Reina & Oates
[2025] FedCFamC2F 519
•28 April 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Reina & Oates [2025] FedCFamC2F 519
File number(s): DGC 1395 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS Date of judgment: 28 April 2025 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – final orders – five-year-old child – nine/five arrangement – insight into parental behaviour – high parental conflict – parent’s abilities to meet the child’s needs – child’s best interests met by swapping nine/five arrangement in favour of father’s time – child live with the father and sole parental responsibility for decision making. Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 ss 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 65D
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 8.20
Cases cited: Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 131 Date of hearing: 11 – 14 March 2025 Place: Dandenong Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Mallet KC Solicitor for the Applicant: Berry Family Law Representative for the Respondent: Appearing in Person Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Tesoriero Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Inclusive Family Law & Mediation ORDERS
DGC 1395 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR REINA
Applicant
AND: MS OATES
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:
28 APRIL 2025
THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:
1.The father be allocated sole decision-making for all major long-term decisions for the child X born in 2020 (“X”).
2.For the purpose of order 1 the father shall (save in the case of emergency) consult with the mother as follows:
(a)advise the mother of any long-term decision proposed;
(b)seek the mother’s input and give due consideration to any input that she seeks to be considered; and
(c)advise the mother of the ultimate decision made by him.
3.X live with the father.
4.X spend time with the mother as follows:
(a)during Victorian Gazetted school terms in a two-week rotating cycle, in week 1, commencing Thursday 20 March 9.00am (or 3.30pm or conclusion of school once X attends school) until commencement of kindergarten/school (or 9.00am if not a kindergarten/school day) on Monday; and
(b)during Victorian Gazetted school terms in a two-week rotating cycle, in week 2, commencing Thursday 27 March from 9.00am (or 3.30pm or conclusion of school once X attends school) until commencement of kindergarten/school (or 9.00am if not a kindergarten/school day) on Friday;
(c)for school holidays as agreed between the parties in writing, and in default of agreement:
(i)during the term holidays with the father in the first half and the mother the second half in odd years;
(ii)during the term holidays with the mother in the first half and the father the second half in even years; and
(iii)during the long summer holidays, the time in order 4(a) continue until the Christmas period defined as from 5.00pm on 23 December until 5.00pm on 27 December (“the Christmas period”);
(iv)In 2025 and all odd numbered years, during the Christmas period with the father and from the conclusion of the Christmas period on a week about basis commencing with the father and concluding with X in the father’s care at 5.00pm two days prior to the commencement of school;
(v)In 2026 and all even number years, during the Christmas period with the mother and from the conclusion of the Christmas period on a week about basis commencing with the mother and concluding with X in the father’s care at 5.00pm two days prior to the commencement of school;
(d)for such other and further times as agreed between the parties in writing.
5.X spend time with each parent on her birthday and to facilitate the same in default of agreement, whichever parent does not have X waking up in their care pursuant to these orders will collect her from school (or at 3.30pm in the event it is not a school day) and return her to the care of the other parent at 7.00pm.
6.X spend time with the father and mother respectively on Father’s Day and Mother’s Day from 11.00am until 3.00pm.
7.Unless otherwise agreed, changeover occur either at X’s kindergarten, school, or on non-school days at the closest McDonalds to X’s school (currently Suburb B).
8.Both parents be at liberty to communicate with any school or educational institution that X attends and participate in and attend all events, such as parent-teacher interviews, performances and sports days, and to receive information ordinarily provided to parents at their individual expense and these Orders shall act as an authority for the same.
9.Both parents:
(a)be at liberty to participate in and attend all extracurricular activities that X participates or is enrolled in, including but not limited to sports and music;
(b)shall provide each other with all the necessary details in relation to any extracurricular activity in which they have enrolled X; and
(c)are not obliged to ensure that X attends any extracurricular activity which falls within their scheduled time with her, and which she was enrolled in solely by the other parent.
10.Both parents be at liberty to communicate with any doctor or health care professional that X attends and these Orders shall act as an authority for the same.
11.Each parent inform the other with no less than 42 days' prior written notice if they intend to travel overseas with X, unless they are travelling for an emergency, such as the serious illness or death of a relative, and the non-travelling parent must not unreasonably refuse the travel request.
12.The parents do all things and sign all documents necessary to obtain and renew an Australian passport for X and do all things and sign all documents that may be necessary for X to travel as and when required, and the father shall retain the passport when X is not travelling with either parent.
13.Each parent, if requested by the other, when intending to travel outside of Australia with X provide to the requesting parent an itinerary containing the details of their proposed travel plans, with such itinerary to include at least:
(a)the destination(s);
(b)the arrival and departure dates and times, including flight numbers if applicable;
(c)the address(es) of where X will be staying; and
(d)a contact telephone number for X.
14.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, neither parent may travel with X in excess of 28 days at a time.
15.Unless otherwise agreed between the parents in writing, neither parent may travel with X to any country or territory that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
16.In the event that the travelling parent's proposed travel plans with X interfere with the non-travelling parent’s time with X, the non-travelling parent is entitled to make-up time if requested.
17.The parties shall have leave to provide a copy of these Orders to any educational institution that X is enrolled in.
18.Both parents:
(a)keep the other advised at all times of their current residential address, email address and mobile telephone number, and notify the other in writing within 24 hours of any changes to any of these;
(b)provide to the other 28 days' written notice of any proposed change to their residential address;
(c)immediately notify the other of any medical emergency, illness or injury requiring treatment or consultation with a medical practitioner or allied health professional suffered by X whilst she is in their care;
(d)keep the other informed in writing as to any medical professional or other qualified person that they propose to consult in relation to X;
(e)list the other as next of kin of X and provide their details to any medical practitioner that attends upon X; and
(f)keep the other informed in writing as to any non-school extra-curricular activities concerning X, including the times to ensure both parents are able attend any such extra-curricular activities.
19.Both parents are restrained by injunction from:
(a)abusing, insulting, belittling or otherwise denigrating the other parent or members of the others parent’s family to, or in the presence of X, or allowing X to remain in the presence of any third party engaging in such behaviour;
(b)discussing these proceedings or allowing X to read the contents of any material filed in these proceedings, or related to these proceedings;
(c)consuming any illicit drugs or consuming alcohol beyond the drink-driving limit whilst X is in their care;
(d)inflicting any form of corporal punishment on X or allowing any third party to do so; and
(e)permitting any other person from doing any of the above in X’s presence or hearing and both parents will do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent X from being exposed to any such behaviour.
20.All Orders above providing how X is to spend time or communicate with the parents are subject to any alternative written agreement reached between them.
21.The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s appointment be discharged.
22.All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:
This is a parenting matter concerning X (“X”) who is five years of age.
The respondent mother, Ms Oates (“the mother”) has been X’s primary carer since she was born.
X currently spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant father, Mr Reina (“the father”).
The father and Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) now seek a change of X’s care arrangements such that she live in the primary care of the father and spend five nights per fortnight during school terms with the mother.
The father and ICL promote these orders on the basis that the father is better able to provide stability of care for X, and that he is more likely to promote a relationship with the mother than the other way around.
The mother proposes orders for a slight increase in X’s time with the father, such that X spend six nights per fortnight with the father.
Each of the parents seeks that they have sole parental responsibility for all major long-term decisions for X.
BACKGROUND
The parties commenced their relationship in or about February 2019.
Their only child, X, was born in 2020.
The father’s evidence is that the parties separated under the one roof on 21 October 2022.
The mother says the parties separated in February 2023 when the police issued a family violence safety notice on behalf of the mother, which caused the father to be removed from the former matrimonial home at C Street, Suburb B (“the family home”).
From February 2023 until May 2023 the father spent seven periods of time with X supervised by the maternal grandfather and maternal aunt.
The father initiated these proceedings on 2 May 2023.
The mother unilaterally ceased the father’s time with X on 21 May 2023.
The parties attended a short form single expert report with Ms D (“Ms D”) who released her report (“the short form report”) on 27 August 2023.
On 25 October 2023, interim orders were made by consent which provided for the father to spend professionally supervised time with X two times per week.
On 20 December 2023 the parties agreed to further interim orders for the father to spend five nights per fortnight with X (“the 9/5 arrangement”).
The parties attended upon Dr E (“Dr E”) for a family report in March 2024 which was filed 18 June 2024 (“the family report”). Dr E recommended the 9/5 arrangement, which had just commenced, continue, and that this arrangement be reviewed upon X commencing school.
The parties agreed to final property orders on 4 June 2024 which provided for the father to retain the family home. The father subsequently gained access to the family home in July 2024, although, due to the state of the family home, he was unable to move back in until October 2024.
The father presently works as a professional for F Company, the company for which he has worked for about eight years.
The mother currently lives with her mother, the maternal grandmother. The mother is not currently working.
X was originally due to commence school in 2025 but is repeating four-year-old kindergarten.
The parties have been unable to agree on which school X will attend for 2026 but agreed to interim orders at the conclusion of the trial in March 2025 to enrol X in two schools to keep options open for her future.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
On 30 August 2024 orders and directions were made by her Honour Judge Howe (“the orders and directions”) setting the matter down for trial before me. These orders provided for the parties to file one trial affidavit no later than 28 days prior to the trial date and one affidavit in reply by no later than 14 days before the trial.
The father
The father relied upon the following documents:
·his further amended application filed 12 February 2025;
·his two affidavits filed 11 and 26 February 2025;
·the affidavit of Dr G (“Dr G”), consultant of an indoor air quality and environmental company, filed 10 February 2025;
·the affidavit of Mr H (“Mr H”), friend, filed 10 February 2025; and
·the family report of Dr E filed 18 June 2024.
The mother had not put Dr G or Mr H on notice pursuant to rule 8.20 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (“the Rules”) and their affidavits went into evidence untested.
The father also relied upon a number of exhibits:
·F1 – bundle of messages re: schooling between the parents;
·F2 – photographs and messages re: the vomit incident;
·F3 – bundle of photographs and messages re: the state of the family home;
·F4 – bundle of photographs and messages re: family violence allegedly perpetrated by the mother;
·F5 – bundle of messages between parents re: animosity;
·F6 – report of Mr J, psychologist, (“Mr J”) dated 10 February 2025;
·F7 – screenshot of kindergarten communication to the father dated 19 August 2024;
·F8 – mother’s messages during period of disengagement from proceedings;
·F9 – second year of four-year-old kindergarten assessment form dated October 2024;
·F10 – undated NDIS application with mother’s description of issues for X;
·F11 – mother’s handwritten school readiness form;
·F12 – GP visit dated 30 June 2024 re: dance;
·F13 – referral to ENT dated 27 March 2024 re: nausea and vomiting on motion;
·F14 – referral for the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) assessment dated 12 March 2024;
·F15 – request for reference from kindergarten;
·F16 – enrolment to Town K kindergarten dated 28 February 2023;
·F17 – analysis of X’s kindergarten attendance document;
·F18 – emails dated 17 June and 18 June 2024 re: X repeating kindergarten in 2025.
The mother
The mother had not filed any affidavits nor any trial material in accordance with the orders and directions.
She was not originally permitted to rely on any previously filed affidavits however, ultimately it was agreed it was appropriate for the court to read those previously filed affidavits as they were referred to by the father in his evidence and relied upon by Dr E for his assessment. Those affidavits were:
·her affidavit filed 6 June 2023.
·her affidavit filed 3 July 2023; and
·her affidavit filed 24 October 2023.
The ICL
The ICL relied upon:
·the short form report of Ms D dated 27 August 2023;
·the family report of Dr E filed 18 June 2024.
The ICL also relied upon various exhibits:
·ICL1 – the session notes of Mr J dated 15 August 2024;
·ICL2 – the email to Mr J sent from the father dated 29 May 2024.
The parties also handed up exhibit ‘J1’ on the final day of trial, 14 March 2025, which was a minute of proposed orders, colour coded to reflect each party’s position.
THE MOTHER’S REPRESENTATION
On 17 October 2024 the mother’s solicitors filed a notice of ceasing to act. On that same day the ICL wrote to the mother stating the following:
I refer to Notations D to G of the Interim Orders dated 30/08/2024.
I note that if section 102NA of the Family Law Act applies (which I believe it does) and a party becomes unrepresented after trial directions have been made, that party is required to promptly advise the Court.
On 26 November 2024 the ICL wrote an email to the mother following up the email of 17 October 2024 but received no response.
On 9 December 2024 the ICL contacted the court (copying in both parties) advising that the mother was unrepresented and that they believed a section 102NA order was appropriate.
My chambers responded to all parties on 12 December 2024 advising that a section 102NA order would be made unless it was opposed in the next seven days. There was no response from the mother.
On 13 January 2025 an order was made in chambers pursuant to section 102NA which stated as follows:
It is declared that pursuant to section 102NA(1)(c)(iv) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), section 102NA(2) of the Act applies to any future cross-examination in these proceedings and the Mother and the Father must not cross examine the other personally.
(Emphasis added)
On the same day as the section 102NA order was made, the parties, including the mother, were sent an email from my chambers as follows:
Her Honour made orders pursuant to section 102NA of the FamilyLawAct1975 (Cth) that the parties not personally cross-examine one another given the Respondent is self-represented. Chambers has now made the appropriate referral to Victoria Legal Aid.
Whilst Chambers will alert Victoria Legal Aid as to the order made by Her Honour Judge Jenkins, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to contact Victoria Legal Aid directly to make an application under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme to enable them to be represented at the upcoming final hearing.
The Respondent will need to call and inform Victoria Legal Aid that:
•a s.102NA order was made in this matter on 13 January 2025; and
•the s.102NA order and a referral was sent to Victoria Legal Aid by the Chambers of Judge Jenkins.
Victoria Legal Aid (Cross-Examination Scheme Team) can be contacted on […].
(As per original)
On 13 February 2025 the ICL contacted the mother noting the forthcoming trial listed on 11 March 2025 for four hearing days, her failure to file any trial material, and questioning whether she was going to participate at the final hearing. There was no response to that email.
On 14 February 2025 the father’s lawyer wrote to the mother and the ICL putting them both on notice of an email the father proposed to send to the court in relation to the mother’s failure to file material or to apply for section 102NA pursuant to Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme (“the scheme”). This email was ultimately sent to the court on 17 February 2025.
On 17 February 2025 my chambers responded to all parties as follows:
Her Honour declines to list the matter for Mention noting that if the mother fails to apply for the scheme and be allocated a lawyer to appear on her behalf, the matter is unlikely to be adjourned.
Chambers does however remind the mother that she will not be permitted to cross-examine the father directly and will require a lawyer for same.
Parties are also reminded they may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross Examination of Parties Scheme (“the Scheme”) for a lawyer for this purpose but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing (save for in very limited urgent circumstances).
It is the parties’ responsibility to make such an application. The Victoria Legal Aid (Cross-Examination Scheme Team) can be contacted directly on […] and at […]@[…]
Chambers confirms that in the event a party fails to apply to the scheme with the timeframe and is unrepresented, the final hearing will unlikely be adjourned, and the unrepresented party will be unable to directly challenge the evidence of the other party.
(As per original)
On the first day of the trial, being 11 March 2025, the mother appeared unrepresented and sought an adjournment. The basis for her application was that despite all of the aforementioned communication, she had believed that Victoria Legal Aid (“VLA”) would contact her and that she in fact thought she was early when she went to see them the week before the trial. She said she was not sure if she had received the emails, that some may have been deleted by X (or marked as read) and that she received a lot of emails, and found them generally hard to read.
Given that the mother was represented when the matter was set down for trial, she would have been aware of the forthcoming trial date and her requirement to file a trial affidavit. It was also made very clear in an email sent to her with the section 102NA order itself that she was required to take certain steps to ensure she was represented at trial. This was reinforced by a further email from my chambers on 17 February 2025.
The mother was repeatedly warned of the consequences of not being represented at trial and what steps she needed to take to engage the scheme. Even if she mistakenly believed someone from VLA would contact her, she was aware her material was due to be filed 28 days prior to the final hearing and did nothing to follow up with VLA to ensure this occurred. It was her responsibility to read the orders and if she did not understand to seek help. She was referred to the family advocacy support scheme to assist her, but she did not contact them. She was reminded by the ICL and the father’s solicitor as well as the court, but she did nothing.
On the other hand, the father who was keen to ensure the trial was not adjourned, filed his material on time, put Dr E on notice of his requirement for cross-examination, and instructed his solicitors to follow up with the mother to remind her of her obligations for same.
As I observed at the time of the trial, it is hard to see what else the father could have done to try and avoid the adjournment application he anticipated the mother might make, given her ongoing failure to engage in the process.
Ultimately the mother’s application for adjournment was refused. Furthermore, although I gave very careful consideration to permitting the mother leave to provide oral evidence by way of update to the court, I was persuaded by Kings counsel for the father, that, on balance, doing so would be too prejudicial to the father. Kings counsel for the father argued, and I accepted, that allowing the mother to give evidence without notice, would mean such evidence would be unable to be subjected to the rigour of testing that the father’s evidence had been. For example, because the father had filed a report of his psychologist, the ICL had been able to subpoena the notes and put them to the father in cross-examination. There could be no such testing of any evidence given by the mother, and allowing her to give such evidence would be giving the defaulter an advantage over the party who had complied with the orders.
WITNESSES
Consequently, the matter proceeded without the mother giving evidence or being able to cross-examine the father. However, the father was cross examined by the ICL.
I found the father to be an impressive witness who demonstrated insight into X’s needs, and in particular, her need to have an ongoing relationship with the mother. Although he had concerns about the mother’s care, he did not say these were at the level of unacceptable risk to X, simply that he was better able to provide X with the stability that she needed. He did not embellish his evidence or seek to throw mud at the mother. For the most part, where the father’s evidence was untested by the ICL and unable to be tested by the mother, unless inherently unreliable, I accept that evidence as being a true account of what occurred.
The only other witness in the proceeding was Dr E, whose evidence was of great assistance to the court. Dr E gave thorough explanations for his reasoning, with reference to his assessment, his observations and social science, and made concessions as to the limits of his evidence where appropriate.
THE LEGISLATIVE PATHWAY
Pursuant to section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), (“the Act”) the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration for the court when making a parenting order.
Section 65D of the Act directs the court to make such parenting orders as it thinks proper. The court may therefore use its discretion to determine what is “proper.”
The Act specifies the matters which must be considered in determining what is in the child’s best interests at subsection 60CC(2) as follows:
·what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the child; and each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
·any views expressed by the child;
·the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
·the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
·the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so; and
·anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
The Court must also consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child together with any family violence order that currently or has previously applied to a child, or a member of the child’s family.
Section 60CG of the Act further requires a Court when considering what parenting order to make, to the extent that it is possible to do so, to ensure that whatever order is made does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and is consistent with any family violence order.
RISK OF HARM
Dr E
At the time that Dr E did his initial assessment, his primary concern for the family was the toxicity between the parents. X, who was only four years old at the time, had only just commenced spending five nights per fortnight with the father and Dr E was wary of the accumulative impact of a number of changes she had experienced in a short time. These changes included:
·the separation of the parties;
·a period of not spending time with the father;
·a period of X seeing the father supervised by the maternal family;
·a significant period of no time; and
·a period of professionally supervised time with the father.
As a result, at the time of his report Dr E was of the view that the best interests of X were to leave the arrangements as they were and address the issues of the parents relationship in that context. He also factored in that the mother had been X’s primary carer since X’s birth, and that the mother was living in the family home, whilst the father was working fulltime and renting accommodation with a flatmate.
However, upon reading the father’s updated material and being provided with a number of documents, including the report of Dr G, Dr E expressed a number of concerns about X in the mother’s care, including the state of the mother’s home and what he described as the mother “pathologising” of X.
The state of the family home
The father did not have access to the family home between February 2023 and July 2024. Upon gaining access to same, the house was in such a state that it gave the father cause to arrange an expert assessment to document its condition. The father engaged Dr G, an expert in the detection of mould and air quality and microbial pathogens, to conduct a mould and occupational hygiene inspection and prepare a written report. In that report, Dr G says as follows:
On arrival, I noted an odour consistent with urine. The carpets across the ground floor and on Level 1 appear dirty and there is considerable pet (dog) hair on all carpets as well as urine staining. There is also mould droppings indoors in the ground floor lounge. The lounge suite is dirty and shows considerable pet hair. There is visible mould on the floor underneath the couch.[1]
[1] Affidavit of Dr G annexing mould assessment report filed 10 February 2025 at [3] of [115].
Dr G concluded that:
Overall, surface hygiene was unacceptable. There is risk to persons from dermal contact exposure for those sample areas considered representative of surfaces.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Dr G at [43] of [115].
During his oral evidence, Dr E described the state of the family home in Dr G’s report as not just messy but “putrid” and stated that no child in Australia should have to live in such conditions. He was extremely concerned noting there were “pathogens that were really unsafe” and “other vectors of disease”.
It was the opinion of Dr E that had the Department of Families Fairness and Housing (“the Department”) been aware of the state of the family home, they would have taken action to remove X from those conditions.
The mother was legally represented at the time that Dr G released his report in August 2024. The ICL wrote to the mother’s solicitor on 8 August 2024 asking for an explanation for the state of the family home. None was forthcoming. The mother otherwise had no evidence about the state of the family home but gave various explanations from the bar table including that:
·she had been left with the house in poor condition when the father left the home;
·she had been left with an untrained dog;
·she had physical limitations; and
·she had insufficient money to rectify the situation.
The father gave evidence denying the family home was in that state when he left, save for potentially some minor damage, for example to the skirting boards. Furthermore, it was submitted for the father that the mother expressly sought to remain in the family home, filing an application for sole use and occupation in August 2024. The father argued that nowhere in that application does she mention that the family home was in such an unhygienic state and that the court can infer that if it was, and the mother believed she needed assistance rectifying the situation she would have mentioned it because she specifically sought a repair to the thermostat. Furthermore, she expressly asked to keep the same dog that she said was not house trained.
It was also apparent in the evidence that the Department had attended the family home and conducted an inspection in August 2023 (noting the father was removed from the family home in February 2023) and did not raise any concerns about the state of the family home at that time. The mother endeavoured to explain this (again from the bar table) by stating that the Department did not go upstairs, although she immediately contradicted this by stating that they in fact did go upstairs to X’s room. It is also evident from Dr G’s report that the issues were not limited to the upstairs area.
The father’s evidence was that the mother struggled at times to maintain the family home when they were together. He provided photos of a laundry overflowing with clothes. When asked by the court what he was doing about it at that time, apart from taking photos, his evidence was that he would clean it up, but that it would end up returning to that state.
The mother’s evidence is that the father refused to do anything around the house and that she became sick of cleaning up after him and eventually refused to clean up.[3] However she was unable to put these matters directly to the father so that his version could be tested. The father’s Kings counsel conceded in submissions that the photos of the overflowing laundry would not of themselves be concerning, however in the context of Dr G’s report and other evidence, it becomes more problematic.
[3] Mothers affidavit dated 6 June 2023 at [54].
Dr E speculated there could be various reasons for the state of the family home, such as the mother resenting handing over the house to the father, the mother struggling with single parenting, her physical limitations or being impoverished, but the reality was that there was still a real risk to the child of getting sick. Furthermore, Dr E observed that this was not a situation that arose overnight or in a bad week for the mother, but must have taken a lengthy period of time to arise.
It was also apparent that the mother continued to blame the father for the state of the house rather than admitting that she had struggled to keep it clean and needed help. Dr E noted that instead of cleaning the toilet, a job which would take five minutes with rubber gloves, she chose to shut the door and not use it. Dr E could not discount the possibility that the state of the toilet, which was particularly graphic in the photos tendered as exhibits, impacted X’s desire to toilet train, which in turn impacted her school readiness assessment. The condition of the house was also likely to impact her socially, as it was unlikely she could have other children over to play at the home. The mother’s attempt to resolve the issue with air purifiers did nothing to allay the concerns of Dr E.
Pathologising the child
At the time of the short form report in August 2023, the mother reported that X was “meeting her development milestones, [appeared] to be thriving, and has “really flourished’ the last few months.”[4]
[4] Affidavit of Ms D filed 26 October 2023 at [121].
In January 2024, at the time of Dr E’s assessment, the mother did not advise of any developmental concerns for X. Whilst Dr E gave evidence that ADHD is not his specialty – he saw no evidence of any developmental issues with X, and said that she presented as a “a happy healthy normal little girl” and that she had no apparent behavioural, interpersonal or social issues.
However, in March 2024 the mother obtained a referral from L Medical Clinic for X to attend upon Dr N, a paediatrician, for an opinion about X and possible ADHD. She did not tell the father about this referral. Curiously, when I asked the mother about this, she said (from the bar table) she had never obtained a referral for ADHD but rather it was for autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”). She advised the court that X was yet to see the paediatrician and was on a waiting list for same.
On 27 June 2024 the mother completed forms for the kindergarten and indicated that at her last maternal health check, there were concerns that X might have ASD.[5]
[5] Dr E tender bundle at p. 2.
Whilst both parents ultimately agreed X was not ready for school, it was the way they presented this information that concerned Dr E. Whilst the mother tried to label X as being potentially neurodiverse, the father recognised that X may just have some social difficulties. The mother sought further assessments and a diagnosis whilst the father enrolled X in dance and arranged more playdates with children her age.
In relation to dance, the father took X to all her classes and paid for same. Upon becoming aware of the dance recital being during the mother’s time, the father contacted her repeatedly to ensure that he could take X. When the mother finally responded she informed the father it would be better if just she and X attended. The father then bought four tickets, seated apart, so that both parents could attend. Nonetheless on the day of the concert, the mother informed the father X would not be attending as she had been sick since the day before. However, the kindergarten had no record of X being sick the day before and the doctor, upon whom the mother took X the day after the concert, did not find anything wrong with X. The doctor recorded that X presented as a healthy and energetic young girl.
Dr E said the concerns about the mother’s approach is that it gives children labels which they carry through their lives. It means they potentially see themselves as “different” and are treated “differently” by educators. The mother also wrote in the kindergarten documents that there had been “prior domestic violence/parental separation/moving home/paternal alienation against the mother.”[6] Dr E also questioned the mother’s bona fides describing her reference to parental alienation” as “palpably not true” and explained how this type of misinformation often leads to kindergartens and schools labelling children as being from problematic families, which in turn impacts how educators approach them, and ultimately, he opined, may impact children’s educational and social outcomes, as sporting clubs and the like would not want to engage with “this type of dysfunction.”
[6] Exhibit F11 at [14].
Dr E was of the view that children have all kinds of quirks but unless they are functionally impaired or failing to thrive, it does not assist to give them a label, and that “the more likely you look for [a problem] you will find one.” On the other hand, he described the father’s approach as “inarguably…positive” and “laudatory.” Dr E also stated it was most unfortunate that X missed out on an opportunity to see both her parents supporting her at the dance concert.
Any risk posed by father
Historically the mother’s major concern about the father was his illicit substance use. The father conceded he had used illicit substances for a brief period of time but stated that he had not used illicit substances since mid-2023. The father provided clear hair follicle tests in mid-2023, late 2023 and late 2024 which supported this assertion. Dr E said in his evidence that whilst it was “difficult to project forward” this was all indicative of devotion to “meaningful change” and “shows an ability to manage that where required.”
The father also has a criminal history. However, there is no evidence he has offended for the last fifteen or so years.
The mother said (from the bar table) that her current concerns were about the father sharing his home with Mr H, alluding to concerns about Mr H being a single man and bringing home dates, as well as using cannabis. The mother had not previously raised either of these concerns in her earlier affidavit material. Indeed, the mother never advised the father directly of any concerns about Mr H, only doing so in the assessment with Dr E where she alleged that he may have exposed himself to X. Mr H denied these concerns or indeed ever being alone with X, and it is noted that the mother never took any action such as notifying the police. Furthermore, as she had not put Mr H on notice that he was required by her for cross-examination, his evidence was unable to be tested. Furthermore, it is hard to reconcile these concerns with the mother’s proposal that X spend six nights per fortnight with the father. In any event, I am satisfied, based on the father’s evidence, that he would take all steps to ensure X was not at any risk in his home.
ABILITY OF THE PARTIES TO MEET X’S NEEDS
The father asserts that at times the mother struggled to care for X when they were together. As an example, he said that when he got home, the mother would sometimes be sitting outside on her phone, smoking. In addition, he says that on occasions, X had been left by the mother in soiled nappies for a lengthy period and on one occasion was left to sleep surrounded by her own vomit for about 12 hours. He was also alarmed to find out that X had been late for kindergarten by an hour or more on eleven of 18 sessions in 2023. Nonetheless, it was submitted for the father that he accepts the mother’s parenting is “good enough” albeit “barely and inconsistently.” [7]
[7] Case Outline of the father filed 6 March 2025 at [9].
The father also raised some concerns about the mother living with her family as historically she has had a toxic relationship with them. The father evidences messages where the mother refers to her mother, the maternal grandmother, as “the biggest fat cunt I’ve ever met in my life” and “a stupid bitch” and her sister Ms M as, “a lippy bitch” and “ungrateful cunt.”[8]
[8] Affidavit of the father filed 11 February 2025 at [20].
The father also has concerns about the amount of space in the mother’s home. The mother had no evidence about her living situation, however, the maternal grandparents both previously filed affidavits stating there was no room at the maternal grandparents’ home for the mother and X. However, it seems the father would still be more concerned if the mother were to live independently of her parents, given the state of the family home when she was living alone.
In regard to the father, whilst his ability to parent fulltime is untested, Dr E was satisfied that the father has provided day to day parenting and made decisions for X that have been entirely in her best interests over the last twelve months, and that he has done so under very stressful circumstances. The mother has not raised any complaints about the care of X during the father’s time. The father’s evidence is that he has restored the family home to a fit and proper state, and that X has her own bedroom and playroom at the family home.
Although the father works fulltime, he has been able to make arrangements with his work to collect X at 2.00pm each Wednesday and alternate Friday and to deliver her to kindergarten each Thursday morning and alternate Monday. His evidence is that he has never had to take X to his workplace thus far.
The father gave evidence that he currently works 90.5 hours per fortnight for F Company as a professional. He has a number of responsibilities. He told the court that he has a degree of flexibility, and with the business operating seven days per week, he is able to work from home at times and he can conduct training when he does not have X in his care. The father has also stored up long service leave which he could use to assist him as well as before and after school care from time to time when required.
The father says if he needs to, he could apply for a demotion such that he works in another position either in Town O or Suburb B, which would mean less responsibility and a 38-hour working week. It was submitted for the father that if X were to attend P School, this is located across the road from the Suburb B store.
Whilst Dr E notes the mother has not worked since before X was born and thus is physically more available to care for X, he acknowledged this was “way down the list” in terms of matters of importance when determining the best interests of a child.
THE FATHER’S RELATIONSHIP WITH X
The mother’s case is that the father had not been interested in caring for X during the parties relationship, and that he had little involvement in her care. In the family report Dr E noted the mother saying the following about the father:
…he never had any interests in [X], he likes to play the doting dad now, but he cares to take her away from me because she is my life… he would never mind her…[9]
[9] Family Report at [26].
However, having not seen the father at all between May 2023 and August 2023, Ms D made the following observations of the reunion between X and her father in the short form report:
When [X] was led into a room to meet her father, her behaviours were delightful. [X] was shocked to see her father. She squealed with joy, stomped her feet, did a little dance, and then ran to him for a hug while he squatted down to her level. [X] then pulled away and repeated her routine. When her excitement dissipated, [X] and [Mr Reina] shared hugs and kisses, and [X] was noted to repeatedly pat her father's face between her hands in an intimate and affectionate manner.[10]
(Emphasis added)
[10] Short form report at [129].
Ms D noted that at the end of the session:
[X] experienced an emotional and difficult separation from her father. She repeated that she did not wish to go and that she wanted to stay with her father and became teary with multiple hugs before she was escorted out of the room by the writer.[11]
Upon the door being closed and [X] was separated from her father, [X] stopped and seemed to ‘crumble into herself,’ hunching over and letting out a loud cry, sobbing “I miss my daddy.” Rather than physically comfort her, the writer reopened the door to allow [X] to be comforted by [Mr Reina], who embraced her in a hug where they both cried.[12]
(Emphasis added)
[11] Short form report at [132].
[12] Short form report at [133].
Ms D concluded the following:
[X]'s extreme emotional reactions to her both reuniting and separating from her father on this occasion were not consistent with a young child who had enjoyed a visit with a close extended family member or uninvolved parent or carer figure, but that of a primary emotional parental figure who was intrinsic to [X]’s emotional stability and wellbeing.[13]
[13] Short form report at [137].
In addition, Dr E noted the following during his assessment:
Observations of [X] and her father were positive. They sat on the floor together and engaged in pretend play. [X] spoke spontaneously. She made eye contact. She offered her father pretend food. She seemed warm and reciprocal with [Mr Reina]. The father was slightly awkward, potentially mindful of being observed… [X] was noted to smile and joke at points. She ran to her father and cuddled him. There were markers of attachment, such as [X] gravitating towards her father in the presence of an unknown third party.[14]
….
[Ms Oates] has characterised the father as a cursory and disinterested figure in [X]’s life prior to separation. That he failed to assist in her care. Irrespective, from my observations, [X] does show markers of a secure attachment to her father, that contrast this account. [X] demonstrates interest and recognition in [Mr Reina], that would not exist if the father was uninvolved in the manner reported. There is a warmth and familiarity emanating from the child. The father presents as knowledgeable and attuned to [X], which again, would unlikely exist had his role with [X] been as superficial as described. While it is true that the father had less input to [X]’s care on account of his work obligations, the clinical data shows that he has obviously had prior involvement, fostering a positive rapport with the child.[15]
[emphasis added]
[14] Family Report at [35].
[15] Family Report at [40(b)].
Dr E concluded:
[Ms Oates] contends that the father was never involved with the child and is only seeking to spend time with her in order to “win” – demonstrably not the case.[16]
[emphasis added]
[16] Family Report at [47(e)].
In addition, in the school readiness material it is clear that X gains comfort from the father – referring to feeling scared when “daddy is not holding my finger.”[17]
[17] Exhibit F11 at [14].
FAMILY VIOLENCE
Both parties have raised allegations of historical family violence, including physical, verbal, and financial abuse. The mother has also accused the father of sexually abusing her during the relationship, sometimes in his sleep. Due to the latter, the mother went so far as to allege that X may be at risk of being sexually abused by the father.[18]
[18] Affidavit of the mother filed 6 June 2023 at [41].
The father denies committing family violence towards the mother. The father points out that the mother did not include any allegations of sexual assault in her IVO application, and asserts that she filed this to have him removed from the family home once she realised that he wanted to end their relationship. The father also points out the mother’s differing versions of events in relation to a tile/rock/brick which the mother threw hitting the father, and that it would be non-sensical of him to document another incident in which chips were thrown in the car, if, it was in fact, the father who threw them.
It was also submitted for the father that, in regard to the alleged financial abuse perpetrated by him towards the mother, he paid for the mother’s mortgage as well as his own rent, as well as meeting all other costs and paying voluntary child support. In any event, as the mother could not cross-examine the father none of these matters were tested before the court.
It is not however in dispute that each party sent the other abusive and hostile text messages towards the end of the relationship. In assessing family violence between the parties Dr E noted in his report:
At minimum, the clinical evidence would suggest that [Mr Reina] and [Ms Oates] both engaged in verbal abuse, yelling, and taunts of the other. The father has acknowledged his part in this, and the evidence from [Ms Oates]’ abusive text messages is unambiguous. Moreover, it is not a significant leap to suggest that some of these exchanges may have taken on a physical dimension. From both parents, there was an incident in the car involving hot chips, albeit disagreement about who was the aggressor. [Ms Oates] agreed that she threw a tile or brick at the father, causing him injury, though obfuscates around motivation. In short, the dysfunction and volatility within the relationship almost certainly extended to mutual insults and abuse, and very likely, took on a physical dimension at times. The dynamic within the relation appears to be one of situational-couples violence, wherein disagreements fester and manifest in explosive altercations. I am less convinced that, as the mother alleges, this was a unidirectional coercive-control dynamic, perpetrated exclusively by the father in an effort to control and break-down [Ms Oates].[19]
[19] Family Report at [41(b)].
Dr E did not accept that a person who was genuinely “fearful” would taunt the other parent, as the mother did, with comments such as “you’re fat and [sic] ugly,”[20] “a fucking idiot”[21] and have a “little dick.”[22] The mother’s communication with the father was replete with such examples, and Dr E said during cross-examination that if you are really that fearful of someone you do not tend to “light a match under it.”
[20] Family Report at [2].
[21] Short form report at [20f].
[22] Family Report at [2].
Dr E also observed further in his report:
…there is limited evidence of coercion, notwithstanding that [Mr Reina] may have exhibited signs of jealousy and set boundaries around the allocation of the family finances. My assessment of [Mr Reina] is that he accepts the end of the relationship, and indeed, considers himself fortunate to now be extricated from an interpersonally taxing environment; he continues to see his daughter; his mind has turned to the next chapter of his life; he has not attempted to pursue or stalk the mother since February 2023; he has not breached the IVO against him; and he has used appropriate legal avenue to finalise property and parenting matters. This augurs well in terms of him minimising his contact with the mother in the future.[23]
[23] Family Report at [41(d)].
In any event, neither party proposed orders suggested an ongoing risk to X of being exposed to such violence and ultimately, I was not asked to make a finding about family violence.
In terms of family violence orders, each of the parties had historically applied for an intervention order (“IVO”) against the other. I understand that the father withdrew his application and accepted an IVO against him by consent without admissions. Although the mother sought to have the IVO extended in mid-2024, she ultimately did not attend court, and her application was struck out. There are no current orders in place between the parties.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISION MAKING
Each party seeks orders for sole parental responsibility in relation to decision making for X.
The evidence shows that historically the parties have been unable to communicate in an effective manner for the sake of X, with such communication frequently involving blame and abuse of the other parent.
The parties attended upon Mr Q (“Mr Q”) for psychological assessments in 2023. Mr Q’s recommendations included that both parties attend upon a psychologist to address their respective issues. In October 2023 orders were made for the parties to attend upon psychologists, with the father to continue his attendance upon his treating psychologist, Mr J and obtain a referral from his general practitioner for a psychiatrist as recommended by Mr Q, and for the mother to obtain a referral for attendance with Dr R or another psychologist as proposed by the ICL.
The father commenced counselling with Mr J on 27 July 2023 and has had 23 sessions since that time. I note that Mr J was provided with the expert reports available in this matter before commencing his work. Mr J’s report was tendered into evidence along with a number of pages from Mr J’s notes which were subpoenaed by the ICL (“the counselling notes”).
The counselling notes showed that the mother’s messages continued to be a source of angst for the father and triggered in him a strong desire to respond or in his words to “tell his truth.” However, the notes detailed how the father has developed strategies with the counsellor to give himself space before responding such as turning off notifications on his mobile phone whilst at work. As the father said in evidence, this otherwise results in two different versions of the same event without a solution, which he described as being “pointless”. It was submitted, and I accept, this would not always have been easy given the allegations the mother made against him such as being a risk to X of sexual abuse. I also accept the submission that it is a work in progress, however, for the most part the evidence shows the communication from the father is now conciliatory and child focused.
The father has also completed a parenting after separation program in August 2023 and a “Tuning into Kids” program on 28 October 2023.
I found the father’s evidence as to the insight he has gained from counselling to be very persuasive. Dr E said he thought it was “fantastic” that the father had found a way to self-regulate and respond in a more appropriate manner. It was submitted, and I accept, that this was especially so given the mother had at times acted in a way that may have triggered the father, such as failing to take X to her dance concert and directing him to have X’s medical issue investigated just prior to a trip to Sydney.
However, there is no evidence that the mother has engaged with a psychologist (other than the mother said from the bar table that she was on a waiting list). Nor has the mother completed a parenting after separation course which would at least demonstrate a willingness for change. .
Furthermore, the evidence shows that she has continually failed to engage with the father’s communication and in some cases to even read it for a significant length of time. A key example of this, was the evidence about the father’s attempts to discuss X’s schooling with the mother for 2025. The father wrote to the mother on 16 April 2024 about schools and received no response from the mother. He wrote again on 1 May 2024 however at that time the mother advised him that “arrangements were made at the end of last year, to have [X] repeat a year of kinder…”[24]. The latter was a surprise to the father who was not aware of any such discussions and had indeed been told the contrary by the kindergarten. On 22 August 2024 the father again endeavoured to engage the mother in discussions about the school without a response. On 24 October 2024 the father messaged the mother yet again however she did not even read the message for about a month. In January 2025 the father messaged the mother about a school tour of P School and asked if there were any schools she wished to look at. The mother responded to the father’s message but made no mention of the school issue.
[24] Exhibit F1 at [3].
Another example where communication was problematic between the parties was in relation to toilet training and X’s dummy. In evidence are text messages from the father to the mother in early January 2024 in relation to both issues. The father texts the mother on 22 January, 8 February and 18 February 2024. When the mother eventually replies she makes no reference to these issues.
Dr E was of the opinion that the father’s work with Mr J and his subsequent communication demonstrated a positive step on his behalf. Dr E described the father’s communication with the mother as “really functional” and even if there was an element of “performance” given that the matter was before the court, the attempt at positive communication, he believed was still in X’s best interests. Dr E hypothesised that perhaps the mother is viewing all of the father’s seemingly helpful text messages through a prism of her negative experience and seeing it as trying to undermine her. However, the mother’s failure to respond was nonetheless not collaborative or helpful.
Dr E expressed a concern that the mother’s lack of engagement with the father along with her lack of engagement with the proceedings more generally[25] may be indicative of a general dysfunction in the mother’s household, and alluded to the potential for personality issues, however ultimately conceded that this was just speculation.
[25] In addition to the mother’s failure to comply with the orders and directions and to respond to correspondence about section 102NA, there were a number of examples of other orders the mother did not comply with, for example, the mother did not attend Mr Q at first instance, she did not complete his psychometric testing, and she failed to download Our Family Wizard.
DETERMINATION
Despite Dr E expressing serious concerns for X’s care in the mother’s household and the view that there was an “cogent argument” for a far more restrictive regime of time, neither the father nor the ICL pressed for such an outcome. Furthermore, neither the ICL nor the father asked the court to make a finding that X was at an unacceptable risk of harm in the mother’s care. Rather, the father and the ICL each put their case on the basis that the father was better able to provide X with a more stable environment and a greater quality of care.
In this regard I note the evidence of Dr E who stated that “if one home environment is broadly functioning well, where things are getting done, where there is an effort made to address emerging problems… that would be a central factor in the courts determination where the child should primarily reside.”
Having taken into account all of the evidence, I find that the father is better able to provide X with consistency of care and is not only more capable of meeting her physical needs, but also is more attuned to her psychological, social and academic needs.
For these reasons, I find that the orders for time that are best suited to X’s best interests are those proposed by the father and the ICL. Whilst the evidence of Dr E was suggestive of a more limited spend time arrangement the father argued this should be balanced against X’s strong attachment to her mother and that a severely limited arrangement would likely increase the level of vitriol the mother would direct at the father in X’s presence. I have also taken into consideration that the proposed orders are a substantial change for X. I do not accept as was put by Kings counsel for the father that the orders will be a “slight course correction”. Nonetheless, I also note the evidence of Dr E that children are “adaptable” and take comfort from the solid bond between X and her father, and the high level of care that he has been providing for her over the last 12 to 18 months.
Long Summer Holidays and Christmas
The mother proposes orders that the parents share Christmas Day, with changeover halfway through. The father proposes alternating the entirety of the Christmas period (Christmas Eve to Boxing Day) because transitioning between the homes is disruptive to X and because he wishes to be able to take X to Sydney to visit her extended paternal family who reside there. He also proposes that the mother’s time be limited in the long summer holiday to one-week blocks, but that he be able to have a two block so he can maximise his trips to New South Wales.
The father says that X struggles to transition between the homes due to the parties’ different parenting styles. He says that he has greater boundaries in his home, for example he requires X to help clean up and he puts limits on the use of phones, which are not reciprocated in the mother’s home. The parties are also at odds around the fundamental issue of whether X should eat meat in their respective homes.
I find that it is in X’s best interests to minimise transitions between the parties, and in particular on Christmas Day. In addition, it is important that she have opportunities to spend Christmas with her extended paternal family, who live in New South Wales. For these reasons, I prefer the orders proposed by the father and the ICL in regard to Christmas. However, I am not of the view that the mother’s time should be limited to just two one-week blocks. I therefore propose to alternate the weeks during the holidays, but to keep arrangements simple and to reduce the number of transitions, the term time shall continue up to the Christmas period and thereafter be week about from the end of the applicable Christmas orders. I accept this will provide for one period which is slightly longer, but on balance, find this to be in X’s best interests.
I do not propose to make any orders for Easter, which depending on when it falls, could potentially result in a number of extra changeovers and severely curtail one parties half of the school holidays.
Extracurricular activities
The mother seeks an order that she be able to enrol X in extracurricular activities and that each parent should be required to take X to those activities in their time. I am of the view that neither party should be obliged to take X to extracurricular activities during their respective time with X unless they have agreed to that enrolment prior to same. The orders proposed by the mother would otherwise have the impact of the parents dictating what should occur in the other parent’s time.
Parental responsibility for decision making
In terms of parental responsibility for decision making, Dr E made the following observations in his report:
The co-parenting relationship between the parties is entirely fractured. The parents do not communicate readily in relation to their daughter. There is little continuity of care for [X] as she transitions between her two households. Any correspondence between [Mr Reina] and [Ms Oates] via the parenting application is irregular and cursory. They are unaligned in their parenting values and methodologies. They do not come together for events for [X], such as joint birthday parties. They have seldom interacted in person since February 2023.[26]
[26] Family Report by Dr E at [39(a)].
It is readily apparent that it is in X’s best interests that one party should have sole parental responsibility for decision making, and that, given the father is to be the primary carer, that he should be given this responsibility. As stated by their Honours Austin and Williams JJ in Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249, “any other result would be absurd.”[27]
[27] Pickford at [83].
I am also satisfied on the evidence that the father will consult the mother about not only long-term decisions but day to day decisions for X, will provide her with any information relevant to X’s welfare and promote an ongoing relationship between X and her mother. I am not satisfied that the mother will encourage a relationship in return between X and the father, but the amount of time X spends in her father’s care will hopefully shield her from the impact of any negative comments made in the mother’s household.
Notification to the Department
Finally, the ICL sought an order that the Department be provided with a copy of the report prepared by Dr G. The ICL proposed this occur because there was no current evidence about the state of the mother’s living arrangements. The submission was that this may prompt the Department to conduct a home visit and therefore allay any concerns.
The father did not oppose or support such an order being made. The father says he is not in a position to argue there are any concerns about the state of the mother’s current house. Indeed, he said he would be more concerned if she moved out of her parents’ home.
I am not persuaded that the resources of the Department should be applied to investigating the mother’s current house, where there are otherwise no live concerns. Accordingly, I do not propose to make such an order. I also note the submission for the father that he does not want the mother to get the message that the primary concern is her home environment when his main concern is the mother’s inability to value X’s relationship with the father and the negative narrative she conveys to X.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, I make the orders as set out at the commencement of this judgment.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-one (131) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Jenkins. Associate:
Dated: 28 April 2025
0