described the mother as spiteful and vindictive. He wondered whether the mother really loved X at all – because if she really loved X she would “wake up to [herself]”. I reject the father’s characterisation of the mother and her motivations.
The father asserted he wanted X to know and understand her cultural heritage, and asserted he was learning Country B Language in an effort to support those cultural ties. However, the father was also highly critical of aspects of the Country B culture. He said he ‘could not stand the smell’ of Country B food, and could not eat it, other than one of the mother’s recipes. He said of the mother, “I couldn’t understand her…she had this voice”, and referred to there being a clash of cultures between them, “[…] versus Aussies”. He asserted that the mother “was the violent one” and went on to say “she was [from Country B], I’m Australian. They have their own way of life”. The Family Report records that the father told her that “[…] people are hell bent on money”.
The father described these proceedings as “a witch hunt” and said he was being discriminated against because he had been sexually abused. He said he has made multiple complaints and entreaties to the Attorney General, the Australian government, the Country B government, the United Nations, Amnesty International, regulatory authorities and the CEO of Q Family Services pleading his case and advising he has been treated unfairly. He said he is reporting Dr H to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. The father also advised he is maintaining a list of people against whom he is considering taking legal action. At the commencement of cross examination of the father by counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer the father asked for her name, which he wrote down, saying that she would also be “on the list if she lies” in Court. He also advised that he was considering going to A Current Affair. In his closing the father said he had referred two of the solicitors previously assigned to him under the cross examination scheme to the Conduct Commission, and that he sacked one of the solicitors because he was trying to make the father lie.
During the running of the hearing the father was warned that he would likely be breaching s 114Q of the Act if he communicated to the public any information that identified any party, witness or person involved in the proceedings.
Some of the more striking and unusual aspects of the father’s evidence included:
(a)the father’s repeated concern that maternal grandfather is a violent and unpredictable man, wanted by a political group. The father said his brother – who he described as a “war hero” – told him “straight up be very careful of the [political group], they will cut you down”. He said he “one hundred percent” believed his brother. According to the father the maternal grandfather’s history raises a safety threat for X. He said she might be playing with the maternal grandfather in a park, and a Country B operative could recognise the grandfather and attack him with a gun or baseball bat. This was also a matter the father had previously raised with the Family Report writer – telling her that he had made a report to Child Protection about this perceived risk. The father said he regarded this as a real risk to X’s safety. However, I am satisfied that the scenario outlined by the father is farfetched and extremely unlikely. It may reflect an unnecessary hypervigilance on behalf of the father – and to that end I note that Dr H commented that the father described the following thought patterns; “He described hypervigilance and he said he is very vigilant to anyone who might abuse [X]”.
(b)the father said he had enjoyed taking X for walks as an infant, as X was a “chick magnet” meaning that women would “turn around” to look at the father when he had X with him;
(c)in a somewhat bizarre narrative, the father asserted that the police officer who interviewed him when the mother sought a protection order against him, stopped the interview process part way through, stopped the recording devices, removed his body camera and approached the father. The father said he stood up as the officer approached him and said “you know I can fight”, but the officer was in fact siding with him, and told him “shut up [Mr Orlova]. I have interviewed [Ms Florea] and she’s the most vindictive person I’ve ever met”. He said the officer invited him to use his first name, called the father by a nickname, recommended he “go home and have a beer” and that he would not be charging the father with anything. The father said after this he went home and cried, and had a conversation with X, in his mind, in which he asked X ‘what has your mum done, going to the police to have me charged?’ The father recounted this event to the Family Report writer as well. In that rendition the father asserted the police officer described the mother as a “vindictive bitch” and wondered “how dare she do this to you?”;
(d)additional police officers had warned the father about the mother, telling him “don’t go near this girl. She’s out for blood”, and confirming to him that she was vindictive, trying to destroy him and trying to take X away forever;
(e)at supervised time the father said he whispered in X’s ear “I love you. I just wish your mum didn’t do this. I wish and pray to my god that things were different between me and your mum”. Whilst the father acknowledged it was inappropriate to have whispered this to X he was unable to explain why it would have been inappropriate. He did not agree that statements like this would be exposing X to the parental dispute;
(f)the father physically inspected X’s teeth, ears and fingers on the first visit. He said he did this as he had not been given an opportunity to do that when she was first born, and he wanted to check she had all her fingers. He also said he was worried about bruising on her body and was not sure if the mother was looking after her properly. He said he reported the bruising to child protection. He also tried to make complaints to the police, describing that he attended one police station on five occasions, and was “told to go away and stop annoying them”. He said he then went to the police commissioner and got a detective to find out about the police officer who was trying to stop him from attending the station and making reports;
(g)the father asserted that X recognised him as her father at that first visit and almost ran towards him – even though she had not seen him since she was a few months old, over two years earlier. He was adamant she remembered him – offering his belief that his ex-wife Ms C was X’s guardian angel as the explanation as to how it was that X remembered him. The supervisor’s reports do not corroborate the father’s recollection of X’s reaction to him;
(h)on one supervised visit the father said he put his hand down into X’s pullups to see if she was wet or had soiled herself;
(i)it is reported at the conclusion of the third visit that the father took a pair of underpants and a pair of shorts he had brought for X out of his bag and kissed them. The father strenuously denied having done this – and repeatedly called the supervisors liars for having included those statements. He also said he was shocked by these allegations, and guaranteed that “people are getting sued over this” and that he was “going after them”;
(j)the father wrote a statement dated 9 March 2023 in which he set out his version of the visit on 24 February 2023. He referred to the supervisors taking him “TO A ROOM THAT I HATE GOING INTO BECAUSE [MR S] AND [ANOTHER SUPERVISOR] HAVE DONE WRONG BY ME IN THAT ROOM”. Mr S and the other person are supervisors who the father repeatedly referred to in his evidence as having acted inappropriately at supervised time. The father asserted that Mr S had been removed as a supervisor as a result of his poor behaviour. In a complaint he wrote to the Department of Social Services (“DSS”) dated March 2023 the father referred to supervised contact centres as “EVIL” and complained that he had been discriminated against by the staff, treated like “a scumbag” and demoralised as a human being. He asked that ‘legal charges’ be brought and the staff members stood down;
(k)the father made enquiries with M Company in early 2023 to travel with X to Country B for eight nights. At that time, he had spent just three short, supervised visits with X since separation. In his oral evidence the father insisted he was also going to invite the mother to travel with him and X – an unrealistic proposal in the circumstances, and no invitation was ever made to the mother. The father could not appreciate that it was at that time somewhat premature to be making such enquiries;
(l)the father brought a large knife to the third supervised visit. He accepted this was a specific type of knife. He said it was to cut up fruit. He did not accept this was not an appropriate knife to have brought to a supervised contact service;
(m)the father told Dr H in April 2023 that “I fear for my daughter’s life”. He said similarly to the Family Report writer that he was worried about X’s safety as he regarded the mother as having threatened to murder him;
(n)the father has seen videos of X on Facebook that have been posted by the mother in which he believes he can hear X say or can see her mouth the word “daddy”. The father gave convoluted narratives about the videos and the reasons he believed he could make out that X was saying, or mouthing, the word “daddy”.
(o)the father believes that the Court system is corrupt – including Dr H, the Family Report writer, the mother’s lawyer, the Independent Children's Lawyer and the providers of supervised time. This was repeated throughout the father’s evidence;
(p)the father acknowledged he has called the supervisors at Q Family Services “bitches”, although he said he did not say this “to their faces” but only to his “mates and family”. He said this was appropriate as they treated him like a “scumbag”, and like a piece of “faeces in the gutter”;
(q)the father said he was not sure whether there would be some sort of retaliatory action by the mother’s family at the conclusion of this trial – saying that he did not know what would happen after the hearing, and that he still had some concerns about her family. He was asked if there might be other consequences as a result of the hearing. He responded that there may, or may not be, and “don’t poke the bear. I’m the bear”;
(r)the father told the Family Report writer that he was worried about overseas war as he had concerns that “people will retaliate against [the mother] and her family. The Family Report writer clarified what he was referring to and he responded “[Country B] people”; and
(s)the father was of the view that the mother and he could walk over to a park, sit together under a tree and sort all of this out together. He did not appear to appreciate that was a highly unrealistic proposition.

During the hearing the father said that he has OCD, which I understood to be a reference to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The father described himself as “the freakiest clean man”, and that he has to have everything symmetrical, clean, neat and tidy. I do not know whether he has been diagnosed with that disorder.
It was also the father’s evidence that the mother was violent towards him. He referred to her allegedly abusing him in a supermarket over the purchase of cabbages and lettuces. He said on another occasion the mother had threatened that her father would “fuck [him] over” and kill him. He said she also threw a drink at him and had issues with alcohol.
The father did not raise concerns about the mother’s alcohol consumption in his affidavit material, nor with the Family Report writer. The father put to the Family Report writer that he had told her about issues with the mother’s alcohol consumption. The Family Report writer did not recall that being raised. She did not find any information in her notes to the effect either. I note the Family Report writer typed her noted contemporaneously with the interviews. She said if issues with respect to alcohol had been raised, it would not have been left out of her report.
The mother was cross examined in relation to the assertion that she threatened that the maternal grandfather would assault the father. She said that during one argument between the parents, the father had said he wanted to involve the maternal grandfather. The mother said she told the father that the parties could work out their differences themselves without involving her father, and that if her father was called into the dispute he would “fuck you over”. She denied any threat to kill the father and otherwise denied being violent towards the father, as well as denying any issues with alcohol. I accept the mother’s denials, and her explanation of what she said about the maternal grandfather. As set out, the mother was forthright and appeared genuine in her evidence.
Conversely, I am satisfied the father subjected the mother to financially controlling behaviour. The father acknowledged the parties kept their finances separate but that he would become irritated by the mother’s spending. He said that he ‘has the right’ to be critical of the mother’s spending of her own income, which he described as crazy, excessive and astronomical. He said she purchased expensive shoes and handbags, and he “didn’t’ like it, not one bit”.
For the reasons already set out, I prefer the evidence of the mother regarding the parties’ finances. She was the main breadwinner – and it was her role to budget and ensure there were funds to meet bills. She denied spending to excess. There was no evidence that bills were not met as a result of the mother’s spending.
I am also satisfied that the father frequently left the home after arguments – sometimes for several days. This left the mother uncertain and unsure about the stability of their relationship.
Curiously, despite all the criticisms and vitriol aimed at the mother by the father, he expressed a view that he still loved her “with all my heart”. As set out, he said he had wanted to travel to Country B with her in 2023. He also said he had retained the pregnancy test that had confirmed the mother was pregnant with X.
Importantly, the father maintained a strong view that he does not need professional assistance as recommended by Dr H. He said he feels he adequately addresses his issues by having discussed the abuse with other survivors, and he does not see the benefit in working through the abuse again in a therapeutic setting. Curiously, he said he understood that female survivors of rape are counselled to “leave it alone” and not go over the abuse, and he feels that should also apply to him. In his closing submissions the father asserted that he was being discriminated against, as a survivor of childhood abuse, being punished for that abuse and being made out to be a ‘bad person’.
The Mother
The mother presented as a forthright and credible witness who was prepared to promote a relationship between X and the father if it were safe to do so. Indeed, the mother had previously embraced the supervised visits – and prepared X well to assist her to transition to spending time with her father. To the Family Report writer, the mother expressed sadness for X as she believed X ought to have a relationship with her father, but did not feel X would be safe.
The Family Report writer described the mother as providing clear and articulate answers to the questions asked of her, and that she was;
…able to provide detailed information about [X] and presented as a responsive and reflective parent who was able to continue to meet [X’s] needs.
She also described the mother as “an emotionally attuned parent, who was focussed on providing [X] with safe and nurturing care”.
Those observations reflect my own.
The mother advised the Family Report writer that the father’s behaviour was at times unpredictable, that his behaviour was “up and down” and over time there was a “lot of anger” that made her feel unsafe. The mother reported having installed security cameras at home.
I accept the mother found the father’s erratic behaviour and emotional unpredictability difficult to manage, and frightening at times.
The mother made sensible concessions. As already set out, the mother admitted she had said her father would “fuck [him] over” if the father sought to engage him in the parties’ personal disputes. The mother also acknowledged when cross examined that she had sent cards to the father during their relationship telling him he was the nicest man she had ever met. The father seemed to think that these sorts of communications early in the parties’ relationship somehow supported his application for time with X now.
I reject the father’s assertions that the mother has maliciously prevented a relationship between him and X. Rather, I am satisfied the mother is child focussed, and her proposals reflect the recommendations of the experts engaged in this matter. I also accept the mother’s evidence that she will support X in an age-appropriate manner to understand about her father as she gets older and more curious about her parentage.
The mother has the support of her family. X spends time with her grandparents, and the mother shares her home with her sister.
Dr H
Dr H was engaged to prepare a psychiatric report of the father. He interviewed the father on 5 April 2023 and provided a report dated that same day. The father had earlier prepared a written response to a questionnaire provided by Dr H’s rooms.
In his report Dr H confirmed the father was diagnosed with PTSD in 2000 and had not had any treatment for that. He also described the father as having “some unhelpful personality traits”. In his oral evidence Dr H said those traits included a difficulty in trusting people and being overly focussed on the actions of others. Dr H said the correspondence with the mother post separation showed poor judgment. Dr H said considering the severe trauma suffered by the father as a young person, the father had likely developed a world map where “people can’t be trusted”. Dr H said this was very understandable given the father’s experiences.
In relation to the father’s mood, the father reported to Dr H that he feels upset and heartbroken, is angry every day and is regularly tearful. In his report Dr H said he observed no signs that the father was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder. He said the father’s general behaviour at the interview was appropriate “other than at times he was a little agitated” and that he was appropriately responsive and reactive, and also “angry but not aggressive”. The father presented similarly at trial.
In his oral evidence, Dr H said that in the context of the structured interview, the father appeared angry during his assessment, but that did not spill over into aggression. However, he said that in other settings a person suffering from PTSD can become angry quite disproportionately to what has triggered their anger. He said reactions can be quite unpredictable, and anger can escalate.
Dr H set out in his report that if the father received appropriate treatment his PTSD would probably significantly improve. However, any improvement is unlikely if the father does not engage in treatment. Dr H said the first step would be a thorough assessment and then the establishment of a detailed management plan. This would likely include psychotherapy and education. In addition, Dr H recommended individual therapy to address the father’s “feelings regarding [the mother] and to help him deal with his strong emotions in a more adaptive way”.
Dr H expressed concern that without treatment, the father’s ability to provide satisfactory parenting for X was impaired. In particular, Dr H noted that the father appeared to have difficulties in containing his own emotional issues and shielding X from those issues, and difficulties in not denigrating the mother.
As to the importance of a parent managing their own emotional issues, Dr H wrote:
An important part of this is for the parent to have awareness of their emotional issues and to be addressing them. Self-reflection is an important part of addressing issues. The most reliable predictor of a child attaching to their parent is the parent having a coherent narrative of their life experiences. If a parent has unresolved issues from their own childhood, these can easily get triggered and they can profoundly influence how a parent reacts to their child. A parent needs to own the totality of their history in order to make sense of it. Embracing all that we are can be difficult but it is a necessary step that leads to a sense of compassionate self-acceptance and then to authentic interpersonal connection.
Other important parenting behaviours identified by Dr H included being emotionally available for a child, having the ability to see the world from the child’s point of view, being able to be child focussed and able to prioritise the child’s needs over their own. Given the behaviours, evidence and opinions of the father outlined in these reasons – and without therapeutic intervention and education – I have significant concerns about the father’s ability to satisfactorily meet these demands of parenthood.
Dr H also referred to the impact of trauma on the default mode network functioning (“DMN”) – being a neurological process that assists in forming one’s sense of self, and to understand situations from another person’s point of view. Dr H wrote:
If the DMN isn’t working properly in someone with PTSD, they are more likely to take unacceptable risks, they will lack a sound sense of self, they will have difficulty learning from previous experiences, they may lack insight into themselves and social situations and they may not be able to take the perspective of others and to be aware of emotions and the malicious intents of others. These factors are probably affecting [the father].
I share those concerns. It appeared to me from the father’s evidence and presentation at the hearing that he lacks insight into himself and into various situations, and that he struggled to see events from the perspective of the mother and X.
Dr H referred to recent research that indicated those suffering from PTSD tend to:
…have negative beliefs and blame themselves and others and…allocate cognitive resources to looking for potential threats which reduces the cognitive resources they have for other functions.
I have already referred to the father’s views about potential threats to X that do not appear to have a reasonable basis.
It is the father’s case that there were important matters that Dr H failed to include in his report. The father described the report as “doctored” and inaccurate. Effectively, it is the father’s case that Dr H failed to refer to the father’s “textbook fathering”. He said Dr H is corrupt and a liar and that Dr H was fixated on the father’s sexual abuse.
I do not agree. I found Dr H’s report and oral evidence to be thorough and thoughtful, and I accept his evidence. He expressed considerable empathy towards the father. A careful reading of Dr H’s report shows he had incorporated many aspects of the father’s pre-interview questionnaire – which the father wrongly believed had been brushed aside or overlooked.
In essence the thrust of the father’s complaints about and cross examination of Dr H were that the expert did not conclude the father was a very good father. Of course, that was not the role of Dr H.
The father maintained that there is no therapy that he believes he needs to attend beyond having discussions with other adult survivors. Dr H rejected that as sufficient treatment.
Dr H was not asked to conduct a psychiatric assessment of the mother. Whilst he said interviewing the other party can assist in assessments, he did not feel his assessment of the father was impeded or limited by the fact that the mother was not also interviewed and assessed by him.
The Family Report writer
A Family Report was prepared following interviews with the mother on 25 September 2023 and the father on 16 October 2023. The report writer also observed the child with the mother on 25 September 2023.
The Family Report writer noted the father’s pervasively negative narrative about the mother. She concluded:
[the father] did not demonstrate a capacity to view the current situation from [X’s] perspective, instead remaining focussed on his experiences and concerns about the manner in which he was perceived and treated. While [the father] clearly held a strong connection to [X] as his daughter, he did not appear to be able to differentiate his views from [X’s].
The Family Report writer formed the view that the mother was child focussed, and that she and X had a close and loving relationship. Conversely, the report writer expressed concern about the father’s ability to safely parent X, as a result of what the report writer described as the father’s “preoccupation with his negative views of [the mother] and his lack of reflective capacity about X and her relationship with him”. The report writer continued:
[The father] demonstrated limited reflective capacity remaining focussed on the narrative that [the mother] was barbaric, the volume of lies told about him and his perception of the unjust nature of the Court. Despite attempts to redirect [the father] to discussions about his relationship with [X] and her needs as a young child, he continued to return back to discussions about his concerns.
These were themes reiterated by the father at trial.
The Family Report writer concluded as follows:
There is no doubt that the literature suggests children do best when they are able to share safe and positive relationships with both of their parents. Concern exists, however, about [the father’s] capacity to provide such a parenting environment to [X] at this time. His continued focus and vitriol about [the mother] was considered likely to prevent him from focussing on [X’s] needs for safe, predictable and nurturing care. Until such a time that [the father] has demonstrated meaningful engagement and sustained progress in individualised therapy, both to assist him to manage his strong views about [the mother] as well as provide treatment given his diagnosis of PTSD, there be no consideration of time spending between [the father] and [X]. In order for consideration to be given to [the father] resuming time spending with [X] in a supervised capacity, he will need to demonstrate better insight into the current situation for [X], while demonstrating a capacity to focus on her and a reduction in his preoccupation with his negative views of [the mother]. Given the lack of a foundation of a relationship, any progress towards time spending will need to occur therapeutically to best support [X] in developing a relationship with her father in a manner that is safe and supported.
It is the father’s case that the Family Report writer has also been inaccurate in her report which contains errors and exaggerations. Nothing in the father’s cross examination supported findings to that effect. Again, I found the Family Report writer’s report and her oral evidence to be thorough and well considered, and I accept her evidence.
HOW ARE THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS ASSESSED?
This case was heard after the enactment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Amendment (2024 Measures No.1) Rules 2024. The legislative changes therefore apply to this case and the consideration of best interest factors below reflects the relevant legislation as at the date of final hearing.
Section 60CA of the Act sets out that when deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to children, the best interests of the children must be my paramount consideration.
THE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are a range of considerations set out in ss 60CC(2) and (2A) of the Act that I must take into account in determining what is in the child’s best interests. They are:
(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.
Subsection 60CC(2A) of the Act provides:
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.
Section 4AB of the Act provides a wide definition of family violence, which includes “sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour”.
What arrangements will promote safety
I am satisfied X is safe in her mother’s care. Whilst the father has made various allegations about the mother and her family that in his view raise safety issues, I do not accept there is any reasonable foundation for his concerns.
In the trial affidavit filed by the father on 1 January 2025 he sought that the mother be psychiatrically assessed. I am not satisfied there is any proper basis for the mother to be psychiatrically assessed. The matters asserted by the father do not raise any reasonable concerns as to the mother’s functioning.
X has been in her mother’s primary care since she was an infant. She is meeting all her milestones. According to the Family Report writer, X appeared to be a happy and settled child, with well-developed verbal skills. These observations make it plain that the mother is parenting X safely, and competently.
Conversely, I have concerns for the emotional and psychological safety of X in the event X is to spend time with her father. That arises in part because of the father’s functioning in circumstances where he has untreated PTSD, and in part because of concerns I have regarding the father’s attitude towards the mother and the father’s inability to shield X from those views.
I have already outlined the likely shortcomings in the father’s parenting as identified by Dr H – including his reactivity, difficulties he may have in managing his own emotions, the intensity of those emotions, and a limited ability to see the world from X’s perspective.

I have also already set out the concerns both Dr H and the Family Report writer expressed about the father’s attitude to the mother and the need for therapeutic intervention to assist him to manage his strong views about the mother prior to time with X being considered. The father’s inability to shield X from those views appears highly likely.
When Dr H asked the father about his written communications to X in which he criticised the mother the father said he “kind of” understood that one parent should not criticise the other to the child. However, he also told Dr H that he wanted X to know “it all, lock, stock and barrel”. At trial it was put to him that he would tell X the criticisms he has of the mother. He agreed and it was his evidence that he will tell X the “truth”, and make sure she knows what the father did to try to see her and that the mother interfered with his efforts to do so.
The Family Report writer gave evidence that in the event the father continued to hold strong, negative views about the mother, and remained unable to shield X from those views, there were significant risks to X’s psychological and emotional safety. The Family Report writer said the potential risks included:
(a)undermining X’s sense of safety and security;
(b)negatively impacting X’s relationship with her mother to the extent that X may feel the need to agree with, or even align with her father;
(c)difficulties for X to transition between her parents; and
(d)potential impacts on X’s ability to trust others – including peers and intimate partners as she gets older.
I have no confidence that the father could restrain himself from expressing his views of the mother to X. I accept the evidence of the Family Report writer as to the long-term likely consequences for X if the father is unable to refrain from denigrating the mother.
Supervised visits have also been problematic. I have already outlined a number of concerns in relation to the father’s interactions with X at the contact centre, and the father’s difficulties in managing his emotions and interactions even in that structured environment.
Leaving aside the observations described by the supervisors with which the father disagrees, on his own case it is apparent he has overinterpreted X’s responses to him. He believed X recognised him after such a lengthy hiatus and believes his explanation for that recognition being that his former wife Ms C is somehow guiding X. He also opened X’s mouth and checked her teeth in that first meeting with her. In another meeting he put his hand in her pull-ups with no concern as to how she might interpret that as he was effectively a stranger to her. He also whispered into her ear that he wished the mother had acted differently.
The supervisors’ reports outline many other unusual behaviours and responses by the father in X’s presence many of which he denied. This included being irritated when told not to make plans with X for future visits; commenting “what a joke” about a bag that the mother provided; having to be directed to focus on the visit rather than commenting on why he was being required to have supervised time; telling X not to make a mark on her top as “your mother will kill me” and “mum will yell again; when asked to put his mobile phone away he scoffed and said “what. It’s not going to hurt her”; and intervening in a negative manner at times when X was playing with two dolls that she referred to as the mum and the dad. The supervisors were not called to give evidence even though the father does not accept their observations. However, it seems unlikely that the supervisors have colluded to create false supervision reports.
In the supervision reports X is also described as being somewhat physically reticent in response to the father’s hugs and kisses – holding her arms at her sides, tilting her head to the side and looking at the ground. The father denied any reluctance on behalf of X. That would suggest he had some difficulties in reading X’s cues. That the father thought an overseas holiday could even be contemplated in mid-2023 for him and X indicates the father has little insight into her needs.
Views expressed by the child
X is not quite five years old. Her views have not been sought. It is apparent from the observations of the child with the mother that she is content and settled in her mother’s care.
Developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs of the child
X is progressing well. She started primary school this year. She has no particular needs, save that she is a young child and accordingly wholly dependent on her caregivers.
In relation to X’s cultural needs, both parents acknowledge her Country B heritage, and wish to ensure she continues to develop these cultural ties.
Capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs
The mother’s capacity
I am satisfied the mother is well able to provide for X’s needs. She is an engaged and child focussed parent. The observations between X and the mother were described as warm, and the Family Report writer observed that X delighted in and genuinely enjoyed playing with her mother. The report writer said the mother/daughter interactions were “lovely to watch and were suggestive of them sharing a positive relationship”.
The father’s capacity
The father’s capacity to provide appropriate care to X is significantly limited.
It is difficult to accurately describe how unusually the father presented at Court. From the tenor of his evidence, his submissions and cross examination of witnesses it is apparent the father’s world view is not positive. He is highly suspicious – and dismissive – of those who challenge his opinions. He regards himself as having been wrongly persecuted. He referred in his oral evidence to him keeping “a list” of people – being people who have lied and against whom he is considering taking legal action. He said he had made complaints to the Attorney General about the contact centre, as well as the CEO of Q Family Services. As already set out, the father has written to the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Country B complaining that the mother and contact supervisors have lied to the Courts about him. He regards counsel appearing for the Independent Children's Lawyer and the mother’s solicitor as “liars”. He has a similar view of Dr H, the Family Report writer and the supervisors. He described the family law system as corrupt and referred to obtaining advice from “[…]” – who he later identified as Mr U, a solicitor in New South Wales – who had confirmed the father’s belief that ‘there’s something going on’.
The father’s attitude towards the mother is also deeply concerning. He oscillated between saying he loves her, and then referring to her as being vindictive, inhumane, cruel and nasty. He repeatedly said his friends and family, and multiple police officers, agree with him. I have no confidence the father would shield X from those negative views – because he believes those views to be true and correct and he believes X is entitled to know ‘the truth’. He has already attempted to share his views with her during supervised visits.
The father repeatedly stated at Court and to the Family Report writer that he is well able to care for X, describing having cared for many other children over time. He showed the Family Report writer videos and photos on his phone of him caring for other children. He told the Court on several occasions during the hearing that he has friends and family who could tell the Court what a good man he is, that he is a capable father, and how they all agree that he has been mistreated by the family law system that he – and they – perceive as being corrupt. He said the Court should take comfort from the fact that he was married to his first wife Ms C for 18 years, and that Ms C had never expressed any concern about his care for their children. He said the photographs of him holding X as an infant demonstrated he was a great dad.
The father adduced no evidence from anyone else. He was specifically given leave to adduce evidence from a Mr P and from his current partner and directed to file affidavits from them on or before 3 January 2025. He did not do so.
At any rate, the issue before me is not whether the father is a good man or not, whether he has been entrusted by other people to look after their children, or whether there are deficiencies in the family law system. Moreover, the ability to provide adequate physical care is only one aspect of parenting. Unfortunately, I have significant concerns about the father’s current ability to properly meet X’s psychological, developmental and emotional needs for the reasons outlined by Dr H, the Family Report writer and as already set out in this judgement.
I have no doubt that the father is a good man, and that he loves X very much. I also accept he deeply wishes to play a significant role in his daughter’s life. The difficultly is that the father’s insight and functioning is currently impaired to the extent that I have no confidence he could adequately and appropriately care for X. I also have no confidence that X at almost five years of age could navigate the father’s unusual presentation or manage his negative views of the mother.
The benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with their parents, and other people who are significant to the child
In most cases there will be a positive benefit to children having both parents involved in their lives. However, the Full Court has observed that in some cases, orders that attempt to foster a relationship with one parent will be of no positive benefit to a child, and that to make such orders would not be in the child’s best interests; see McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93–405 at [122]. Time with a parent is not ordered merely for the sake of making an order to that effect – and as observed by Nygh J in Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91–330:
If there is a situation where contact with a parent is on balance likely to cause more harm to the child than good, or even is not likely to confer any benefit, then little purpose is served by this court making orders for such contact.
Regrettably for X, this is a matter in which the risks to X if a relationship is facilitated with her father substantially outweigh the benefits to her.
Any other matters of relevance to the particular circumstances of the child
All matters have already been referred to in these reasons.
The history or family violence, abuse or neglect, and any family violence order that applies or has applied
I have made findings that the mother did not abuse the father or subject him to family violence. However, I accept that the father did seek to control at least the mother’s finances. I have also referred to the correspondence that the father sent to the mother after separation in which he denigrated and diminished the mother. As already observed, I do not understand how it was determined by the police at that time that there was no basis for an intervention order.
PARENTING ORDERS TO BE MADE
Decision making
I am satisfied the parents have no ability to communicate with each other to the degree necessary to make joint decisions for X’s long-term care. The father’s negative view of the mother would make it very difficult for the parties to engage in respectful negotiations. The mother is well placed to make decisions on behalf of X. She has done so to date, and the father raised no concern about the mother’s ability to continue to do so.
Live with
It is not in dispute that X shall live with the mother. She is doing well in the mother’s care.
Time with
Regrettably, it is not in X’s best interest at this time to spend time with or communicate with her father. The father no doubt loves X and it is also not in dispute that the father is a good man. However, his current functioning is such that it would not be safe psychologically for X to spend time with the father for all the reasons already outlined.
I anticipate this Court would reconsider the issue in the event the father engaged with the type of assessment and therapeutic intervention as recommended by Dr H if that improved both his functioning, his insight and his attitude towards the mother. Dr H was very positive regarding the prospects of the father being successfully treated in relation to his PTSD. However, he needs to be internally motivated to do so. I strongly encourage the father to take on the challenges of therapeutic intervention, as it will be an important first step in re-establishing his relationship with X. It may be of assistance to any treator or assessor to have a copy of these reasons, and accordingly, I will order that the father may provide same.
Communication
Currently, it is also not in X’s best interests to communicate with her father for the reasons already outlined. Nor would it be appropriate for the father to send X cards, letters or gifts. The father expressed no insight into how inappropriate his earlier communications were – and indeed maintained that X needed to know “the truth”. Accordingly, it is likely the father would be unable to restrain himself from criticising the mother and I accept the mother found the previous communications from the father very distressing to read.
I am satisfied that the mother should be required to send the father updates by email in June and December each year as to X’s progress, and that around the time of X’s birthday each year she shall provide him with a recent photograph of X.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I make the orders as are set out.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty-two (142) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Carter.
Associate:
Dated: 14 March 2025

File number(s):	ADC 5570 of 2021
Judgment of:	CARTER J
Date of judgment:	14 March 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –Where the mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer do not seek any orders for time between the father and the child –Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where time between the father and the child was previously supervised – Where supervised time between the father and the child was suspended on the fourth visit – Where the father has not spent time with the child for a significant period of time – Where the father has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – Where the psychiatrist assessing the father considers that the father will not be able to improve without therapeutic intervention – Where the father does not wish to attend upon any psychologist – Where it is not currently in the best interests of the child to spend time with the father – Orders made for mother to provide father with written updates regarding the child twice a year and to provide the father with a photograph a year of the child – No orders for time made.
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 4, 60, 102, 114 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Amendment (2024 Measures No.1) Rules 2024 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8
Cases cited:	Cotton & Cotton (1983) FLC 91–330 McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93–405
Division:	Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs:	142
Date of hearing:	17, 18 & 20 February 2025
Place:	Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant:	Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Jelbert
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Camena Legal
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Ms Fuda
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	The Family Law Project

ADC 5570 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:	MR ORLOVA Applicant
AND:	MS FLOREA Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	CARTER J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MARCH 2025