Ramzi & Moussa - [2022] FedCFamC2F 1473

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)
Ramzi & Moussa [2022] FedCFamC2F 1473

File number(s): MLC 12613 of 2018

Judgment of: JUDGE BECKHOUSE

Date of judgment: 4 November 2022

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Family violence – Coercion and control – Physical violence– Sexual abuse – Humiliation – Threats – Harassment – Monitoring – Deprivation of liberty – Isolation – Social abuse – Economic and financial abuse – Cultural abuse – Spiritual abuse – Exposure to family violence – Arranged marriage – Fear – Unacceptable risk – Application that child spend no time with a parent –Impact on mother’s parenting capacity – Mitigation of risk – Orders made for sole parental responsibility – Injunctive orders – No time ordered

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2), 60CC(3)

Cases cited:
Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622

Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268

Ramzi & Moussa [2021] FCCA 103

Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146

Britt & Britt (2017) FLC 93-764

Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407

Garrod & Davenort [2018] FamCA 825

Hendy & Penningh (2018) FLC 93-879

Illgen & Yike [2018] FamCA 17

Isles & Nelissen (2022) FedCFamC1A 97

Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 190

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361

McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405

Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375

Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303

Salah & Salah (2016) FLC 93-713

Saska & Radavich [2016] FamCAFC 179

Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 288

Date of hearing: 21-23 February 2022

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Boden of Starnet Legal Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Schroder

Solicitor for the Respondent: Legal Aid NSW Bankstown Family Law

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Holmes of Holmes Donnelly & Co Solicitors
ORDERS

MLC 12613 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR RAMZI

Applicant

AND:
MS MOUSSA

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:

JUDGE BECKHOUSE

DATE OF ORDER:

4 NOVEMBER 2022

ON A FINAL BASIS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother have sole parental responsibility for the child X born in 2017 (“the child”).
2.The child live with the Mother.
3.The child spend no time with the Father, nor communicate with the Father.
4.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Father be and is hereby restrained by injunction from:
(a)Coming within 100 metres of the place of residence of the Mother and child or any school, child care facility or educational institution attended by the child;
(b)Contacting the Mother in a manner inconsistent or contrary to these Orders; and
(c)Attempting to or allowing or encouraging any other person to find, locate or communicate with the Mother and/or the child including but not limited to their place of residence and any school, child care facility, educational institution attended by the child from time to time or social media platform.

5.Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the child is permitted to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia with the Mother without the Father’s consent.
6.The Mother have sole responsibility for giving consent and making arrangements for the application and issue of a passport for the child, X born in 2017.
7.Pursuant to section 11(1)(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) the Mother, Ms Moussa, is permitted to apply for and obtain the issue and renewal of passports for the child X, born in 2017, under the provisions of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) without the knowledge or consent of the Father, Mr Ramzi.
8.The Australian Federal Police be directed to remove the name of the child X born in 2017 from the Family Law Watchlist in force at all points of arrival and departure from the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.The Mother provide to the father information on the following matters annually and by no later than 31 December each year:
(a)A copy of the child’s annual school report;
(b)A written update on the child’s progress including educational, sporting and other extracurricular activities; and
(c)A photograph of the child.

10.The Mother shall advise the father of any serious medical conditions or injuries experienced by the child within 24 hours of such event occurring.
11.The Father be permitted to forward a message to the child each year on his birthday and the Mother shall ensure that the child receives the message.
12.Within 7 days the parties each nominate an email address or other electronic platform through which the information set out in Orders 9, 10 and 11 can be communicated, and notwithstanding this Order, the Mother not be required to identify the child’s location including his school or residential address.
13.The appointment of the Independent Children’s Lawyer is hereby discharged.
14.All outstanding applications are dismissed and the proceedings are removed from the list of matters awaiting finalisation.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.Order 4 is an order for the personal protection of the mother and the child to which a power of arrest without warrant attaches, pursuant to the provisions of section 68C of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

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).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish 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 Ramzi & Moussa has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction

This case is about the parenting arrangements for X born in 2017 (“X”), who is currently five years old. X is the child of Mr Ramzi (“the father”) and Ms Moussa (“the mother”). X’s parents are in dispute about his future parenting arrangements.
X’s father loves him and seeks to have a meaningful relationship with him. He comes from a large family in Melbourne and feels that it would be better for X to be raised around the Country F community in Melbourne.
X’s mother opposes the father spending any time with X. She says that the father poses an unacceptable risk to X and herself. She seeks that X continue to live with her in Sydney and there be no relationship in the future between the father and the child.
Issues in dispute
This case proceeded over three days. The only agreed issue is that X will continue to live with his mother.
The father was unable to articulate with any degree of precision the actual orders he sought. Essentially, he asks the Court to order that the mother return to Melbourne with X. Upon their return, he seeks to spend time with X on an unsupervised basis, graduating to an arrangement where they spend substantial and significant time together. The father asks to share parental responsibility for X with the mother.
The mother wishes to remain living in Sydney with X. She seeks an order for sole parental responsibility and does not want X to spend any time with the father.
There are a range of risks of harm that have been alleged by the mother. These include that:
(a)The father has perpetrated serious family violence against the mother and in the presence of X; and
(b)The father lacks insight which impacts his parenting capacity.
On the other hand, the father denies all allegations of family violence and alleges that the mother is deliberately and wilfully taking steps to prevent him from having a meaningful relationship with X.
The Court is asked to determine:
(a)Whether the mother should be ordered to return to Melbourne with X;
(b)How parental responsibility for X should be exercised;
(c)Whether the father does pose a risk of harm to X; and
(d)If X is to spend time with the father in Melbourne, how much time and should it take place under supervision.
History of proceedings
The father commenced family law proceedings on 31 October 2018 in the Melbourne registry of the (then) Federal Circuit Court. In his Initiating Application he sought on a final basis: to place X on the Family Law Watchlist; that X live with the mother and spend time with him as deemed appropriate by the Court; and that the parties share equal parental responsibility. On an interim basis, he sought that X spend time with him every Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday. The only risk identified in his accompanying Notice of Risk was to X should the mother decide to return to Country F with him.
The father filed an Application for Divorce on 7 November 2018.
On 12 December 2018 the mother filed her Response to the father’s Initiating Application. On a final basis she sought: sole parental responsibility for X; that X live with her; and that leave be granted to particularise the final orders sought after the preparation of a Family Report. On an interim basis, she sought that X have supervised contact with the father. In her accompanying Notice of Risk the mother alleged that X was at risk arising from family violence perpetrated by the father upon her and that the father’s parenting capacity was limited. Property orders were also sought.
On 12 December 2018 Judge Bender made the following interim orders:
(a)That X live with the mother;
(b)That X spend time with and communicate with the father on three occasions in December 2018 between the hours of 2.15pm and 5pm on each occasion. Those occasions were to occur at the home of the mother’s cousin, with the father’s sister or mother (not both) permitted to be in attendance during those visits;
(c)That commencing 6 January 2019, X spend time with the father each Sunday from 2.15pm until 5pm supervised by his paternal aunt or his paternal grandmother. The time was contingent upon the paternal aunt or paternal grandmother providing a written undertaking to the Court that they would fully supervise the father’s time with X and return him to the mother’s care in the event that he became distressed or the father placed X at risk.
On 22 January 2019, the father filed an Amended Application for Final Orders seeking property orders; equal shared parental responsibility; that X be placed on the Family Law Watchlist; that X live with the mother; and that X spend increased time with him.
On 30 January 2019, Judge Bender made a Divorce Order. On the same date, Judge Bender set the matter down for a two day final hearing to commence on 20 April 2020, ordered the preparation of a Family Report, and ordered the parties to attend a Conciliation Conference. Further interim consent orders were made providing for:
(a)X to live with the mother;
(b)X to spend time with the father each Sunday from 1.15pm until 4.45pm, for a period of six weeks, supervised by his paternal aunt with changeover to occur inside the Suburb G Library;
(c)Thereafter, time would occur unsupervised each Sunday from 12.30pm to 4.30pm with changeover to occur inside the foyer of Suburb G Police Station with the father to remain 5 metres from the mother;
(d)The father to enrol in and complete a Men’s Behavioural Change Program; and
(e)Both parties to complete a parenting after separation course.
On 30 May 2019, final property orders were made by consent.
On 21 November 2019, the father filed an Application in a Case seeking the urgent listing of the matter; equal shared parental responsibility; and that X live with him. The application arose because he was not spending time with X in accordance with the orders.
On 11 December 2019, the father filed a Contravention Application which was ultimately withdrawn.
The mother deposes that she relocated with X from Melbourne to Sydney on 17 December 2019. She did not inform the father that she intended to relocate, nor that she had done so. The father learned of the mother’s relocation during the Family Report interviews on 2 March 2020.
Both parents attended the Family Report interviews in person in Victoria, however the mother did not bring X to the interviews as she had been requested to.
On 16 March 2020, the father filed an Application in a Case seeking a recovery order.
On 19 March 2020, the Court made orders that the mother take X to the Family Consultant on 30 March 2020 at 4pm to enable X to be observed with his father. The mother did not comply with this order and the Family Consultant Ms K (hereinafter “Ms K”) prepared her Report on 8 April 2020 without the benefit of observing X with each parent.
On 14 August 2020, the matter was listed for interim hearing and the father appeared legally represented. The mother did not appear. Orders were subsequently made transferring the matter to the Sydney Registry for hearing on a date to be advised.
The matter was first listed in the Sydney Registry on 19 October 2020 and a range of directions were made including for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”).
When the matter returned to Court on 16 December 2020, each of the parties appeared legally represented. The ICL had been appointed and appeared. An order was made for the parties to attend a Child Dispute Conference on 16 April 2021.
The interim hearing on 15 January 2021 was not reached and adjourned to 19 January 2021.
The interim hearing was conducted on 19 January 2021 and the Court reserved its decision. On 27 January 2021, an interim decision unreported as Ramzi & Moussa [2021] FCCA 103 (hereinafter “Ramzi & Moussa [2021]”) was handed down by Judge M Neville. The Court made interim orders providing relevantly that:
(a)The father’s recovery application be dismissed;
(b)X spend time with the father on two occasions each supervised by either B Contact Centre or C Contact Centre for Children for a period of up to 2 hours duration; and
(c)An updated Family Report be prepared and upon its release, the matter be expedited for final hearing.
On 17 June 2021, a Family Report was prepared by Family Consultant Ms O (hereinafter “Ms O”).
On 30 June 2021, the Court ordered that the final hearing be expedited and trial directions were made. The matter was listed for final hearing over three days on 23, 24 and 25 August 2021. However, the mother and X contracted COVID-19 and the hearing dates were vacated.
The matter proceeded to final hearing over three days on 21, 22 and 23 February 2022.
Evidence
The trial was conducted in person. The mother used the services of Country F interpreters throughout the hearing.
Both parties were legally represented at the hearing and the Court had the benefit of the ICL.
Each of the parties provided Case Outline documents setting out the material relied upon.
The father relied upon:
(a)Case Outline filed 16 August 2021;
(b)Affidavit of Mr Ramzi filed 6 August 2021; and
(c)Affidavit of Ms H filed 12 January 2021.
The mother relied upon:
(a)Case Outline filed 17 February 2022;
(b)Amended Response filed 11 December 2020;
(c)Affidavit of Ms Moussa filed 3 August 2021;
(d)Affidavit of Ms Moussa filed 13 December 2021; and
(e)Reasons for Judgment of Judge M Neville delivered on 27 January 2021 in Ramzi & Moussa [2021].
The ICL relied upon:
(a)Family Report of Ms K dated 8 April 2020; and
(b)Family Report of Ms O dated 17 June 2021.
I have also had regard to the material marked and tendered as exhibits.
Ms O was cross-examined. I accept her evidence and her credibility as an expert.
It has not been possible to refer to every aspect of each of the parties’ evidence. However, I have taken all the evidence into account.
The parties are in disagreement on most details relevant to their relationship. Generally, the Court is reluctant to make adverse findings in respect to a party’s credit in parenting proceedings.[1] However, it has been necessary to do so in this matter. I cannot discharge my statutory obligation to make orders that are in X’s best interests unless I assess the parties’ competing allegations and accounts of their behaviour during the relationship.
[1] Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622.
The father’s case consisted, for the most part, of blanket denials of the mother’s allegations. He described most of the mother’s allegations about family violence as “fantasy.” While on many aspects of her evidence the mother was able to identify dates, times, locations, context and on occasions put forward evidence to corroborate her accounts, the father’s case was simply that “it did not happen.” It was therefore difficult for his veracity to be attacked. Similarly, the evidence he gave about the date of separation was equally difficult to understand. The father could offer no explanation, context or introspection about the state of the relationship, or what had caused him to suddenly and temporarily leave the home.
The legal representative for the father offered that his client was softly spoken, and was traumatised as a result of his experiences of being falsely imprisoned when he was 19 years of age. Ms O agreed that this was possible. I cannot discount that such trauma may have impacted the father’s approach to these proceedings and the evidence he gave.
Little evidence was led about the impact of the parties’ familial backgrounds and culture on their behavioural responses and attitudes towards the marriage. Such evidence may have assisted the Court in understanding the cultural backgrounds of the parties and cultural factors impacting on their presentation in Court. However, in circumstances where there was no evidence about this, I can only make observations based on what occurred at the hearing.
In Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 at [62], it was said:
Witnesses are supposed to answer questions put by counsel responsively: they are supposed to give a full answer, but no more. It is one thing to say that a witness was not asked the right questions. It is another thing to say that a witness did not answer the questions that were asked. And it is an even more serious thing to say that a witness was “reluctant” to answer. The duty of a witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so far as the questions asked seek it. The duty of a witness to answer questions responsively involves not only a negative duty (not to volunteer material for which the question does not call), but also a positive duty (to proffer all material within the witness’s knowledge for which the question does call).
The father’s evidence on many occasions fell short of this expectation. Whilst I cannot find that the father failed to comply with the duty to tell the whole truth to the Court, I still view the evidence he gave with some caution.
The father argued that I should prefer his evidence to that of the mother. The mother was questioned appropriately at length on matters that were intensely private. Her behaviour was scrutinised. She answered questions directly, and sought clarification when she did not understand questions. Her evidence about the relationship has remained reasonably consistent over the years. While there have been numerous occasions throughout these proceedings where she has demonstrated a disregard for the father and court orders, she was frank when she gave evidence about this.

Ultimately, as the relationship progressed, the mother formed a profoundly negative, fearful and distrustful view of the father, his family members and interventions by members of the Country F community. This complicates findings of credibility because it is possible that her truth and reality on some occasions were distorted. Where I am concerned that the evidence she gave was coloured by this, I will indicate so and treat her recollection of events with a degree of caution.
There were many factual matters in dispute that I have had to determine. Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) sets out the standard of proof in these proceedings as the balance of probabilities and in what follows, statements of fact constitute findings of fact.
Background
The father was born in Country F in 1987 and was 34 years old at the time of hearing.
The mother was also born in Country F, in a rural village. There is confusion about her age. She says that she was born in 1995 but that her uncle and aunt changed her date of birth to 1994 at the request of the father, so that she could lawfully be married to him. By the time of the hearing, she was 26 years old by her account.
The father and his family emigrated to Australia in 2000 when he was around 13 years old due to the civil war in Country F.
Examination records from the P Hospital (hereinafter “The P Hospital”) document that female genital mutilation was performed on the mother.[2] The mother’s father died when she was 13 years old. The mother also left school at this age and describes herself as having a “basic level of Country F literacy.” Her mother could not support all of her 14 siblings so she was sent to live with her paternal aunt and uncle in the city of City Q and they arranged for her to be married to the father. As the mother describes it: “[a]s my father had died, culturally, it was left to my uncle (my father’s older brother) to betroth me to Mr Ramzi and his family. No one asked me for my opinion and no one informed my mother of what was happening.”
[2] Exhibit 9, page 23.
The parties, who are both of Muslim faith, were married in Country F by proxy ceremony. The marriage had been arranged between the father and the mother’s paternal aunt and uncle. The father says that he was introduced to the mother through a family friend while she was living in Country F and they spoke on the telephone. Accordingly, the father alleges that the mother entered into the arrangement with free will and without family pressure. That account differs from the mother’s, who deposes: “uncle represented me, and Mr Ramzi’s grandfather represented him. They consented to our marriage and it was made official in accordance with Country F law and custom. I did not attend. I did not view myself as married as I had not met Mr Ramzi.” She was around 17 years of age at this time.
Arrangements were made by the mother’s paternal aunt and uncle to obtain a passport to allow her to leave Country F and marry. As previously noted, the mother suggests her date of birth was altered for this purpose. She arrived in Country R in 2013 and was met at the airport by the father and his brother in law. At this point, she spoke no English.
A few weeks after her arrival, the mother lived in a rented house in City S with the father, the father’s brother Mr T (“Mr T”), and Mr T’s wife Ms U (“Ms U”) who had also recently travelled there from Country F.
The parties were married in a religious ceremony in Country R in 2013.
The mother alleges that the father forced her to engage in sexual intercourse without her consent on approximately three occasions in Country R. These allegations are assessed below.
The mother contends that while in Country R, she was exposed to family violence between Mr T and Ms U, and was physically assaulted by Mr T. The mother also deposes that her movements were monitored and controlled by the father. These allegations are assessed below.
The mother remained in City S for 20 months. Shortly after the religious ceremony in 2013, the father returned to Australia and commenced the immigration process on her behalf. He returned to City S to visit the mother on one occasion for a period of two weeks. The mother travelled to Melbourne, Australia on a permanent basis in 2015. She obtained Australian permanent residency in 2016.
The mother deposes that in the period from her arrival in Australia in 2015 to the parties’ separation in 2017, she was sexually assaulted by the father on approximately five occasions. These allegations are assessed below.
Upon her arrival in Australia, the mother enrolled in an early childhood education program and obtained employment in a family day care service. The mother alleges that her education and employment was organised by the father, and that he did not permit her to learn English. These allegations are assessed below.
The mother deposes that the father did not allow her access to a bank account in her name. This allegation is assessed below.
In 2016, the mother alleges that the father choked her. This allegation is assessed below.
In 2016, the mother fell pregnant.
In the early stages of her pregnancy, the mother alleges the father punched her face. This allegation is assessed below.
In June 2016, the mother alleges that the father took her phone and locked her in her room because she was speaking to a male cousin. This allegation is assessed below.
During the mother’s pregnancy she ceased work, and unbeknownst to the father enrolled in an English language course. The mother alleges that upon the father’s discovery of this, he locked her in the house and did not replenish the food. The mother deposes that approximately one week later, she escaped the house and was physically assaulted by the father upon her return. The mother alleges she attended the P Hospital, yet did not disclose family violence. These allegations are assessed below.
The mother deposes that she disclosed family violence to staff at Suburb V Health Clinic (hereinafter “Suburb V Health”) on 10 November 2016 during a routine check-up, and was referred to family violence support service Safe Steps (hereinafter “Safe Steps”) for crisis accommodation, which she stayed in until returning to the matrimonial home on 29 November 2016.
In December 2016, the mother alleges that the father forced her out of a car whilst accelerating, causing her to fall on her heavily pregnant stomach and injure herself. The mother alleges she sought hospital treatment but denied family violence because the father was interpreting on her behalf. These allegations are assessed below.
In 2017, X was born.
In January 2017, the mother alleges that while she was holding X over the bath, the father threw a shampoo bottle at her back. The mother and X allegedly left the home and stayed with the mother’s cousin Ms W (hereinafter “Ms W”) for approximately two months. These allegations are assessed below.
In March 2017, the mother alleges that the father left X unattended in an unlocked car. This allegation is assessed below.
The mother deposes that when X was approximately two to three months old, the father slapped X across the face, and told the mother that he wanted to send her and X back to Country F. These allegations are assessed below.
In August 2017, the mother alleges that as a response to his dinner not being ready, the father became physically aggressive and damaged property at the home. The father also smashed the mother’s mobile phone and indicated his intention to divorce her. The mother deposes that the father left the matrimonial home for approximately four days, and physically assaulted her upon his return. These allegations are assessed below.
The parties separated on a final basis in August 2017.
On 1 September 2017, the mother alleges that the father threatened to kill her if she did not “remarry” him. The mother deposes that she called Safe Steps who arranged crisis accommodation for X and herself. These allegations are assessed below.
The mother also alleges that during September 2017, the father and Country F community elders visited Ms W’s house looking for her and some elders contacted her to organise a meeting to resolve the issues between herself and the father. The mother refused this offer. These allegations are assessed below.
On 18 October 2017, the mother applied for and was granted an interim Intervention Order (hereinafter “IVO”) for her and X’s protection. The father consented to this Order on an interim basis on the condition X’s name be removed from the mother’s application. The IVO was made final on 12 September 2018. The father consented to this Order. The IVO was extended on 22 May 2019 upon the mother’s application, and later registered in New South Wales. It expires on 22 May 2024.
Following separation, X lived with his mother. The mother alleges that X spent a few hours per week with his father at Ms W’s house under Ms W’s supervision.
Pursuant to the interim orders made by Judge Bender on 12 December 2018, X continued to spend time with the father at Ms W’s house, under the supervision of Ms W and the extended paternal family.
As per the further interim consent orders made by Judge Bender on 30 January 2019, X spent time with the father supervised by the paternal family on a weekly basis, which was to transition to unsupervised time in March 2019.
The mother deposes that she felt afraid to see the father in person when unsupervised time was to commence, and therefore proposed to vary the changeover location to the supervised contact centre J Children’s Contact Service (hereinafter “J Contact Service”). The father agreed with this arrangement. Due to some delay in securing a place at J Contact Service, supervised changeovers commenced in May 2019. Consequently, the father alleges that he did not spend time with X between March and May 2019.
The father deposes that the mother did not comply with the Orders from May 2019, unilaterally cancelling X’s time with the father and arriving late to changeovers. The mother admits that she was late to changeover on most occasions due to traffic and anxiety about the father spending time with X, and that she cancelled one visit on short notice because X was unwell.
The mother deposes that she stopped taking X to changeover in October 2019 due to fears for his safety when with the father.
As at the date of final hearing, the mother lives in a two bedroom apartment with X at an undisclosed location in Sydney. The father lives in Suburb Y in Melbourne, Victoria.
In March 2019, the father married Ms Z (“the father’s wife”). Together they have a child, M, born in 2020. The mother has not re-partnered.
Proposals and contentions
I will now consider the parties’ proposals.
The father’s proposal is as follows:
(a)That the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X.
(b)That the mother and X relocate back to Melbourne.
(c)That the father spend time with X immediately, with such time to gradually increase to a shared care arrangement. The father did not articulate any detailed proposal for time or communication between X and himself, although conceded that there would be a gradual phasing in of their time together, firstly under supervision.
The father filed a Case Outline document that provided a chronology of the matter and identified the issues and orders proposed by him. Oral submissions were made once the evidence had closed and the legal representative for the father submitted that:
(a)There was no family violence in the relationship;
(b)The mother is not prepared to facilitate a relationship between X and the father;
(c)The mother is socially isolated in Sydney; and
(d)On account of all of those matters, it would be in X’s best interests if the Court compelled the mother to return to Melbourne to live so that the father can develop his relationship with X.
The mother’s proposal is as follows:
(a)That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
(b)That X live with the mother in Sydney.
(c)That X spend no time nor communicate with the father.
(d)That for the personal protection of the mother, the father be restrained from:
(i)Coming within 100 metres of the mother and X’s residence, X’s school, or any child care facility or educational institution he may attend;
(ii)Contacting the mother; and
(iii)Attempting to or allowing or encouraging any other person to find or locate the mother and X.
(e)That X be permitted to travel with the mother outside the Commonwealth of Australia without the permission of the father.
(f)That the mother be permitted to apply for an Australian Passport for X without the father’s consent.
(g)That X be removed from the Family Law Watchlist.
The mother is opposed to X spending any time with the paternal family. Under cross-examination by the ICL, the mother said that she would not interfere with X’s decision to pursue a relationship with his paternal family when he is older. But until that time, she seeks to protect X by opposing spending time with orders.
She grounds her position on the following assertions:
(a)During the relationship she experienced family violence by the father of a coercive and controlling nature including:
(i)Social isolation from family and friends by the father requiring her to obtain permission to speak with people or requiring her calls with her mother to be on speaker;
(ii)Being subjected to humiliation and threats;
(iii)Restrictions on her access to learn English;
(iv)Being denied access to money, including her own wages;
(v)Being restricted in her capacity to exercise liberty, including buying food for herself during her pregnancy;
(vi)Sexual assault on a number of occasions;
(vii)The father engaging with the mother’s family and the broader Country F community to exert control over her;
(viii)Exposure to violence in her household between family members Mr T and Ms U;
(ix)Physical assault on a number of occasions; and
(x)A pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour where her movements were monitored, and she was stalked and harassed by the father or by people at the request of the father.
(b)The father poses an unacceptable risk to X, especially in circumstances where he denies that any family violence took place;
(c)Orders facilitating a relationship between X and the father would have a negative impact on her parenting capacity; and
(d)There are no appropriate steps that can be taken to ameliorate that risk.
On the final day of the hearing, the ICL proposed final orders. These can be summarised as follows:
(a)That the mother have sole parental responsibility for X.
(b)That X live with the mother in Sydney.
(c)That the father spend time with X as agreed between the parties on a graduated basis and failing agreement, commencing for two hours each alternate weekend at a supervised contact centre culminating in unsupervised time from Friday to Sunday each alternate weekend and one half of each school holiday period.
The ICL’s position was articulated as follows:
(a)He supported an order for sole parental responsibility to the mother.
(b)Irrespective of the findings made as to the existence of family violence, it would be in the best interests of X to remain living in Sydney with his mother.
(c)Irrespective of the findings made as to the existence of family violence, the risk of harm to X should not lead the Court to make a no time order.
The law
Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) guides the process in relation to the making of parenting orders.
The Court must consider what is in the best interests of the child when making a parenting order.[3] In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, I must consider the matters set out in section 60CC(2), being the primary considerations, and section 60CC(3), being the additional considerations.
[3] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA.
There are two primary considerations. The Court must balance the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with each parent with the primary consideration of protecting them from physical or psychological harm, from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
These primary considerations are analysed first and foremost as this matter ultimately rests on the findings I make on risk, and how to protect X from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence in making Orders that are in his best interests.
X
X is described by his mother as a “friendly child, and a good eater and sleeper.” He attends school and has no health issues. Ms O observed X to be a “very happy, friendly and playful young boy”.[4] She noted that he showed “good indicators of positive development” for his age including engaging in play, good motor skills and basic knowledge of numbers.[5] She found that at times it was difficult to communicate with X in English, but noted that this was understandable given X’s primary language is Country F.
[4] Exhibit 2, page 17 paragraph 56.
[5] Ibid.
The mother has been X’s primary carer and attachment figure since birth. She has made all major long-term decisions about X’s care. Ms O observed X to share a positive and loving relationship with his mother.
No criticism was levelled at the mother’s quality of care of X in all of the material tendered. Indeed, the father told Ms O that she is a good mother to X.
X has been living in Sydney for over two years and has commenced school there. Both the legal representatives for the mother and the ICL were concerned about the impact of an order requiring X to relocate back to Melbourne. Under cross-examination, Ms O proffered that any change to X’s current circumstances had the potential to be highly distressing to him due to his age and primary attachment to his mother.
The parties separated when X was 8 months old and since then, X has only seen his father sporadically and largely under supervision. The father deposes to participating in X’s care after his birth. While the mother has made allegations that the father’s care of X was at times inappropriate, for example the allegation that X was returned with a soiled nappy, there was no evidence that would allow me to make such a finding.
The mother’s unilateral decisions to cease time between X and the father and relocate to Sydney have restricted X from seeing or communicating with his paternal family since October 2019.
X has a step-brother, M, although they have not met. The father has a close relationship with X’s paternal grandmother. X has aunts, uncles and 14 cousins in Melbourne. The father told Ms O that he believes X would benefit greatly from the love and support the extended paternal family can offer him.
The father has not had the opportunity to have any significant involvement in X’s life since he was seven months old, but there can be no doubt that the father has sought to do so since separation. He appropriately pursued family law orders when parenting arrangements could not progress by negotiation between himself and the mother. He has paid child support for X since separation. He has also paid for contact visits, despite being of modest means.
No observations were conducted between X and the father during Family Report Interviews. It was the view of Ms O that such observations would be inappropriate in circumstances where X and his father had not had contact for a significant period of time and where the father lives interstate.
On 6 May 2021, the father flew to Sydney and spent time with X supervised by a professional supervisor from C Contact Centre. The contact report notes that X seemed happy to see his father. They engaged in playful conversation and X “appeared in a positive mood”.[6] The supervisor reported that the father’s “responses and capacity to meet X’s needs seemed appropriate”.[7]
[6] Exhibit 9, page 50.
[7] Ibid, page 49.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the father did not spend supervised time with X again until 8 December 2021. On this occasion, the contact report observed X to be comfortable with his father. X reportedly smiled and laughed as they engaged in play. The supervisor noted that both X and his father “appeared to enjoy the visit and were affectionate together”.[8]
[8] Ibid, page 52.
The father proposes being reintroduced into X’s life and thereafter affecting a regime of graduated time. The ICL says this change will be a positive one for X because it will enable him to develop a meaningful relationship with his father, something that he currently does not enjoy.
X’s parents
X’s father earns a low income working part time as a transport worker, and is studying a Bachelor degree at AB University.
The available evidence suggests that during the parties’ relationship, the father was supported by the women around him to meet X’s needs. He argues that he continues to enjoy that support as his parents, siblings and large extended family reside in Melbourne, and his wife would assist him. The father also has sisters, one of whom gave evidence, and the Court was satisfied that she is an appropriate carer and support person.
That said, it was difficult to have any confidence about what participation or involvement the father would have in X’s actual care. On the evidence before me, it was not clear who lives in his house and what his hours of work are, and this was not assisted by his failure to file an affidavit by his wife.
X’s mother completed a Certificate III in aged care in early 2020 and is in the process of completing a diploma in childcare and allied health. The mother is hopeful she will obtain employment upon the completion of her diploma. At the time of the hearing, she was not working and was in receipt of the Single Parenting Payment from Centrelink. She rents the apartment in which she and X live, and pays other costs associated with her own and X’s care.
The notes produced by counselling and medical services attended by the mother said she presented with anxiety, panic disorders, and depression.
In September 2021, the mother went to her doctor and sought a referral to a psychologist in the context of the separation and “domestic violence.” A week earlier she had disclosed that she had been fined for driving an unregistered motor vehicle when seeking medication for a migraine.
Under cross-examination, the mother agreed with the proposition that she was socially isolated in Sydney because she lacked family and social support. However, the evidence before the Court also suggested that her anxiety would be heightened if she were required to return to Melbourne and if orders were made for X to spend time with the father. This, in turn, would impact the mother’s parenting capacity. This is considered in detail later.
Primary Considerations
The Court must balance the benefit to X of having a meaningful relationship with the father with the primary consideration of protecting him from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.
Meaningful relationship
Ideally, children should have a meaningful relationship with both parents. However, there must be a benefit for them in doing so. The Court does not assume there is a benefit to all children in having a meaningful relationship with both parents. I am required to focus on whether there is a positive benefit to X in the particular circumstances of this case.[9]
[9] McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 at [120].
The Court must also consider whether each party is capable of facilitating a meaningful relationship between X and the other parent.
The Court heard evidence of a short audio recording (hereinafter “the recording”) that the mother made and sent to the father via WhatsApp on 13 October 2020. The recording was annexed to the father’s affidavit and lasts 15 seconds. The recording includes an animated image which could be described as a witch with the following text: “You will never see my son.” A screenshot of the recording showing this image and text can be found below.
[image removed]
The recording appears to record a conversation between the mother and X to the following effect:
Mother:          Do you love mummy?
Child:            Yes
Mother:          Do you love papa?
Child:            No
Mother:          Why?
Child:            inaudible
Mother:          You don’t want a daddy?
The mother deposes that she sent the recording in response to the father’s constant and repeated approaches to her family in Country F, which allegedly took place over seven months from February 2020 onwards. She deposed, “I felt like I could not escape Mr Ramzi and felt unsafe. I thought that by sending in the recording he may stop contacting my family and getting them to pass on his messages.”
Under cross-examination from the ICL, the mother was not prepared to concede that her involvement of X in the recording could have a negative impact on him.
The father is understandably concerned that the mother has not supported his relationship with X, highlighted by her difficulty observing the requirements of court orders. The ICL and the father argue that the Court should be critical of the mother for seeking to exclude the father from X’s life.
J Contact Centre indicates that on 22 June 2019, the mother was sent a “First Warning Letter for breaching the Service user agreement on several occasions by either arriving substantially late, missing scheduled visits” without prior notice, or cancelling visits on less than 45 minutes notice.[10] They recorded that between July 2019 and October 2019, the mother was late to drop off or collect X on a number of occasions and on three occasions, the mother did not attend and was unable to be contacted by the service.
[10] Affidavit of Mr Ramzi filed 6 August 2021, Annexure -3, page 30 (“Father’s Affidavit”).
This appears consistent with Judge M Neville’s observations in Ramzi & Moussa [2021] at [23] that while the Orders of 30 January 2019 provided for X to spend time with the father, “time did not proceed without some difficulties. On some occasions the mother was late, on some occasions she did not attend.”
The mother alleges in her affidavit that:
During September and October 2019, I started to notice [X] return from contact with a heavily soiled nappy and that he looked dirty. I recall seeing him return from contact with a bruise on his head that had not been there when I dropped him off. This increased my concern about [X]’s safety with [Mr Ramzi]. At this time I stopped taking [X] to changeover.
She was cross-examined on these allegations. At the time, J Contact Centre were undertaking the supervision and made no notes that would corroborate the mother’s allegations.
The mother deposes that she found it difficult to prepare X for the visits. She also admits that “on some occasions I was also very anxious about Mr Ramzi spending time with X and considered not taking him before turning up late.”
In December 2019, not only did the mother relocate with X to Sydney without informing the father of her intention to leave, but she took no steps to seek a variation of the parenting orders in place.
The only explanation given by the mother for her failure to comply with court orders was that:
I thought my safety and the safety of my child was somewhat compromised and so that was the main reason that I did not comply. I also understood the consequences of not complying with those court orders. I understood that. I was fully aware of it. But again, my safety and the safety of my child was the most important thing for me, more than anything else.
It should also be noted that the mother now deposes that the principal reason for her departure from Melbourne was her fear that the father was surveying her movements and following her. These allegations are denied by the father. If the mother is found to have had no cause for concern, either about the level of care offered to X by the father or for her safety, then her actions in unilaterally relocating to Sydney with X raise some significant concerns about her capacity to promote a meaningful relationship between X and the father.
On 20 April 2021, Ms O met with X. At that stage, she observed that “[h]e seemed to have no awareness of his father”.[11] After a significant break, X was re-introduced to the father at a supervised visit in accordance with the orders made on 27 January 2021 by Judge M Neville.
[11] Exhibit 2, page 18 paragraph 58.
The contact supervisor from C Contact Centre observed on 6 May 2021 that the father “asked X if he remembered him, he said he did. Mr Ramzi asked X if he missed him, he said he did”.[12] The father was observed to embrace and affectionately engage with X throughout the visit. It was further observed when it was time to say goodbye that:
[X] held onto [Mr Ramzi], it seemed there were more things he wanted to do and did not want to leave. [Mr Ramzi] reassured [X] that they would see each other again soon and would do more things next time. [X] and [Mr Ramzi] embraced goodbye, [Mr Ramzi] kissed him and they said they loved each other.[13]
[12] Exhibit 9, page 49.
[13] Ibid, page 51.
Ms O gave evidence that there would be benefit to X having a meaningful relationship with the father if the Court does not find that family violence and abuse occurred in accordance with the mother’s allegations. Indeed, she observed that:
it may be highly beneficial to [X]’s emotional wellbeing, his development of his sense of identity, and he may benefit from the supports and resources his father can provide him, if he is given the opportunity to spend time with, and develop a relationship with, his father.[14]
[14] Exhibit 2, page 21 paragraph 67.
Ms O’s evidence on this issue was not challenged and is accepted. The outcome, then, turns on the findings that are made on the mother’s allegations and the court’s assessment of risk. It is therefore critical to analyse in detail the risk of X being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence and to then assess whether that risk “is able to be sufficiently managed or ameliorated”.[15]
[15] Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 at [83].
Discussion of risk
The Full Court in Isles & Nelissen (2022) FedCFamC1A 97 drew a distinction between the fact finding exercise to determine risk. It confirmed that a positive finding of abuse can only be made on the balance of probabilities according to the civil standard of proof. However, the Court observed at [85] that:
The assessment of risk is an evidence-based conclusion and is not discretionary…Sometimes it can be difficult to discern the difference between the exercise of discretion and an evaluative judgment (Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296 at 304), though a discretionary decision is one in which no single factor or combination of considerations will necessarily dictate the result (Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 at 518). The finding about whether an unacceptable risk exists, based on known facts and circumstances, is either open on the evidence or it is not. It is only the overall judgment, expressed in the form of orders made in the children’s best interests, which entails an exercise of discretion. That discretionary judgment is influenced by the various material considerations enumerated within s 60CC of the Act, of which the evidence-based finding made about the existence of any unacceptable risk of harm is but one.
Further, the Full Court held in Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268 at [88] that a trial judge should make findings in relation to abuse or violence between the parties if “they are available and necessary to determine what is in the best interests of the child.”
Risks alleged about the mother
While some risks were identified by the father about the mother’s capacity to care for X, the father supported X remaining in her care. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the mother does not pose a risk to X, nor is her ability to care for or parent X currently impaired.
Risks alleged about the father
The mother alleges that the father poses a risk to X because:
(a)X has been, and will be, exposed to family violence;
(b)The father has engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour; and
(c)Orders allowing contact between X and the father may pose a risk to the mother’s parenting capacity.
Family violence
Coercive and controlling family violence
The mother alleges that the father has been emotionally abusive, sexually abusive and physically violent towards her, and has subjected her to threats, surveillance, and control. She deposes she has experienced coercive and controlling family violence at the hands of the father.
Family violence is defined in section 4AB(1) of the Act as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.
(Emphasis added)
Section 4AB(2) of the Act provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence, including assault, sexually abuse behaviour, stalking, unreasonably denying financial autonomy, preventing the family member from maintaining or making connections, and unlawfully depriving the family member of their liberty.
Generally, coercive control is understood as a course of conduct aimed at dominating and controlling another person, including a family member.
In Illgen & Yike [2018] FamCA 17 at [123]-[125], Gill J analysed the terms “coerces or controls” in the section 4AB(1) definition of family violence in the following manner:
123.Coerce is defined in the 7^th Edition of the Macquarie Dictionary relevantly as:
1. To restrain or constrain by force, law or authority; force or compel, as to do something.
2. To compel by forcible action
124. Control is defined in the 7^th Edition of the Macquarie Dictionary relevantly as:
1. To exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command
125. The phrase ‘coerces or controls’ is expressed disjunctively. However it may be seen that the two concepts are closely related. Together they form an expanded concept of the exercise of power, to restrain another or to cause another to act, by force, domination or command.
The father has consistently denied the mother’s allegations and depiction of the relationship as coercive and controlling. Her allegations therefore need to be scrutinised.
In order to assess whether the father engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, it is necessary to view his behaviour towards the mother over the course of the entire relationship (as well as post-separation), and to consider the cultural context in which it arose.
This section uses sub-headings describing actions and behaviours that may constitute family violence to categorise the evidence relating to the mother’s allegations, and the father’s responses to such allegations. Whilst it is helpful to organise this evidence into discrete categories, it is important to note that this analysis is directed at determining whether the father embarked upon a pattern of conduct throughout the relationship (and beyond) that was aimed at coercing and controlling the mother, and if so, understanding the impact that such a course of conduct had (and continues to have) on the mother. This inquiry is necessary because it is relevant to determining the question of unacceptable risk, especially as the mother alleges that the coercive and controlling behaviour continued well beyond separation. Therefore, it is important to consider the evidence under each sub-heading within the wider context of family violence alleged.
1. Physical violence and harm
1.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother deposes that the father committed a range of physically violent acts towards her. These allegations include, as deposed by the mother, that:
(a)In 2016, the father put his hands on the mother’s neck and tried to choke her. The mother lost her vision and felt like she could not breathe, and had a swollen neck for days after.
(b)In 2016, during the early stages of the mother’s pregnancy, the father punched the mother’s face, causing bruising and a bleeding nose. The mother called Ms W who took her to her house. After two days, the father and paternal grandmother came to Ms W’s house and took the mother home.
(c)In 2016, the father locked the mother in the house and did not replenish the food after discovering she secretly enrolled in an English course. After the mother escaped from the house to buy food, the father slapped and punched her face causing a bleeding nose and lip, and kicked her heavily pregnant stomach. The mother felt very scared because she could not feel her baby moving, and waited for the father to fall asleep before attending the P Hospital to check on the baby’s health. The mother did not disclose family violence to hospital staff at this time due to fear of further violence from the father.
(d)On 19 December 2016, the father stopped the car abruptly when travelling with the mother and told her to “get out” because he was late to meet a friend. As the mother was getting out of the car, the father accelerated, causing the mother to fall on her stomach during the late stages of her pregnancy and graze her elbows and knees, which bled heavily. She sought hospital treatment but did not disclose family violence to hospital staff because the father was interpreting on her behalf and had threatened her.
(e)On 17 January 2017, the mother was bathing X and asked the father to bring her baby shampoo. The father threw the shampoo bottle at the mother’s back while she was holding X over the bath, causing her instant pain. After this, the mother and X left the home to stay with Ms W for approximately two months, before moving back in with the father in March 2017.
(f)When X was two to three months old, the father slapped him across the face because he was crying.
(g)On 8 August 2017, when X was six months old, the father left the matrimonial home following an incident in which the father became aggressive because his dinner was not ready. He smashed plates, kicked the walls and washing machine, and smashed the mother’s mobile phone against the wall. Upon his return approximately four days later, the father told the mother he wanted to “remarry” her. When the mother told the father she no longer wanted to be in a relationship with him, he grabbed her left arm and twisted it behind her body, which caused her pain. Her arm was swollen, and she could not hold X for a few days without pain.
1.2 The father’s response
In his affidavit, the father categorically denies all allegations of physical abuse against the mother:
I deny…all allegations that I have physically assaulted the mother and or otherwise committed family violence against her. I did not slap the mother, I did not punch the mother and I never kicked the mother in the stomach. I never laid one finger on the mother during our marriage, or at any other time.
To be clear, his position in relation to the allegations referred to above are as follows:
(a)He did not put his hands around the mother’s neck and try to choke her.
(b)He denies punching the mother in the face or having assaulted her in the early stages of her pregnancy. He also does not accept that the mother stayed with Ms W during the pregnancy.
(c)He denies the mother’s allegations of being locked in the house and deprived of food as punishment for secretly enrolling in an English course, as well as allegations that he physically assaulted the mother after she left the house to buy food.
(d)In response to the mother’s account of the incident on 19 December 2016 in which she alleges the father forced her from the car, he insists he did not tell the mother to get out of the car and to lie to hospital staff about what had happened to her. He notes in his affidavit that the hospital notes which the mother subpoenaed do not confirm that he was present at the hospital on this date.
(e)He denies throwing a shampoo bottle at the mother when she was bathing X. However, he concedes that the mother stayed with Ms W, explaining that it was “more a cultural thing” to offer support, and that he also stayed at Ms W’s house during that period.
(f)The father refutes the allegation that he ever hit X, insisting he “would never expose [X] to any risk of harm.”
(g)The father rejects the mother’s account of the incident which allegedly occurred on 8 August 2017. Rather, he says that one day, he contacted the mother and told her he wanted a divorce because “there was no love left” and he “did not want to remain married.” He said the mother begged him to return to the house, but instead he remained away, only returning once the mother had left. He could not explain why he left the matrimonial home for several days after this conversation, however he rejects any suggestion of a physical altercation between the parties before he left.
2. Sexual abuse
2.1 The mother’s allegations

The mother alleges that the father sexually abused her on numerous occasions, including:
(a)Sexual assault on three occasions in Country R in 2013, the first occasion one day after her arrival. She was a virgin and told the father that she did not wish to share a bedroom with him because she did not know him and did not consider them to be married. She said she had wanted to wait until she knew the father better and the religious ceremony had occurred. Despite this, he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him, without her consent, which caused the mother pain to her genital area.
(b)Sexual assault on approximately five occasions in Australia since her arrival in 2015 until the parties’ separation in 2017. On these occasions, the father held the mother down, took her clothes off and had sex with her, even though she said no.
2.2 The father’s response
The father consistently denied the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse.
He deposes that he did not, on any occasion, force the mother to have sex with him against her will.
3. Humiliation and threats
3.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother alleges that she was humiliated by, and received a range of threats from, the father. Often those threats were emotionally manipulative because they involved either community or familial humiliation. For example, she alleges that:
(a)When she objected to having sexual intercourse in Country R, the father said words to the effect of “I will tell your family you are not doing it.”
(b)On 19 December 2016 when the mother attended hospital after her fall, the father said to her “if you tell the hospital what actually happened you will be in trouble.”
(c)When X was approximately two to three months old, the father threatened to send the mother and X back to Country F, or to send X back to Country F for his aunt to look after.
(d)During the alleged incident on 8 August 2017, the father threatened to divorce the mother. He shouted words to the effect of “I hate you! I don’t want you or your child! Talaq.” The mother alleges that saying “Talaq” to your spouse once means you are still married, however repeating the phrase three times means “I divorce you.” Following the mother’s threats to call the police, the father left the home, however messaged her words to the effect of “I want to take the child away, I want to divorce you, and I want you to leave the house.”
The mother also deposes that the father’s threats continued after the parties separated in August 2017. For example, she alleges that:
(a)On 1 September 2017, the father called the mother to tell her he wanted to remarry her. Upon the mother’s refusal, the father threatened the mother with words to the effect of “If you do not marry me again, and if you are still at home by the time I get there, I will kill you.” The mother was scared for her life, and called Safe Steps to arrange crisis accommodation.
(b)The father used the legal system to threaten her. For example, the mother reported to police her concerns about the father contacting her, leading to a variation of the IVO which was issued and served on the father by the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 19 December 2018. On the same day, the father went to the police and applied for an IVO to protect himself from the mother. On 1 January 2019, the mother was served with the Application for Summons for this IVO filed by the father. She attended Court in March 2019, but was advised that the father had withdrawn his application.
The mother deposes that the father’s threatening behaviour was also directed towards members of her family at times. For example, the mother alleges that when she moved to crisis accommodation in November 2016, the father threatened the maternal family, asking that they contact the mother and tell her to return to the relationship.
The mother also alleges that she received a range of threats from people on behalf of the father. For example, the mother deposes that she received Facebook messages on 27 December 2020 which she believed to be from Mr T. Mr T had by this stage separated from Ms U and returned to Country F. One message allegedly “dared” the mother to return to Melbourne to “see how tough” she was, while another said words to the effect of “you should kill yourself or you will be killed,” although the mother deposes that the latter message was deleted. The mother admits to responding to these messages saying “I’m not the one who gonna die but you are” because she was fearful for her safety and did not want Mr T to know she was afraid. The mother believes that Mr T has since conceded that the father told him to send these messages.
3.2 The father’s response
The father denies ever threatening the mother.
He specifically denies telling the mother that he wanted to send her and X back to Country F, insisting he never wanted X to grow up without him.
As already noted, the father also denies the mother’s account of the incident on 8 August 2017.
The father admits to telephoning the mother’s family in Country F after the mother left the matrimonial home in November 2016, but alleges he only contacted them because he was “confused” and “very scared and was thinking that someone may have kidnapped the mother.” He denies placing pressure on maternal family members.
The father also admits to speaking with the mother’s family in Country F at other times, but claims this has only occurred when they have asked him for financial support.
The father concedes that he asked the mother to remarry him again after separation, saying he wanted to keep the family together for X’s sake.
The father also alleges that the mother threatened him. For example:
(a)Under cross-examination, the father was shown a hospital record from 16 November 2016 where the mother was recorded as reporting that the father “wants to have a new wife”.[16] The father alleged he told the mother that the relationship was not strong before she fell pregnant, and that she had threatened him from that time onwards.
(b)The father complained that the mother sent a threatening message to Mr T when Mr T was living in Country F, which caused the father to worry “because Country F is a dangerous place and it is easy to hire a hit man there”.[17] It seems he was referring to the mother’s response to Mr T’s messages on 27 December 2020.
[16] Exhibit 9, page 14.
[17] Exhibit 2, page 12 paragraph 40.
4. Following, harassing and monitoring
4.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother alleges that throughout the relationship and post-separation, her movements were monitored and she was stalked by the father, and harassed by people at his request. Alleged examples of these behaviours have already been noted, such as the father accompanying the mother to her hospital appointments (especially after assaults) to act as her interpreter. Further examples of this behaviour, as alleged by the mother, are noted below:
(a)While living in Country R, the father did not allow the mother to speak to anyone other than Ms U. The mother was permitted to speak to her mother on the phone, but only if the call was on speaker so the father could listen to the conversation.
(b)In March 2017, when X was approximately two months old, the mother left the father and X in the car while she went into the shops. Approximately 10 minutes later, the father approached the mother and told her to “go get your son” who had been left unattended in an unlocked car. X was asleep and unharmed.
(c)On 1 September 2017, the mother sought crisis accommodation for herself and X through Safe Steps after the father threatened to kill her. In September 2017, Ms W’s children approached the mother and told her that the father had been at their house on several occasions looking for her. Ms W also reported that Country F community elders had attended her house looking for the mother. The mother also alleges she received a phone call from a Country F elder who proposed meeting at Ms W’s house in an attempt to bring the mother and father back together. The mother refused their assistance.
(d)On 22 November 2018, the mother received a call from a blocked number and heard a voice who she recognised to be the father say words to the effect of “I know where you live. I’ll come to your house and you know what I’ll do.” She reported the matter to the Victorian Police by telephone on 24 November 2018, and later in person on 1 January 2019.
(e)In May 2019, the mother was living on AN Street, Suburb G, and observed the father’s car parked outside her home. She alleges that someone in the community told her that the father had moved residence. She was afraid he had moved to a residence close to her home. She saw the father in his car when she went out with X and on another occasion, she saw the father’s car parked near her while she was at the shops. She says the father made eye contact with her. The mother estimates that the father followed her in his car on approximately seven occasions, which made her feel fearful, anxious and afraid. As a result of her concerns, support service Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights (hereinafter “AMWCHR”) helped the mother install safety cameras at her home.
(f)When the mother discussed her concerns with Ms W in December 2019, Ms W agreed she was also concerned for the mother’s safety and recommended the mother “move somewhere very far away.”
(g)The father began calling her mother and sister in Country F on a regular basis throughout 2020 seeking information about the mother’s whereabouts. The mother says the calls were as frequent as every second day, and that the family feared for the mother’s safety and communicated this to her.
(h)As previously noted, Mr T sent the mother harassing Facebook messages, allegedly on behalf of the father, in December 2020.
4.2 The father’s response
The father denies monitoring or following the mother, keeping her under surveillance, or arranging for others to do so. Specifically, the father:
(a)Denies the mother’s allegation about leaving X alone in the car in March 2017.
(b)Denies telephoning the mother in November 2018. He asserts that he was getting engaged to his wife on 22 November 2018, implying the mother falsely accused the father in spite. The father also alleges that the police investigated the mother’s telephone and could not find any call from a private number as she alleged.
(c)Denies moving to an area close to the mother post-separation. He alleges he has always been living in Suburb AC and recently in the Suburb Y area. He has never lived in Suburb G and has never seen the mother there. The father deposes that he was unaware of the mother’s location post-separation until discovering in March 2020 that she had moved to Sydney.
(d)Accepts that he has spoken to the mother’s family in Country F, but denies that he has asked about the mother’s whereabouts.
5. Deprivation of liberty, isolation and social abuse
5.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother alleges that the father engaged in acts intended to socially or spatially isolate her, and deprive her of her liberty and autonomy. For example, the mother alleges that:
(a)In Country R, the father did not allow her to leave the house except for a few occasions. As already noted, limits were placed on her communication with others and her phone calls with her mother were monitored.
(b)When she arrived in Australia, she asked the father to arrange English lessons and was enrolled at AD School. However, after one week, she alleges that the father collected her from the classroom and said to her “you are not allowed to study anymore.” He cancelled her enrolment and enrolled her in a Certificate III in early childhood education.
(c)The father and paternal grandmother then organised for the mother to work at a family day care service.
(d)In June 2016, the mother was speaking to a male cousin on the telephone. The father became angry and removed the phone from her and locked her in her room. The father insulted the cousin over the phone, and refused to give the mother her phone back for a few days. Ms W tried to call the mother and became worried for her safety when she did not respond. She visited the house to check on her and later when they could speak together, Ms W told the mother:
I was really worried when I couldn’t reach you for a few days. I saw on the news that a man had murdered his partner in your area. I was so worried that it might have been you so I came over to your house to check on you.
(e)The father did not support the mother to gain a driver’s licence so that she was dependent upon him to drive her.
(f)He controlled her leaving the house, and at times locked her in the house as a means of control. For example, when the father became enraged after discovering that the mother had secretly enrolled in an English language course in 2016, he punished her by taking her house keys, locking her in the house and failing to replenish the food in the house when she was heavily pregnant. After approximately one week, the hunger became “unbearable,” and the mother escaped the house by using a remote control for the roller garage door and went to the shops to buy food. This led to him assaulting her, as previously noted. When confronted by his mother and Ms W, the father said he took these steps “to teach her not to take my things without my permission.”
(g)Post-separation, her movements were monitored by the father, she was stalked by the father, and was harassed by people at his request, as already outlined.
5.2 The father’s response
The father refutes these allegations and contends that he has “always given the mother full freedom to go and do whatever she wanted.” The father also told Ms O that the mother “was free to go wherever and do whatever she pleased, and she did”.[18] In particular, the father alleges that:
(a)The mother had her own keys to the apartment in Country R and had money of her own. He denies that she was not allowed to leave the house.
(b)He always emotionally and financially supported the mother to study. He alleges that in Country R, he paid for the mother to have English lessons which she attended every day, and provides a document that he says proves this. He further alleges that in Australia, it was the mother’s decision to stop English language classes and instead enrol in an early childhood education course.
(c)It was the mother, rather than the father and paternal grandmother, who found the job at the family day care service operated by Country F contacts.
(d)He denies the mother’s allegations that he took her phone and locked her in her room when she spoke to a male cousin on the phone.
(e)He denies the mother’s allegations of being locked in the house and deprived of food as punishment for secretly enrolling in an English course, as already noted. He says that he was the one who bought groceries and would spend around $250 per week. He also deposes that the mother’s account about escaping the house is implausible because there was no remote controlled garage door in the home.
6. Economic and financial abuse
[18] Ibid, page 12 paragraph 39.
6.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother complains that throughout the relationship, the father placed restrictions on her economic autonomy and denied her access to finances. By way of summary, the mother alleges that:
(a)She was left in Country R alone, with only a small allowance, and no financial autonomy.
(b)Upon the mother commencing work at a family day care service in Australia, the father took the mother to the ANZ Bank to open her own bank account. However, the father prevented her from accessing this account by taking the bankcard and refusing to tell her the PIN. Consequently, the mother was unable to access wages paid to her.
(c)She did not have access to personal finances in Melbourne and the father controlled all money in the household, including buying all necessary items, groceries and paying the bills.
(d)While she was in crisis accommodation, she received assistance to set up her own bank account with NAB and access Newstart payments through Centrelink.
6.2 The father’s response
The father refutes these allegations. Specifically, he deposes that:
(a)The mother enjoyed financial independence, although he financially supported her. He did not control her finances.
(b)He assisted the mother to open an ANZ bank account in Australia but she was the only person with access to the bank account and PIN.
(c)He admits to paying for things such as groceries, accommodation costs and the costs associated with the wife’s immigration to Australia.
7. Cultural and spiritual abuse
The mother alleges that the father engaged with and involved her extended family (both in Australia and Country F), and the broader Country F community in Melbourne, as a means of controlling her.
The mother’s allegations and the father’s responses regarding the involvement of family, friends and the extended Country F community have already been considered and will therefore not be addressed in any further detail under this sub-heading.
8. Exposure to family violence
8.1 The mother’s allegations
The mother alleges that while living in Country R, she was exposed to Mr T committing physical violence against Ms U on several occasions. The mother deposes witnessing Mr T hit Ms U when she was heavily pregnant, and alleges that Mr T dragged the mother away from Ms U on this occasion. The mother also deposes that Mr T slapped her when Ms U ran away.
8.2 The father’s response
The father denies this. He deposes that Mr T was not violent against Ms U and did not physically assault the mother.
What the independent evidence tells us
The absence of an eyewitness account or criminal conviction does not – in and of itself – allow the Court to dismiss contentions about family violence. As was observed by the Full Court in Salah & Salah (2016) FLC 93-713 at [42], “family violence often takes place in private in circumstances where no corroboration is available.”
Further, whilst there are no eyewitness accounts available, this does not mean that there is no evidence to corroborate the mother’s accounts of having reported family violence.
The mother deposes that she reported family violence to a range of external agencies including The P Hospital, Victorian Police, the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “DHHS”), Safe Steps, and AMWCHR.
The tendered material, as well as the actions of the parties, provided corroboration of some of the allegations of family violence made by the mother. For example:
(a)The mother presented at the Emergency Department of The P Hospital on 23 June 2016 in the company of the father who was there to translate. The record indicates that she was 11 weeks pregnant and complained that she had hit her abdomen after she tripped and fell.
(b)On 10 November 2016, the mother attended a routine check-up at Suburb V Health Centre. She was aided by a Country F interpreter. She informed social workers and antenatal care staff that the father had asked her to leave because he wanted to re-marry and have a new wife. When asked about family violence, she confirmed that the father had hit her several times on several occasions across the stomach.[19] She was connected to Safe Steps and arrangements were made for her to access crisis accommodation. The note also recorded that “her in-laws are aware of the situation but are not able to offer any support and say they are sorry for what is happening”.[20]
[19] Exhibit 9, page 22.
[20] Ibid.
(c)The records from Safe Steps confirm that on 10 November 2016, arrangements were made for the mother to receive immediate protection. She specifically reported that she was fearful to return home “due to a F/V incident which occurred 5 days ago, this resulted in the woman needing to seek medical attention as she was hit in the stomach and is 7 months pregnant”.[21] Notes from the mother’s consultations with a social worker at Safe Steps also indicate that she disclosed that the father had made threats to her mother in Country F, and that the father “has threatened to kill the child, and out [sic] it through hell when it is born”.[22]
[21] Ibid, page 34.
[22] Ibid, page 33.
(d)A report was made to the DHHS on 11 November 2016 but was closed as there were “no concerns identified about [the mother’s] ability to seek out family violence support services”.[23]
[23] Ibid, page 4.
(e)On 16 November 2016, The P Hospital prepared a Client at Risk Management Plan for the mother which included a report to child protection services and a referral to Safe Steps. The record corroborates that the mother informed the hospital social worker that there had been incidences of verbal and physical abuse from the father towards her, including being hit across the stomach when pregnant on two occasions. The notes also record that the mother reported being under pressure from her family to return to the relationship with the father.
(f)On 24 November 2016, the social worker progress note from Suburb V Health confirmed that the mother was living in a refuge and had had no contact with the father. It recorded that “she has had contact with her family, who are encouraging her to reunite with her husband” and later that “her family and her husband’s family would be talking to each other at this time” but she did not wish to return to the relationship.[24]
[24] Ibid, page 18.
(g)The records from Safe Steps also reflect that the mother’s decision to leave crisis accommodation and return to living with the father in the matrimonial home on 29 November 2016 was influenced by family members. These records note that: “The perp has promised to the families that he will not become violent or controlling towards women again and will change his behaviour. The families believe him and have said they will intervene if the perp does become abusive again. Woman said she places great value on promises to families”.[25]
[25] Ibid, page 31.
(h)On 19 December 2016, the P Hospital recorded that the mother attended for her routine check-up, but then returned later that day following a fall. The mother denied the existence of family violence, and it was noted that she had reconciled with the father and had returned to living with him. The hospital records also indicate that the father arrived at the hospital with his mother, and acted as her interpreter.
(i)Records from Safe Steps support the mother’s assertion that she was concerned that she was being followed and her movements monitored by the father and family members. For example, when she sought their assistance in 2016, their notes recorded that she had “barred all perp’s family contacts form [sic] her phone as they have been trying to contact woman [sic]”.[26] Records from Safe Steps also confirm that the mother was assisted to receive Centrelink payments in late 2016.
[26] Ibid, page 34.
(j)On 1 September 2017, the mother made contact with Safe Steps and crisis accommodation was provided to her and X. The service observed that the mother had identified experiencing family violence from the father, including physical abuse, and that this had continued since she had last left their crisis accommodation service in November 2016. The notes record that “the perps family put significant pressure on the woman to stay in the relationship. This was why she returned to the relationship after last leaving the service”.[27] Safe Steps records from this date also note that the father had assaulted the mother two weeks prior but had rung her and said: “I will come home and if you won’t do what I want – I will kill you”.[28] Further records from Safe Steps dated 2 September 2017 note that “womansaid [sic] her husband is actively looking fore [sic] her and has waited outside her cousins house in Suburb AE all night”.[29]
[27] Ibid, page 30.
[28] Ibid, page 29.
[29] Ibid.
(k)On 2 September 2017, the Victorian DHHS - Child Protection received a report regarding concerns of family violence perpetrated by the father upon the mother to which X had been exposed. Both parents were interviewed. The father denied the matters raised in the report. As reflected in the letter by a Child Protection Practitioner employed by the DHHS dated 14 November 2017, the Department was “in support of a full intervention order prohibiting the contact of [the father] due to the likelihood of ongoing significant emotional harm, and likelihood of physical harm”.[30] This letter also described “high level concerns held by child protection” arising from the mother’s disclosure of “ongoing physical, emotional and psychological harm perpetrated by” the father.[31]
[30] Affidavit of Ms Moussa filed 3 August 2021, Annexure A, page 29 (“Mother’s Affidavit”).
[31] Ibid.
(l)On 18 October 2017, the mother sought an IVO against the father for the protection of herself and X. On 8 January 2018, further and better particulars were provided in support of that Application. The information contained in the IVO Application corroborates the following matters alleged by the mother:
(i)That on 1 September 2017, the father threatened to kill her.
(ii)That there was an incident at the home involving a verbal argument, physical altercation and property damage, after which the father left the home.
(iii)That the father had been calling her and sending text messages that were abusive and contained threats to kill.
(iv)That there were ongoing physical and verbal assaults throughout the relationship.
(v)That when the mother was seven months pregnant, the father physically assaulted her, kicking her in the stomach and slapping her on the face, causing her to be concerned for the baby’s safety.
(vi)That the relationship was characterised by violent behaviour, including that the father had “threatened to harm me, threatened to kill me, sexual abuse, obsession/jealous behaviours, controlling, thrown things at me, and has physically assaulted me many times”.[32]
[32] Ibid, Annexure A, page 21.
(m)On 7 December 2017, a report was made to DHHS raising concerns that the father had applied to have X removed from the IVO, and that this would potentially place X at risk of harm.
(n)On 14 December 2017, a senior practitioner from Safe Steps confirmed that the mother had been a client of theirs since November 2016. The letter confirmed that “[a] risk assessment was completed with [the mother] on both occasions and it was identified that [the mother] and her child were needing crisis accommodation and family violence crisis support”.[33]
[33] Ibid, Annexure A, page 28.
(o)A letter of support for the IVO sought by the mother was provided by AF Community Services for Women, confirming that they have been supporting the mother and X “around complex family violence issues since September 2017”.[34]
[34] Ibid, Annexure A, page 30.
(p)On 16 April 2018, the father consented to the interim IVO without admissions on the condition that X’s name be removed from the application. The IVO was made final on 12 September 2018 by the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne for the mother’s protection for a period of seven months.
(q)An incident report by Victoria Police dated 24 November 2018 records the mother phoned enquiring about a breach of the IVO due to the father contacting her. She then attended the police station on 24 November 2018 to make a report that the father had called her on two occasions from an unknown number in the past week. The Police recorded that the mother “is in fear that the Resp knows where she is living as they have mutual friends, who are aware of her current address…is fearful that the resp. will come over and assault her as he has been violent in the past”.[35] As a result of the complaint, the Police concluded that contact by the father as alleged was not an offence. This led the Police to seek a variation of the IVO with full conditions preventing the father from contacting the mother. Police records show the updated IVO was issued and served on the father by the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 19 December 2018.
[35] Exhibit 9, page 38.
(r)On 12 December 2018, the mother filed a Notice of Risk. It outlined seven allegations made by her in relation to family violence.
(s)On 19 December 2018, the father applied for an IVO protecting himself from the mother, and made the following allegations:
[She] sent me abusive and threatening messages. She said that I don’t deserve my son, that I should forget about him. She also said that I was lucky she didn’t take me to prison. She also has sent me hundreds of messages which has nothing to do with the parenting arrangements and are only sent to harass me. The last message received was in September 2018.[36]
[36] Mother’s Affidavit, Annexure C, page 42.
(t)On 20 December 2018, a report was received by DHHS in regards to X’s safety. The matter was investigated. Both the mother and father were interviewed in January 2019. The mother repeated her concerns that X would be at risk of harm if he was to spend unsupervised time with the father. The father denied any family violence and advised that he was not engaged with any support services. The following assessment was made:
[The mother] has linked in with appropriate family violence supports and was open to seeking family violence counselling. It was further was [sic] assessed that [X] is not at immediate risk of harm in the mother’s care or during supervised contact with the suitably assessed paternal family. Child protection would hold significant concerns would be held [sic] if [X] was to spend unsupervised time with [the father] given historical family violence perpetrated by [the father] towards [the mother] while they were in a relationship and concerns that [X] was exposed to family violence in utero and after his birth.[37]
[37] Exhibit 9, page 4.
(u)On 1 January 2019, the mother attended Suburb G Police Station at their request to make a further statement regarding the historical family violence matters that she had reported to them on 24 November 2018. She reported the following matters:
(i)“Rape” – she alleged this incident took place at their home in Suburb AG in mid-April 2016 when she was a few weeks pregnant.
(ii)“False imprisonment/reckless conduct endangering injury” - she alleged an incident occurred on around 28 October 2016 when the father locked her in the house with no food for three to four days and later assaulted her.
(iii)“Reckless conduct endangering injury” - she alleged this occurred on 19 December 2016 when the father caused her to fall out of a car, causing grazing to her elbows and knee. She later received medical attention from The P Hospital.
(v)On 1 January 2019, a risk assessment was conducted by the Victorian Police based on the mother’s allegations. The risk assessment tool assessed the risk to the mother as “extreme” and recorded risk indicators of “summary assault, indictable assault, sexual assault, kids in relationship - witnessed event/present, controlling behaviour, intimidation/isolation/jealous behaviour”.[38]
[38] Ibid, page 44.
(w)On 29 January 2019, DHHS wrote to the Court after they were provided with a copy of the Notice of Risk and in accordance with the protocols between the Department and the Court. The three page letter outlined four child protection reports that they had received about X, and recommended that X remain in the care of the mother and that any contact between X and the father should occur in a supervised, gradual and supportive manner. It also recommended that the father undertake a Men’s Behavioural Change Program.
(x)On 5 April 2019, the father was interviewed by Victorian Police in relation to the offences reported by the mother on 1 January 2019. The Police record indicates a decision was made to not lay charges due to insufficient evidence.
(y)On 12 April 2019, the mother filed an application to extend the IVO. This was not defended by the father and the order was extended to 22 May 2024.
(z)On 31 May 2019, AMWCHR received a report from the mother about family violence and assisted her to install CCTV cameras in her home through a family violence package.[39] The mother says she approached the service after she observed the father very close to her house and following her on several occasions. Records from AMWCHR note that upon the mother’s arrival in Sydney, she reported to them that “her ex-husband moved next door to her place, she fears for her safety as she [sic] moved next to her without her knowing”.[40]
(aa)Material was produced from multicultural family support service AH Service which the mother accessed upon her arrival in Sydney in 2019. On that occasion, the mother told a support worker that the father had moved next door to her house in Melbourne, had threatened her last year and that she was fearful for her safety. She had travelled by plane to Sydney, leaving her rental accommodation and possessions behind in Melbourne.
(bb)An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order in similar terms to the Victorian IVO was requested on an ex parte basis on 25 March 2020. At that time, it appears X was added as a protected person. The expiry date of the order was altered to 25 March 2022.
(cc)On 8 December 2020, a family violence case worker from AMWCHR provided a letter in support of the mother. The letter noted that on the basis of the mother’s responses (presumably to a screening or risk assessment tool), the service assessed the mother was at a “severe risk of significant harm”.[41]
(dd)Exchanges between the mother and Mr T via Facebook Messenger on 27 December 2020 were annexed to the mother’s affidavit:
[images of Facebook messages omitted]
(ee)The mother’s doctor prepared a Mental Health Plan on 27 September 2021, which noted “break up due to Domestic violence”.[42]
[39] Mother’s Affidavit, Annexure E, page 50.
[40] Exhibit 9, page 36.
[41] Mother’s Affidavit, Annexure E, page 50.
[42] Exhibit 4.

However, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the father was aware of the mother’s feelings or that it could be described as sexual abuse.
3. Humiliation and threats
I prefer the mother’s account and am satisfied that she received a range of threats and was humiliated by, or on behalf of, the father.
Some of the reasons why the mother’s account is preferred include that:
(a)There is ample independent evidence from other agencies that support the mother’s contentions, as already discussed.
(b)The father could not explain why he applied for an IVO against the mother on the same day that he was served the mother’s application to vary her IVO, especially when the last “harassing” message was allegedly received in September 2018. Furthermore, he provided no evidence to support the allegations contained in his Application and Summons for Intervention Order which leaves the Court to conclude that it was a retaliatory, and threatening action.
(c)The Facebook messages sent by Mr T to the mother (as included above) were distressing, offensive and threatening. Whilst the father complains that the mother sent a threatening message to Mr T, this is a disingenuous description of the exchange between Mr T and the mother. The mother’s response was hardly threatening in all of the circumstances. I accept her evidence that she responded in the manner that she did as a way of masking her fear.
4. Following, harassing and monitoring
The mother’s evidence regarding her time in Country R was tested, and there was no evidence that would lead me to the conclusion that she was held hostage there. However, I accept that she was young, felt intimidated by both the father and his brother, and perhaps felt overwhelmed with the circumstances she found herself in. This is examined in more detail in the following section.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the father regularly contacted family members of the mother and his own family and asked them to intervene in the relationship on his behalf.
The father contends that by November 2018, he had moved on with his life. He was engaged and had no interest in the mother or the manner in which she led her life. The mother was unable to produce any corroborative evidence from this time to support her contention that the father continued to follow and monitor her movements in the Suburb G area.
In the absence of corroborative evidence regarding the father’s behaviour post-separation, I need to prefer one version over another. I prefer the mother’s evidence to that of the father. The factors that lead me to prefer the mother’s evidence are:
(a)The mother’s responses indicate that she was fearful as a result of the conduct, and therefore acted protectively and with concern by:
(i)Seeking out refuge accommodation instead of staying with Ms W;
(ii)Blocking the father’s family from making contact by telephone;
(iii)Reporting her concerns in a timely manner to the Victorian Police;
(iv)Consistently seeking to extend the IVO;
(v)Seeking the assistance of AMWCHR in May 2019; and
(vi)Her actions in fleeing from Melbourne to Sydney with no possessions, and the reasons for leaving she gave to support workers in Sydney, support her contention that she continued to live in fear for her life in Melbourne.
The father gave evidence that he was living in Suburb AC at the time, yet did not provide the Court with evidence of his living arrangements during the period between 2018 and 2019. I do not accept his account and find that he had reason to be in the same location as the mother on a daily basis (whether her sightings of him were coincidence or not) for the following reasons:
(a)He gave evidence that he met his current wife, who lived in the same suburb as the mother, in 2018. His evidence was that despite the engagement and marriage, they lived apart. He did not explain his reason for this. Nor could he remember when they started living together, although he said it was after their child M’s birth. He offered that while they lived apart, he visited his wife (and child) in Suburb G every day and at night as well.
(b)He was a transport worker who had cause to be in the Suburb G area.
(c)The first parenting agreement required changeover at Suburb G library.
(d)The father led no evidence to support his contention that he lived elsewhere. The father’s wife was not on affidavit, nor were the family members with whom he lived. No documentary evidence that could have proved his residential address was provided.
(e)Despite seeking an IVO for his protection in November 2018, alleging that the mother had sent him “hundreds” of “abusive and threatening messages” as a form of harassment, no evidence of this was provided and he later withdrew his application. This is made more dubious in circumstances where he was able to annex to his affidavit and have translated a range of messages exchanged with the mother in 2013.
5. Deprivation of liberty, isolation and social abuse
Under cross-examination, the mother conceded that she had left the house in Country R to attend English classes for two weeks, rather than only leaving the house on three occasions as she deposed in her affidavit. It was also clear that the father only stayed for a few weeks and after that time, she was allowed to move around freely.
However, it must be recognised that the mother arrived in Country R as a young person who spoke no Country R and no English. It was her first visit to a country outside of Country F. It is quite possible that for the first three weeks the father was there, he protected and supported her by ensuring that she only left the home in his company. It would appear that he also held her passport when he visited Country R.
When asked about the mother’s circumstances of arriving in Country R, Ms O concurred that she would have been a vulnerable person.
Further, it was suggested to the mother that when she was in Country R, she was free to return to Country F at any time. This seems implausible. She received an allowance of $200 per month from the father, and he paid for her accommodation and travel arrangements from Country F. He was responsible for sponsoring her to Australia. There were also promises made with the mother’s family in Country F as part of the marriage arrangements. With her limited grasp of English and Country R, the father would have been the only conduit of information to her.
Similarly, when the mother arrived in Australia, she by necessity relied upon the father, who was older than her, had a good command of English and had a lived experience with Australian systems and agencies.
In addition, annexed to the father’s affidavit is a letter from the Director-General of Immigration Country R dated 2013 confirming approval of the mother’s student pass application, and disclosing the costs of the visa. The father relied upon this letter to demonstrate that he had encouraged the mother to learn English by paying for the classes. However, I am not satisfied that this letter can lead to that conclusion when it appears that enrolment in an English school was a visa requirement of her entry as a foreign student studying in Country R.
Therefore, I find that the mother was socially and spatially isolated by virtue of both her circumstances and the conduct of the father. Her experience of social and spatial isolation included:
(a)Being denied access to educational autonomy;
(b)Having restrictions imposed on her movement by locking doors, removing her keys and telephone and monitoring her whereabouts; and
(c)Regulating her communication with family and friends.
6. Economic and financial abuse
Presumably, the father not only sponsored the mother to Australia but was responsible for all of the costs associated with her travel and upkeep in Country R. Given her limited English on arrival in Australia, it is understandable that the father was the sole financial provider in the relationship and therefore controlled the family expenses.
Although controlling the family finances doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of controlling and coercive behaviour, the lack of economic autonomy or agency the behaviour causes the mother may.
I accept the mother’s evidence about this and find that she had no control or access to the first bank account set up by the father, and that she lived on cash allowances he gave her throughout the marriage.
7. Cultural and spiritual abuse
The mother alleges that the father involved her extended family in Australia and Country F, and the broader Country F community in Melbourne, to control her.
The involvement of family, friends and the extended Country F community has been the subject of consideration and findings already.
Therefore, on the basis of those considerations and findings, I further find that:
(a)The mother was betrothed to the father in Country F by their older male relatives, in accordance with Country F law and custom, by proxy in her absence. In doing so, her families entered into a contract, and any attempts by her to leave the marriage or disobey her husband were not supported by either family.
(b)On several occasions, she attempted to leave the home and the relationship, and on each occasion her family and community intervened at the request of the father. While pregnant, this occurred when she stayed with Ms W and later in November 2016 when she was housed in crisis accommodation for two weeks.
(c)When the father removed a telephone from the mother, or listened into her calls, he was acting to silence her.
(d)The father used (or misused) cultural practices and traditions to normalise abusive behaviour but gave no evidence to support this.
(e)At different points, the father involved elders from the Country F community to pressure the mother to return to the marriage and in doing so, he suppressed the abusive behaviours she was taking steps to escape, and prevented her from seeking the support she needed at that time.
(f)He arranged for the local Muslim leader (Imam) to meet the mother and present her with a document written in Country F, signed by the father, setting out a parenting arrangement that allowed the father to see X. As deposed by the mother, she felt pressured by the Imam, members of her family and the Country F community to enter into the agreement. She also alleges that the Imam encouraged her not to proceed with the IVO and to return to living with the father.
8. Exposure to family violence
I prefer the mother’s evidence about this.
The findings already made allow the Court to accept that X was present and exposed to family violence in the household and in utero. For example:
(a)The father’s actions caused the mother to be hit on or near her stomach when she was pregnant with X, potentially causing stress to X in utero.
(b)As a young baby, X was present in the home when the mother was assaulted by the father, and witnessed household items being damaged.
(c)X witnessed the aftermath of the violence between his parents. We have little understanding of its impact, but his experience seems to have included:
(i)Staying in emergency accommodation with his mother;
(ii)Witnessing his mother talking to family violence workers, child protection officers and police;
(iii)Being removed from an area he grew up in and from people he was familiar with and moving to Sydney with his mother in an environment of stress; and
(iv)Observing his mother’s behaviour in response to her safety fears.
Did the father engage in behaviour that caused the mother to be fearful?
I have not made positive findings about whether each incident of family violence alleged by the mother occurred. It is also possible that in grouping behaviour together to make findings, I have been in error. However, because coercive control is, by its nature, a pattern of abusive behaviour, being in error in making a finding will not by necessity defeat the conclusion that the mother experienced coercive and controlling family violence.
As already noted, family violence is defined in section 4AB(1) of the Act as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful.
(Emphasis in original)
In Illgen & Yike [2018] FamCA 17 at [120] the Full Court referred to the judgment of Bryant CJ in Saska & Radavich [2016] FamCAFC 179 at [67] which examined the alternatives provided by the definition in section 4AB:
…to be clear, family violence as defined in the Act does not need to be coercive or controlling (although it may be), if there is violent, threatening or other behaviour that causes a family member to be fearful. Or, alternatively, such behaviour that coerces or controls a person will constitute family violence. Hence, the examples that are given in s 4AB subsection (2) which give context to the meaning of subsection (1).
Therefore, based on the findings made, section 4AB is satisfied. However, if I am wrong, I will now consider whether the father engaged in violent, threatening or other behaviour that caused the mother to be fearful – a possible alternative finding that would also satisfy the statutory definition of family violence. This analysis is also included because it assists in later understanding the impact of the mother having direct contact with the father.
The Mother’s Argument
When the ICL put to the mother the proposition that she was not afraid of the father, she denied this, expressly stating: “No, I am fearful of the father, his family and his brother.”
This is consistent with the mother’s insistence of her fear of the father in her affidavit. For example, the mother deposes that:
(a)She was fearful of the father and Mr T in Country R;
(b)After she received the call from the father post-separation, she felt “so fearful that I called 000.”
(c)Seeing the father in the Suburb G area made her “feel fearful, anxious and afraid.” Because the mother “felt afraid all of the time” that the father would continue to follow her or harm her and X, she contacted AMWCHR and installed safety cameras.
(d)The mother deposes that she continues “to live in extreme fear of Mr Ramzi.”
The mother also deposed in her affidavit that she is fearful that Mr T would harm her or X if they returned to Melbourne due to the threatening messages he sent her, and her previous exposure to his physical abuse of Ms U.
The father’s argument
The father argued that the mother’s actions did not always demonstrate a requisite degree of fear. For example, annexed to the father’s affidavit are translations of some SMS messages between him and the mother from 2013 and 2014. He says they demonstrate a loving relationship between them, in contrast to the mother’s evidence.
The father also relied upon a chronology of events to argue that rather than the mother having been the victim of a coercive and controlling relationship, it was she who was spiteful and took actions against him in a malicious manner intended to cause harm.
For example, the father argues that on 13 November 2018 the mother was served with his Initiating Application and one week later, in retribution, the mother complained to the police that the father had contacted her in contravention of the IVO.
Furthermore, the father gave evidence of the mother’s unreliable attendance and compliance with the contact arrangements in 2019. Annexed to his affidavit is a letter from J Contact Centre indicating that the mother had been warned twice for her breaches of the service agreement which included being substantially late and missing scheduled visits without notice. On the last contact visit on 5 October 2019, the mother was 65 minutes late dropping off X, and 20 minutes late collecting him.
The father therefore argues that the Court should view the mother’s conduct as reflecting a belligerent parent who is not prepared to facilitate a meaningful relationship between him and his son, rather than a woman in fear of her safety.
Conclusions about fear
Fear can arise from a culmination of events and patterns of behaviour. For this reason, the whole of the father’s conduct must be considered to understand whether the mother feared the father and how her fear, if reasonably held, has impacted her actions and behaviour post-separation, as well as how it may impact upon her future interactions with the father.
Ultimately, I accept that the mother was in fear of the father as a result of his violent and threatening behaviour, as already discussed above, for the following reasons:
(a)At the commencement of the relationship, the mother was a young woman with limited education, English and worldly experience. She was dependent upon the father for his support in most aspects of her life. This set the groundwork for a relationship defined by power and control and impacted on all aspects of the mother’s life including her ability to travel, enjoy financial independence and communicate with friends and family.
(b)It is not surprising that in the early stages of the relationship the mother sent romantic messages to the father in the hope that deep love and affection would grow between them. The existence of such messages does not disprove that she lived in fear of the father.
(c)The father’s argument that the mother’s behaviour is influenced by her desire to deny him a relationship with X, rather than fear, overlooks that the mother has been consistent in expressing her fears about her and X’s safety for an extended period of time. In fact, the mother’s failure to engage with parenting arrangements and court processes is perhaps itself reflective of the ongoing fears that she held for her safety.
The mother explained her non-compliance with the spend time arrangements by reference to her allegations that X returned from contact dirty, and on one occasion, bruised in September and October 2019. However, there was nothing before the Court to support this allegation. This was not an honest account by the mother, and did not justify a cessation of the father’s time with X. However it is viewed as being the consequence of the profoundly negative, fearful and distrustful view the mother formed of the father.
(d)As already discussed, the father had reason to be in the Suburb G area on a regular basis in 2018 and 2019 as alleged by the mother. Although unable to make any findings as to whether the father intentionally or deliberately observed the mother and X, the Court cannot discount that the mother did see the father in her local area and this caused her to fear for her safety.
(e)While the father had limited personal contact with the mother from late 2017 onwards, he continued to exercise power and control which caused her to be fearful. As already discussed, examples of this included his constant communication with her family members and his shifting responsibility for the family violence that occurred by applying for an IVO in circumstances where he could not possibly have been fearful of the mother.
(f)There is evidence from many agencies (such as AMWCHR, the police, DHHS, and Safe Steps), including risk assessment processes completed from 2016 to 2019, that corroborate that the mother was expressing repeated and consistent concerns for her safety.
(g)The mother’s fear for her safety led to her fleeing to Sydney with X, leaving her furniture, car and all other possessions in Melbourne. On arrival she went straight to the Suburb AM Police Station to seek assistance and was referred to AH Service who arranged crisis accommodation.

The Court therefore concludes that the mother’s responses are consistent with a person in fear of her safety. Whilst this Court will not condone her actions in breaching court orders and removing X from Victoria, I am left to conclude that they were the actions of a young, vulnerable and fearful woman who did not understand the Australian legal system, nor the potential consequences of her actions.
Does the father pose an unacceptable risk to the child?
Ms O was asked about the risks that the father’s behaviour posed to X in the event that findings of family violence were made. She observed that the behaviour described by the mother could raise serious concerns that the father might be physically violent towards X, use harsh forms of punishment with X and be severely controlling with him. Ms O also suggested that if the father continued to behave in this manner towards his wife, this too had the potential to expose X to violence. She observed that exposure of a child to violent and abusive behaviour would likely cause X “significant fear, and exposure to frightening/threatening incidences [which] can cause a child to be anxious, withdrawn, or depressed…[and can] have a negative impact on a child’s behaviour and development”.[51]
[51] Ibid, page 20 paragraph 65.
The father argues that the mother could not possibly have thought he was an unacceptable risk to X in circumstances where she offered to leave X in his care for a five week period. I have viewed the email exchange between the lawyers on 1 November 2019 when the mother sought to travel on a holiday to Country F with X. As the father himself admits, nothing came of this. Under cross-examination, the mother agreed that the email had been sent on her instructions but deposed: “I was facing huge pressure from my family for me to return to Country F but it wasn’t something I was happy about, I sent [the] email under those circumstances.” I view this email exchange as indicative of both the mother’s stress levels at that time and the “cycles of violence” referred to earlier. It is important to note that within one month of the father’s refusal to allow the mother to travel to Country F, she had relocated to Sydney.
The father also argues that the mother’s communication with his family members indicates that she did not have fears for her safety. His sister Ms H was a credible witness, and gave evidence about her role in communicating contact arrangements with the mother and assisting with changeovers at Suburb G Library. She deposed that the mother was never abusive or confrontational at changeovers, but provided text messages that tend to suggest rude communication by the mother on at least one occasion.
The father’s frustration at the mother’s behaviour and conduct since separation is perhaps understandable. The mother openly admitted that her behaviour at times was belligerent and hostile because she wanted to mask from the father her fears and vulnerabilities. Ms O observed that the mother’s responses to the father, for example when sending the recording of X in October 2020, could be viewed as a misguided attempt to assert her own power and control, in retaliation for what has happened. She concluded that there were a range of circumstances that may have caused the mother to behave in a way that may not be viewed as appropriate, however this may be a reflection of her lack of experience or cultural differences regarding parenting. Thus, Ms O recommended viewing the mother’s behaviour with understanding.
Looking beyond the manner in which the mother communicated with the paternal family, it is clear that the mother has at all times acted protectively. For example, the mother has consistently sought that the father’s time with X be supervised.
Consequently, I am satisfied on the evidence given in these proceedings that there is an unacceptable risk that X will be physically and/or psychologically harmed from being exposed to family violence by the father or another person in the father’s household.
As held by the Full Court in Keane & Keane (2021) Fam LR 190, if a Court finds that a parent represents an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, then unless that risk is able to be sufficiently managed, the best interests of the child may require an order prohibiting that parent from spending time or communicating with the child. As observed by Bennett J in Garrod & Davenort [2018] FamCA 825 at [220], this extends to cases involving coercive controlling violence:
Every child is entitled to be kept safe from harm. Precautions must be proportionate to the harm identified. It does not follow that a cessation of time is reserved only for perpetrators of physically life threatening violence.
Even if I am wrong in concluding that the father presents an unacceptable risk of harm to X, the Court should still take into account the mother’s emotional response to that risk, which I have concluded are genuinely held.
Therefore, I will now consider whether this unacceptable risk, as well as the mother’s stress and anxiety regarding potential harm to X, can be ameliorated.
Can the risk be ameliorated?
The first consideration is whether the father is in a position to meaningfully address the risk issues in some way.
On 30 January 2019, the father agreed to orders that he enrol in and complete a Men’s Behavioural Change Program. The mother deposed that on 13 April 2021, she was advised by the Men’s Behavioural Change group that the father had left the group without completing the program.
When the father was interviewed by Ms O, he advised her that he had completed the program. However, when asked about this under cross-examination, the father agreed that he had only attended two sessions.
Under cross-examination, Ms O gave evidence that the purpose of these programs was to raise insight and help people take responsibility for violent and abusive relationships by helping them to understand the impact of their behaviour on victims. This, in turn, hopefully brings about change in their behaviour so they do not repeat the behaviour in future relationships.
The father provided a range of cogent reasons for his failure to complete the program. He said that the challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the mother’s departure from Victoria with X, meant he lost the motivation to continue the program. When I asked him if he would now do anything different with his wife and child M, he said he would not “because the way I was and the way I am now is totally the same.”
Although Ms O agreed that the father’s reasons for failing to complete the program represented a sincere or credible explanation, ultimately her observation was that the father had not completed the program and took no responsibility for any family violence. She was further concerned that the father had not been honest with her about his completion of the program. Moreover, when it was put to Ms O that the father said he would not do anything differently in his new relationship, she was concerned that because he has not shown any insight or taken any responsibility, there was a high likelihood of him repeating such behaviour in the future.
This presents a difficulty for the Court, having now made findings of family violence. With the father displaying an inability to demonstrate insight about the impact of his behaviour or a desire to change it, X remains at an unacceptable risk of harm.
I have also considered the support that the father has received throughout these proceedings from his large family, the Country F community in Melbourne and the pastoral support from his Imam. This support is perhaps akin to a double-edged sword.
The mother alleges that the paternal family members covered up the family violence and the coercive and controlling behaviour that she experienced. These allegations are supported by accounts that the mother gave to other agencies during the relationship and have been set out earlier. The father’s wife was not on affidavit and her protective capacity could not be tested. Notably, she was interviewed for the purposes of the Family Report. This led Ms O to observe under cross-examination that if the father’s wife was “covering up,” it would give the mother additional reason not to trust leaving X in their care. Furthermore, although Ms H was credible and was put forward as a potential supervisor of the father’s time with X, she did not accept that the father was a risk to X and gave no evidence about protective measures she would take to protect X.
The father also openly admitted to having regular communication with the mother’s family in Country F and did not appear to understand why this ongoing communication would have a negative impact on the mother.
Ms O was concerned that the behaviour alleged by the mother was extremely severe, and if her evidence was accepted, there would be potential risks for X’s safety and well-being. She recommended in light of the concerns raised “that X only spend supervised time with his father, or no time at all…”.[52]
[52] Ibid, page 24 paragraph 75.
Ms O was also asked to comment on any other orders that could be made to mitigate against these risks and potentially allow the relationship to prosper. She observed that this matter is complicated by cultural issues and the use of interpreters.
Notably, in Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303, the Full Court emphasised that it is not for the Court to find a solution which will eliminate any chance of serious harm. Rather, it is to balance the harm that will follow if the risk is not minimised or removed against a healthy relationship between a parent and a child not being permitted to prosper.
Therefore, during cross-examination, Ms O was also asked her views on how a meaningful relationship between X and both parents might be achieved in the face of such hostility between them. On this, she said:
Even in the event, if there is no risk to his safety with the father, it is going to be a really complicated situation for him to spend time with his father because there is such animosity between the mother and the father and father’s family. If say one of dad’s family members sends mum a message saying you’re awful – then suddenly she’s anxious, she’s depressed, she’s distracted when she should be caring for [X] or not being able to give him the best home life experience. At some point you wonder do we let him off the hook? Is his life going to be a lot more calmer, peaceful if it’s him with his mother without her experiencing conflict and hostility that might be persistent and quite constant if there’s orders made for ongoing contact? But then he’s going to miss out on the opportunity of having a relationship with his father who he could have a great time with, it’s really tricky.
Furthermore, when asked about therapeutic processes that might be suitable in circumstances where the mother doesn’t feel safe, Ms O expressed the following view in cross-examination:
I would say not. She certainly has been very clear with me that she says that Mr [Ramzi] was abusive towards her. The abuse she alleges is really really significant and can’t be understated. She feels that there is a risk to her son’s safety because of it. If orders were then made for [X] to spend time with his father, I think that would be incredibly hard for her – create huge anxiety for her, and emotionally distressing and she would have to rely a lot on support services which she seems to be well engaged with. But I don’t think there will be anything that will change her mind and make her suddenly supportive of it, if that’s been her experience.
This leads me to the important consideration of the impact of any orders on the mother’s parenting capacity. Under cross-examination, the mother agreed that she struggled with anxiety, panic disorders and depression. She is currently engaged with a local health service and domestic violence worker. Her GP has made a referral for her under a Mental Health Plan. Medical notes taken recently record the mother’s social isolation and lack of family and social support. The mother gave evidence, and I observed that she was genuinely distressed, at the prospect of X spending time with the father and being exposed to the parental family and broader community in Melbourne.
This is particularly relevant insofar as it relates to any role the mother might play in facilitating a relationship between X and the father. Ms O expressed great caution about the impact of orders that allowed a resumption of contact between the father and X. As she observed, “…it may be extremely distressing for her to facilitate X developing a bond with someone who has behaved in such a violent, abusive, and threatening manner towards her”.[53] Therefore, Ms O suggested that “long-term supervised contact may not be advisable”.[54]
[53] Ibid, pages 24-25 paragraph 76.
[54] Ibid.
Ms O also cautioned that any orders putting the parents into direct contact with each other provided opportunities for the father to be violent, controlling and emotionally abusive towards the mother. In the event that X was exposed to this, it would likely have a negative impact on his mental well-being and development, and could have a very negative impact on the mother’s emotional state and functioning, which may then negatively impact her parenting and X’s home life. Even if measures were put in place to prevent any direct contact or communication between the parents, Ms O predicted that the father might use X as a weapon to try and control or cause distress to the mother, which could have a negative impact on X, the mother and their relationship. She concluded that if findings of family violence were made and the mother’s allegations were accepted, the safety and well-being of the mother and X may be at significant risk if X were to spend time with the father.
I find that the mother holds a rational and genuine belief that X is at risk in the care of the father. In the event that orders were made for X to spend time with the father, this would cause the mother stress and anxiety, and would impact upon her capacity to parent X.
Although the Court generally exercises great caution when imposing indefinite supervision of time between a child and a parent,[55] in circumstances like those presented here the only available options are to either impose permanent supervision on X’s time with the father or to sever their personal interaction altogether.
[55] See for example Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573 at 583-584, 591; Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407 at [209]-[215], [219]-[225]; Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 at [119].
The father gave evidence that if X were ordered to remain in Sydney, he was not asking for an order for supervised time in Sydney as he does not have the financial means to continue with supervised arrangements. The father indicated that he would prefer to have video contact if that were the case.
Ms O proffered that even an order for supervised time between X and the father would be difficult because it would have such a negative impact on the mother. There are no obvious measures that could be put in place to prevent direct contact between the mother and the father via an electronic medium. Its use does not prevent X from being used as a weapon to try and control or cause distress to the mother. Therefore, in my view it is not a viable option in this case.
Moreover, any orders for supervised time would require some communication between the parents, or the mother and members of the paternal family. They would also require complicated arrangements that may potentially lead to further proceedings. I am therefore not prepared to make orders for supervision over an extended period of time. Furthermore, given the findings I have made above, I am not convinced that such an order would be in X’s best interests.
Conclusions on orders
I find no orders that I can make will mitigate against the risks posed by the father. Evaluating the considerations discussed above, I have concluded that the risk to X is so great that it leads to an order for no time.
The presumption in section 61DA(1) of the Act, that is, it is in the best interests of the child that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility, has been rebutted as there are reasonable grounds to believe the father has engaged in family violence.
Practically, the father resides in Victoria. The mother has made all of the major decisions in relation to X and I have no concerns about her judgment on issues relating to his welfare. The ICL supports this. For those reasons, an order giving the mother sole parental responsibility will be made.
The mother also sought a range of injunctions pursuant to section 68B of the Act. Given the findings that have been made and the order for no time, I will make the injunctions as sought by the mother.
No submissions were made by the ICL or the legal representative for the father on the issue of what orders are appropriate in circumstances where a no time order was made.
Importantly, these orders are not intended to sever on a final basis the relationship between X and the paternal family. They will, however, defer the development of that relationship until X is much older. In the meantime, it is reasonable to expect the mother to provide the father with information on the following matters:
(a)A copy of X’s annual school report;
(b)An annual written update on X’s progress including educational, sporting and other extracurricular activities;
(c)A photograph of X; and
(d)Information on any serious medical conditions or injuries experienced by X within 24 hours of such event occurring.
This material will be forwarded by the mother to an email or other electronic address nominated by the father, on an annual basis each year. The mother is permitted to anonymise any documents so as to ensure that her location remains undisclosed to the father.
The father will be permitted to send a message to X each year on his birthday via the electronic platform nominated by the father.
The injunctions made under section 68B will serve to ensure that the parties only approach each other and/or engage in communication pursuant to these Orders.
X is currently on the Family Law Watchlist. The mother indicates she would like the opportunity to visit Country F with X in the future. She says it is important that he know his maternal family who live in Country F. She gave evidence that he regularly spoke to his maternal grandmother and cousins and she would like the opportunity to travel with X to Country F to visit them. Country F is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.
Given the Orders that have been made today, the issue of travel should be resolved now to avoid the mother having to contact the father or return to Court on another occasion. I will therefore make the orders she is seeking.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and eighty-seven (288) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Beckhouse.
Associate:
Dated: 4 November 2022

File number(s):	MLC 12613 of 2018
Judgment of:	JUDGE BECKHOUSE
Date of judgment:	4 November 2022
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Family violence – Coercion and control – Physical violence– Sexual abuse – Humiliation – Threats – Harassment – Monitoring – Deprivation of liberty – Isolation – Social abuse – Economic and financial abuse – Cultural abuse – Spiritual abuse – Exposure to family violence – Arranged marriage – Fear – Unacceptable risk – Application that child spend no time with a parent –Impact on mother’s parenting capacity – Mitigation of risk – Orders made for sole parental responsibility – Injunctive orders – No time ordered
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC(2), 60CC(3)
Cases cited:	Adamson & Adamson (2014) FLC 93-622 Amador & Amador (2009) 43 Fam LR 268 Ramzi & Moussa [2021] FCCA 103 Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146 *Britt & Britt* (2017) FLC 93-764 Champness & Hanson (2009) FLC 93-407 Garrod & Davenort [2018] FamCA 825 Hendy & Penningh (2018) FLC 93-879 Illgen & Yike [2018] FamCA 17 Isles & Nelissen (2022) FedCFamC1A 97 Keane & Keane (2021) 62 Fam LR 190 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361 McCall & Clark (2009) FLC 93-405 Moose & Moose (2008) FLC 93-375 Napier & Hepburn (2006) FLC 93-303 Salah & Salah (2016) FLC 93-713 Saska & Radavich [2016] FamCAFC 179 Slater & Light (2013) 48 Fam LR 573
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	288
Date of hearing:	21-23 February 2022
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Boden of Starnet Legal Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Schroder
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Legal Aid NSW Bankstown Family Law
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Holmes of Holmes Donnelly & Co Solicitors

MLC 12613 of 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR RAMZI Applicant
AND:	MS MOUSSA Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

order made by:	JUDGE BECKHOUSE
DATE OF ORDER:	4 NOVEMBER 2022