Sayed & Rehmann - [2025] FedCFamC2F 102

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Sayed & Rehmann [2025] FedCFamC2F 102

File number(s): PAC 5597 of 2022

Judgment of: JUDGE MYERS

Date of judgment: 14 February 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Parenting proceedings - best interests of child – two children aged 4 and 6 - where the Father resides in Queensland and the Mother resides in Sydney – where the Mother seeks a gradual increase in the Father’s time commencing as supervised and moving to unsupervised – where the Mother seeks orders for her to travel with the Children – where the Mother’s allegations of drug abuse against the Father are unsubstantiated - where the Father seeks his time be unsupervised – where the Father seeks orders permitting both parents to travel with the Children - where the Court orders the Father’s time be unsupervised – where the Court orders both parents be permitted to travel with the Children.

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC.

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 93

Date of last submission/s: 24 September 2024

Date of hearing: 9-11 September 2024 and 24 September 2024

Place: Parramatta

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Havenstein

Solicitor for the Applicant: Reuben George Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Hart Law Group

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Cairns

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mason Mia & Associates-Solicitors & Advocates
ORDERS

PAC 5597 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS SAYED

Applicant

AND:
MR REHMANN

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MYERS

DATE OF ORDER:

14 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Children, X born in 2018 and Y born in 2021 (‘the Children’) shall spend time with the Father every third weekend from 3:00pm Friday to 3:00pm Sunday, save for where Monday is a public holiday in which case it will be a 3:00pm Monday drop off, with such time to commence on the first weekend following the Children having attended school.
2.Despite the provision of any other Order, and for the purposes of Order 1 above, the Father shall spend time with the Children in Sydney until such time as Y turns seven (7) years of age. For the purposes of clarifying this order, the Father shall be entitled to cause the Children to travel to Queensland to spend time with him during the school term following Y turning seven (7) years old.
3.For the purpose of facilitating Order 1 above, the Father will be responsible for picking up the Children directly from school and dropping off the Children to the Mother’s residence.
4.The Father shall advise the mother of the proposed location of all overnight time pursuant to Order 1 above.
5.Despite the provision of any other Order, and unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, the Children shall spend time/communicate with the parties as follows:
(a)The Children spend time with the parent they are living with/spending time with on the Children’s birthdays or a parent’s birthday.
(b)The parent who is not living with/spending time with the Children on the Children’s birthdays or that parent’s birthday is at liberty to video call the Children between the hours of 6:00pm to 6:30pm on that day.
(c)The Mother spend time with the Children from 9:00am Christmas Eve to 9:00am Boxing Day in even numbered years.
(d)The Father spend time with the Children from 9:00am Christmas Eve to 9:00am Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
(e)The Mother spend time with the Children on each Mother’s Day from 4:00pm on the day prior to Mother’s Day.
(f)That the Father spend time with the Children from 4:00pm on the day prior to Father’s Day to 4:00pm on Father’s Day.

6.Despite the provision of any other Order, during the school holidays at the end of Terms 1, 2 and 3, the Children shall spend time with the Father from 3:00pm Sunday to 3:00pm Friday in week 1.
7.Despite the provision of any other Order, during the December/January school holiday period the Children shall spend time with the parties on a week on week off basis. For the purposes of facilitating this time, the Children shall spend time with the Father in the first week and the Mother in the second week commencing on the first Monday at 9:00am in even numbered years and the Children shall spend time with the Mother in the first week and the Father in the second week commencing on the first Monday at 9:00am in odd numbered years and each alternate week thereafter.
8.To facilitate time in accordance with Orders 5, 6 and 7 above, the changeover location shall be as agreed in writing between the parents and failing agreement the Father shall attend upon the Mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of time.
9.That the Father is at liberty to telephone or Facetime the Children between the hours of 6:00pm to 6:30pm on Tuesday and Thursday when the Children are in the Mother’s care and the Children shall be given privacy during the calls.
10.That the Mother is at liberty to telephone or Facetime the Children between the hours of 6:00pm to 6:30pm on Wednesday and Saturday when the Children are in the Father’s care and the Children shall be given privacy during the calls.
11.For the purpose of facilitating Orders 9 and 10 above, the Father will provide the Children with an iPad device.
12.The parents shall otherwise facilitate telephone or Facetime calls between the other parent and the Children at all reasonable times requested by the Children.
13.Despite the provision of any other Order, the Mother is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, or internationally, during periods when the Children are spending time with her pursuant to these Orders upon the Mother providing written notice to the Father fourteen (14) days prior to departure of the following:
(a)The date of departure and return to Sydney;
(b)A copy of the itinerary provided by a travel agent or airline in relation to the interstate holiday (if applicable);
(c)A copy of the return airline ticket for the Children; and
(d)Details of how the Children can be contacted whilst away from Sydney, including contact telephone number(s) and address(es) at which the Children will be residing whilst away from Sydney.

14.Despite the provision of any other Order, the Father is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, or internationally, during periods when the Children are spending time with him pursuant to these Orders upon the Father providing written notice to the Mother fourteen (14) days prior to departure of the following:
(a)The date of departure and return to Sydney;
(b)A copy of the itinerary provided by a travel agent or airline in relation to the interstate holiday (if applicable);
(c)A copy of the return airline ticket for the Children; and
(d)Details of how the Children can be contacted whilst away from Sydney, including contact telephone number(s) and address(es) at which the Children will be residing whilst away from Sydney.

15.For the purpose of facilitating the Children travelling with the Mother and the Father outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, found at Orders 13 and 14 above, and despite the provision of any other Order, the Mother shall within thirty-five (35) days of the date of these Orders apply for and obtain an Australian Passport for the Children. Upon obtaining the said passports the Mother shall forward to the Father a receipt for payment of the cost of having obtained the said passports and within seven (7) days thereafter the Father shall reimburse the Mother half of the cost for having obtained the passports. The Mother shall thereafter renew the Children’s passports not less than six (6) months prior to their expiry and the Mother shall forward to the Father a receipt for payment of the cost of having renewed the said passports and within seven (7) days thereafter the Father shall reimburse the Mother half of the cost for having renewed the said passports. That upon the Father returning with the Children at the end of an overseas holiday the Father shall provide the Children’s passports to the Mother.
16.Despite the provision of any other Order, the Mother shall within seven (7) days of obtaining and then renewing the Children’s passports provide to the Father a legible copy of the passport being those pages that depict the Children’s photographs, passport number and other details.
17.Despite the provision of any other Order, that upon the Father giving the Mother notice of his intended overseas travel with the Children pursuant to Order 14 above, the Mother shall provide the Children’s passports as soon as is practicable to the Father so as to ensure that the Father and Children are able to travel with the Father outside of the Commonwealth of Australia.
18.The Father shall provide the Mother with as much notice as possible, and no less than twenty-one (21) days’ notice of his inability to exercise the time with the Children pursuant to these Orders including providing confirmation that he has secured leave from work for holiday periods.
19.The parents are restrained by way of injunction from discussing with the Children or with any other person in the Children’s presence the details of these proceedings or showing any document related to these proceedings to the Children or allowing any other person to do so.
20.Each parent shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure all communication between the parents is respectful and limited only to matters concerning the parenting arrangements for the Children.
21.The Mother shall use her best endeavours to ensure that the Father is informed of the Children's medical needs so far as is necessary for the Father to care for the Children during periods which he is spending time with them, including but not limited to providing any medication for the Children and instructions as to required dosages and times.
22.The Mother shall use all reasonable endeavours to communicate the Children's schooling and extracurricular activities to the Father.
23.Each parent shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that all items supplied for the Children when they are spending time with the other parent shall be returned with the Children to the parent who supplied the items at the conclusion of their time including but not limited to clothing, toys, books, and/or medication.
24.Each parent shall keep the other informed of his or her email address and mobile telephone number and shall notify the other within seventy-two (72) hours of such change occurring.
25.In the event that either parent proposes to change the Children's primary local Government area of residence then they are to provide to the other parent not less than twenty-eight (28) days prior written notice of the new address.
26.The Mother is restrained from relocating the Children's place of residence outside of the Sydney area without the consent of the Father or Order of the Court.
27.All Outstanding Applications and Responses are dismissed, and the proceedings are removed from the List of Matters awaiting finalisation.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.These Final Parenting Orders are made in addition to the Partial Final Consent Orders dated 7 March 2024 and 11 September 2024.

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 MYERS:

This is a final parenting decision in the matter of Sayed & Rehmann concerning two (2) children, X, born in 2018 and Y, born in 2021 (“the Children”).
The Applicant Mother, Ms Sayed (“the Mother”) commenced proceedings seeking a parenting determination filing her Application for Final Orders and supporting documentation on 12 October 2022. The Respondent Father, Mr Rehmann (“the Father”) filed his Response to Final Orders and supporting documentation on 9 February 2023.
At the Final Hearing the Mother was represented by Mr Havenstein of Counsel instructed by Reuben George Lawyers, the Father was represented by Mr Hart from Hart Law Group, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) was represented by Mr Cairns of Counsel instructed by Mason Mia & Associates.
On 11 September 2024 the Court made the following partial Final Orders by consent:
(1)That any decisions pertaining to major long-term issues in relation to the Children, namely X born in 2018 and Y born in 2021 (“the Children”), be made solely by the Applicant Mother.
(2)That the Applicant Mother is solely responsible for the decision-making of all major long-term issues which include, but are not limited to, the Children’s:
(a)Education (including current and future choice of schools);
(b)Religious and cultural upbringing;
(c)Interstate travel;
(d)Passports and overseas travel;
(e)Health; and
(f)Changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the Child/ren to spend time with a parent.
(3)That the Applicant Mother consult the Respondent Father in relation to any major long-term issues concerning the Children, and the Applicant Mother have the sole discretion in relation to decisions concerning the same. In doing so, the Applicant Mother will:-
(a)Inform the Respondent Father in relation to any major long-term decisions regarding the Children;
(b)Take into consideration any views expressed by the Respondent Father; and
(c)Within 14 days of making any such decision, inform the Respondent Father of her decision, by email.
(4)That the Applicant Mother be at liberty, subject to adherence to Order 3 above, to sign on behalf of both parties if the signature of two parents is required for any form and/or application which includes, but is not limited to, school enrolment applications, applications for birth certificates or applications for baptism certificates.
(5)That, except as otherwise provided for in these orders, the parties each have responsibility for daily decisions about the care, welfare and development of the Children while they are in that party’s care.
(6)That the parties will, as a matter of Courtesy, inform the other party wherever practicable of any major issue concerning the Children which arises during such period.
(7)That any daily decisions pertaining to the Children cannot interfere with the Children’s schedule, specifically, the Children’s schooling and/or day-care routine.
(8)That the Respondent Father is restrained from interfering with the Children’s schooling and/or day-care routine.
(9)That the Respondent Father is restrained from using any corporal punishment towards the Children, and will not harass, assault or treat the Children in such a manner.
(10)That the Respondent Father is restrained from consuming alcohol in excess within 12 hours of spending time with the Children, or in the Children’s presence (that is, alcohol in excess).
(11)That each party notify the other party of any medical emergency, illness or injury the Children suffer while in that party’s care that the party considers serious enough to require treatment by a health professional and shall authorise any treating health professionals to communicate with the other party about the condition and treatment of the Children.
(12)That the Respondent Father is restrained from administering any type of medication (with the exception of over-the-counter medications available for the treatment of common childhood illness such as headaches or colds) to the Children without first consulting the Applicant Mother and obtaining her consent.
(13)That in the event that either of the Children are admitted to a hospital on account of a medical emergency pertaining to illness or injury, unless otherwise required by the hospital, the party who has care of the Children as at the time of admittance may consent to any medical procedure recommended by a treating practitioner, provided that the party provides the other party notice of the same.
(14)That the parties inform each other (via email) of any change in their address seven (7) days prior to any move.
(15)That the mother be at liberty to sign all necessary documents to apply for, and or renew, an Australian travel document (as defined in the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) to issue for the Children without the signature or consent of the father, and that, upon application by the mother, the Minister issue an Australian travel document for the Children pursuant to section 11(b) of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth).
(16)That the Applicant Mother hold the Children’s passports.
(17)That the Applicant Mother hold all official documents pertaining to the Children including, but not limited to, birth certificates and baptism certificates.
(18)That both parties shall be at liberty to attend all official functions and events organised by the Children’s school, along with special events day in which the Children may be involved or are participating in in relation to their school or extra-curricular activities.
(19)That the parties do all acts and things necessary and sign all documents required to authorise the principal, directors and/or staff of any school that the Children attend to supply to both parties all school reports, school photographs, school counsellor’s notes, memos, school newsletters and any other information in relation to the Children as requested, and the requesting party shall do all things necessary and meet all expenses in relation to obtaining the same.
(20)That both parties are granted leave to provide a copy of these orders to the school(s) that the Children may attend from time to time.
(21)That in the event either party is unable to care for the Children pursuant to these Orders, that party shall provide to the other party, not less than three (3) days written notice of any change to these Orders and such change shall be agreed in writing by the parties.
(22)For the purpose of communication between the parties:-
(a)The parties are to ensure their communications are Courteous, civil and respectful and limited to parenting issues or issues involving the Children, including financial expenses;
(b)The parties will use Email as the primary method of communication (except in the event of an emergency);
(c)At changeover, all conversations between the parents shall be brief, positive and focused on issues involving the Children.
~~(23)That the parents will facilitate telephone or Facetime calls between the other parent and the Children at all reasonable times requested by the Children.~~
(24)That the parents be restrained from criticising or denigrating the other party or the other party’s partner or family via social media or in the presence of or within the hearing of the Children.
(25)That the Applicant Mother and Respondent Father are restrained from engaging in any dispute in the presence of or within hearing of the Children.
(26)The Respondent Father is to enrol in a Men’s Behavioural Change Program within 14 days of these Orders.
(27)The Respondent Father is to complete the Men’s Behavioural Change Program within 6 months from commencement of the course, allowing for reasonable delay.
(28)The Respondent Father to continue seeking counselling from his Counsellor, Ms B, or any other Counsellor engaged by the Father, and continue to adhere to the advice of his treating health professionals with respect to any prescribed medication.

The Court made the above Orders during the course of the hearing where the issues were no longer in dispute.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Essentially, the substantive issues that remain outstanding in the proceedings are:
(1)Whether the Father’s time be supervised or unsupervised for a period of time initially;
(2)The frequency and duration of time that the Children shall spend with the Father; and
(3)Whether Orders should be made permitting the Children to travel domestically and/or internationally with the Mother and/or the Father whilst in their care.
BACKGROUND
By way of background, the Mother was born in 1992 (32 years), and the Father was born in 1991 (33 years).
The parties began a relationship in 2013 and married in 2015. The parties separated on a final basis on 27 April 2021.
The Mother had a history of employment however the Mother ceased work in 2018 and did not return during the course of the parties’ relationship. The Mother is currently unemployed.
The Father is self-employed as a tradesperson.
As far as the Court is aware the Mother has not re-partnered.
The Father has re-partnered, and he resides with his partner and her three (3) children in Region C, Queensland.
In late 2017 the parties moved to Suburb D, Queensland for the Father’s work.
The parties’ eldest child X was born in 2018, currently aged six (6) years (hereafter “X”).
From July 2020 to 2 December 2020 the Mother resided in Sydney with X. Although the Father had planned to travel to Sydney in August, due to COVID-19 restrictions the Father was unable to do so and the Mother was unable to return to Queensland.
The Mother contends that from early December 2020 the Father mistreated both herself and X and around this time X was no longer comfortable in the Father’s presence. The Father denies these allegations.
The Mother contends that in or about December 2020 or January 2021, X approached her and handed her a small clear Ziplock bag with ‘residual white powder’ that he had found which the Mother believes to have been illicit drugs. The Father denies any knowledge of this and ‘suspects that the bag has fallen onto our balcony from above where there are often parties’. The Father ‘wholeheartedly’ denies using illicit drugs. As will be explored later in this decision the Mother’s allegations against the father lacked credibility or substance.
The parties’ second child Y was born in 2021, currently aged three (3) years (hereafter “Y”).
It is uncontroversial that prior to the birth of Y the Maternal Grandmother stayed with the parties in Queensland to assist the Mother with her pregnancy.
The Mother contends that the Father unilaterally decided that they would be moving back to Sydney and in February 2021 the Father booked plane tickets to Sydney for the Mother and the Children without her knowledge. The Mother and the Children thereafter moved back to Sydney and resided with the Mother’s parents. The Father remained living in Queensland for a period of approximately three (3) weeks before also returning to Sydney.
It is the Mother’s evidence that in early April 2021 the parties had a number of conversations about moving in together into the ‘Suburb E’ property and in essence the Father continued to make excuses as to why this was not taking place. This did not eventuate and the parties, as stated above, separated on 27 April 2021.
Between 30 April 2021 and 1 May 2021, the Children spent overnight time with the Father. The Mother observed that the Children were unsettled when returned and asserts that X’s behaviour deteriorated from that day forward for a period of 8-10 months in which he would have night terrors, wake up screaming in the night-time and call for his Mother to be beside him constantly.
On 15 November 2021 the Father completed a post-separation parenting course (Family Report paragraph 46).
The Father was issued with an Apprehended Violence Order in mid-2022 which applied for two (2) years. The Father was also charged with an assault offence of the Mother in mid-2022.
From the date of separation to 31 March 2023 the Children were spending time with their Father on an ad-hoc basis and have spent one overnight stay with their Father without the Mother present (Family Report paragraph 2).
The Mother commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 12 October 2022.
It is not contested that the Mother was, and still is, the primary carer of the Children. The Children live with the Mother and Maternal Grandparents in Sydney.
On 31 March 2023 the matter was listed for Interim Defended Hearing before Senior Judicial Registrar Neilson and the following Interim Orders were made:
2. That the Children [X] (born [in] 2018) and [Y] (born [in] 2021) (‘the Children’) live with the Mother.
3. That the Children spend time with their Father each alternate Sunday from 9am to 3pm pursuant to the following conditions being met:
a. Time shall be supervised by the Paternal Grandmother and shall commence, unless otherwise agreed on the first Sunday following the Paternal Grandmother filing an Undertaking to the Court in the manner outlined below at annexure “A”.
b. To facilitate changeover, the Father and the Paternal Grandmother shall attend upon the Mother’s home at the commencement and the conclusion of time.
c. In the event the Paternal Grandmother fails to file an Undertaking as required pursuant to these Orders, time shall be professionally supervised and in the absence of an agreement between the parties, facilitated by [F Contact Centre], with the Father to be responsible for the cost of such supervision.
4. That the Respondent Father is restrained from consuming alcohol or illicit drugs within 24 hours of spending time with the Children, or during his time with the Children.
The Father to his credit has been travelling from Queensland to New South Wales each fortnight to facilitate the above arrangement.
On 4 September 2023 Judicial Registrar Ramsay ordered the preparation of a Family Report. Interviews by Regulation 7 Family Consultant Ms G of the parents for the preparation of that report were held on 25 October 2023 via Microsoft Teams. An in-person interview with X was held on 6 November 2023, with in-person observations conducted between Ms Sayed and the Children and then Mr Rehmann and the Children also held on this date. The report was prepared and is dated 4 December 2023.
When the matter was listed for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing before Judge Murdoch on 7 March 2024, Orders were made by consent on a final basis that the Children live with the Mother.
On 30 August 2024, the Father filed his respective trial Affidavit, and the Mother filed her respective trial Affidavit on 28 August 2024. Additionally, the Father filed an Affidavit sworn/affirmed by his Mother (the Paternal Grandmother), Ms H, and the Mother filed an Affidavit sworn/affirmed by her Father (the Maternal Grandfather), Mr K. It should be noted that the Father is currently in a de facto relationship with a partner who has three (3) young children. As noted by the ICL, very little is known about the Father’s partner, save for the Father’s evidence given in cross-examination, in circumstances where she has not filed an Affidavit in these proceedings and the Father’s Affidavit itself is silent about his living arrangements, his relationship with his partner and her care of her own children.
PROPOSED ORDERS
For abundant caution, the Court emailed the parties following the conclusion of the Final Hearing to confirm the outstanding Orders sought by the parties noting the partial final consent Orders made on 11 September 2024.
The Applicant Mother seeks the following remaining final parenting Orders as contained within her Amended Application for Final Orders filed 4 March 2024.
(11) That the Respondent Father is restrained from consuming illicit drugs.
(16) That unless otherwise ordered herein, time spent with the Children is to be spent as follows:-
(a) Until [Y] commences comprehensive schooling, the Respondent Father will spend time with the Children:-
(i) In alternate weeks, between 9:00am and 4:00pm on Saturday in the first week, and between 9:00am and 4:00pm on Sunday in the second week and alternating thereafter;
(ii) Between 9:00am and 2:00pm on Father’s Day (unless that is a day the Respondent Father is to spend time with the Children, in which case the Respondent Father’s time with the Children will cease at 4:00pm on that day);
(iii) On his birthday from 9:30am to 4:00pm that day (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 3:30pm and 7:00pm on that day);
(iv) In even years, on their (the Children’s) birthdays between 9:00am and 2:00pm (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 9:00am and 4:00pm on the following Saturday for normal time-spending).
(v) In odd years, on their (the Children’s) birthdays between 3:30pm and 7pm (on those respective days);
(vi) On Boxing Day between 9:30am and 4:00pm;
(vii) In even years, on New Year’s day, between 9:30am and 4:00pm;
(viii) In odd years, on New Year’s day, between 3:00pm and 7:00pm;
(ix) The day after Easter (Easter Monday) between 9:30am and 4:00pm (provided that day is a public holiday).
For the purpose of facilitating points I to IX above, the Respondent Father will be responsible for picking up and dropping off the Children from the Applicant Mother’s residence.
(b) Until [Y] commences comprehensive schooling, the Applicant Mother will spend time with the Children:-
(i) At any time the Respondent Father is not required to spend time with the Children by virtue of these orders;
(ii) On her birthday;
(iii) On Mother’s day;
(iv) On Christmas Day;
(v) On Good Friday;
(vi) On Easter Sunday;
(vii) On New Year’s Eve,
for the entirety of those respective days.
That the Respondent Father’s time spent with the Children pursuant to Orders 16 (a)(i) and (ii) be suspended insofar as it relates to:-
(i) The parties’ birthdays;
(ii) The Children’s birthdays;
(iii) Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s day, Good Friday and Easter;
(iv) Mother’s Day; and
(v) Father’s Day.
(c) Once [Y] starts comprehensive schooling, and until [Y] commences high school, the Respondent Father will spend time with the Children:-
(i) In alternate weeks, between 3:30pm and 7:30pm on Friday, and between 9:00am and 4:00pm on Saturday in the first week, and between 3:30pm and 7:30pm on Saturday, and between 9:00am and 4:00pm on Sunday in the second week, and alternating thereafter;
(ii) Between 9:00am and 2:00pm on Father’s Day;
(iii) On his birthday from 9:30am to 4:00pm that day (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 3:30pm and 7:00pm that day);
(iv) In even years, on their birthdays between 9:00am and 2:00pm (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 9.30am and 4pm on the following Saturday for normal time-spending);
(v) In odd years, on their (the Children’s) birthdays between 3:30pm and 7:30pm);
(vi) On Boxing Day between 9:30am and 5:00pm;
(vii) In even years, on New Year’s day, between 9:30am and 4:00pm;
(viii) In odd years, on New Year’s day, between 4:00pm and 8:00pm;
(ix) The day after Easter (Easter Monday) between 9:30am and 4:00pm; and
(x) During any school holiday period, between 9:30am and 4:00pm every Tuesday and Saturday of that school holiday period.
For the purpose of facilitating points I to X above, the Respondent Father will be responsible for picking up and dropping off the Children from the Applicant Mother’s residence.
(d) Once [Y] starts comprehensive schooling, and until [Y] commences high school, the Applicant Mother will spend time with the Children:-
(i) At any time the Respondent Father is not required to spend time with the Children by virtue of these orders;
(ii) On her birthday;
(iii) On Mother’s day
(iv) On Christmas Day;
(v) On New Year’s Eve;
(vi) On Good Friday; and
(vii) Easter Sunday,
for the entirety of those respective days.
That the Respondent Father’s time spent with the Children pursuant to Orders 16 (c)(i) and (ii) will be suspended insofar as it relates to:-
(i) The parties’ birthdays;
(ii) The Children’s birthdays;
(iii) Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s day and Easter;
(iv) Mother’s Day;
(v) Father’s Day; and
(vi) School holidays.
(e) Once [Y] starts high school, and until [Y] reaches eighteen (18) years of age, the Respondent Father will spend time with the Children:-
(i) In the event the Respondent Father lives within 1 hours’ travelling time from the Children, between 3:30pm and 8:00pm every Tuesday;
(ii) In alternate weeks, between 3:30pm on Friday and 4:30pm on Sunday in the first week, and between 3:30pm on Thursday and 7:00pm on Friday in the second week, and alternating thereafter;
(iii) Between 9:30am and 3:00pm on Father’s Day;
(iv) On his birthday from 9:30am to 5:00pm that day (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 3:30pm and 8:00pm);
(v) In even years, on their birthdays between 9:00am and 2:00pm (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 9.30am and 5pm on the following Saturday);
(vi) In odd years, on their birthdays between 9:00am and 2:00pm (unless that day is a day that either of the Children are at school, in which time spent will be between 3:30pm and 8:00pm that day)
(vii) Between 6:00pm on Christmas Day until 5:00pm on the following day which is Boxing Day;
(viii) The day after Easter (Easter Monday) between 9:30am and 5:00pm;
(ix) In even years, during New Year’s day, between 9:30am and 5:00pm;
(x) In odd years, during New Year’s day, between 5:00pm until 9:00pm that same day;
(xi) In alternate weeks, during any school holiday period, between 3:00pm on Friday until 5:00pm on the Saturday (the following day) in the first week unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing, and between 9:00am on Wednesday until 9:00am on Saturday in the second week, and alternating thereafter;.
For the purpose of facilitating points I to XI above, the Respondent Father will be responsible for picking up and dropping off the Children from the Applicant Mother’s residence.
(f) Once [Y] starts high school, and until [Y] reaches eighteen (18) years of age, the Applicant Mother will spend time with the Children:-
(i) At any time the Respondent Father is not required to spend time with the Children by virtue of these orders;
(ii) On Mother’s day
(iii) On her birthday;
(iv) On Christmas Day until 6:00pm;
(v) On Good Friday;
(vi) On New Year’s Eve; and
(vii) On Easter Sunday,
for the entirety of those respective days.
That the Respondent Father’s time spent with the Children pursuant to Orders 16 (e)(i) and (ii) be suspended insofar as it relates to:-
(i) The parties’ birthdays;
(ii) The Children’s birthdays;
(iii) Christmas, Boxing Day, New Year’s Eve, New Year’s day and Easter;
(iv) Mother’s Day;
(v) Father’s Day; and
(vi) School holidays.
(17) That, unless otherwise provided for in these orders, the parties consult each other to make a genuine effort to reach an agreement as to:-
(a) Time spent with the Children on the parties’ birthdays and the Children’s birthdays; and
(b) Time spent with the Children during the school holidays.
(18) That the Respondent Father’s time spent with the Children must be supervised by his parents and/or his immediate family members at all times until [Y] commences comprehensive schooling.
(20) The Applicant Mother is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, or internationally, during periods when the Children are spending time with her pursuant to these orders.
(21) The Applicant Mother is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, provided that she also provide the following:
(a) The date of departure and return to Sydney;
(b) A copy of the itinerary provided by a travel agent or airline in relation to the interstate holiday (if applicable);
(c) A copy of the return airline ticket for the Children; and
(d) Details of how the Children can be contacted whilst away from Sydney, including contact telephone number(s) and address(es) at which the Children will be residing whilst away from Sydney.
(22) That both parties, by themselves, their servants and/or their agents be restrained from removing or attempting to remove the Children to any country or countries which are not a signatory to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at the Hague on 26 October 1995 or which fall within a region or regions for which a current travel advisory warning against all travel and non-essential travel to such region or regions has been issued by the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, from time to time.
(23) That the Applicant Mother be permitted to remove the Children from, or allow the Children to travel outside of, the Commonwealth of Australia provided that such travel is to a country signatory to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at the Hague on 26 October 1995, and subject to the following:-
(a) The Applicant Mother providing the Respondent Father with at least 1 months written notice of her intention for the Children to travel overseas, including providing the Respondent Father with a travel itinerary and a contact phone number of the accommodation in which the Children will be staying;
(b) The Applicant Mother facilitating phone contact between the Respondent Father and the Children at the request of the Respondent Father or the Children, acting reasonably.
(30) The parties will adopt a flexible approach in circumstances where either of the parties are unable to have the Children during a specified period. A party must, as far as practicable, accommodate any reasonable request by the other party for such a change. For the avoidance of doubt, a reasonable request does not include (and is not limited to) the following events:-
(a) A party feeling unwell, or suffering from an undiagnosed ailment that would not pose serious threat or cause harm to the Children; or
(b)The party obtaining employment during a period by which they are required to spend time with the Children in accordance with these orders; or
(c) The parents attending a family function or celebration which does not fall on a date in which that party is required to spend time with the Children (unless otherwise agreed between the parties in writing).
(31) ~~For the purpose of communication between the parties:-~~
~~(a) The parties are to ensure their communications are Courteous, civil and respectful and limited to parenting issues or issues involving the Children, including financial expenses;~~
~~(b) The parties will use~~ SMS ~~and Email as the primary methods of communication (except in the event of an emergency)~~ and should a discussion be required, either parent will SMS the other parent to confirm they would like to arrange a discussion, setting out what issues they would like to talk about and negotiating an appropriate time to have a telephone call or face to face discussion;
~~(c) At changeover, all conversations between the parents shall be brief, positive and focused on issues involving the Children.~~
(33) That the parents use their best endeavours to ensure that their friends and relatives do not criticise or denigrate the other party or the other party’s partner or family via social media or in the presence of or within the hearing of the Children.
(34) ~~That the Applicant Mother and Respondent Father are restrained from engaging in any dispute in the presence of or within hearing of the Children~~ and will use their best endeavours to ensure their partners and family members do not engage in any dispute in the presence of or within hearing of the Children.
(35) That pursuant to section 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, information about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programmes and services available, is set out in the Fact Sheet attached to these Orders.
(36) That pursuant to section 65DA of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in the Fact Sheet, attached to these Orders, and these particulars are included in these Orders.
(37) That the Respondent Father pay the Applicant Mother’s costs of the proceedings.

The Respondent Father seeks the following remaining final parenting Orders, as contained within his Minute of Order tendered in Court on 11 September 2024, forming Exhibit ‘C’ in the proceedings:
Time Spend
(3) That the Children live with the Applicant Mother, except at the times they are to spend time with the Respondent Father.
(4) That time spent with the Children is to be spent as follows:
(a) The Children spend time with the Father each alternate weekend from 3pm Friday to 3pm Sunday, if Monday is a public holiday it will be a 3pm Monday drop off.
(5) For the purpose of facilitating Order 4(a) above, the Respondent Father will be responsible for picking up the Children directly from school and dropping off the Children from the Applicant Mother’s residence.
(6) That the parents spend time and communicate with the Children at all times agreed between the parents and failing agreement, as follows (and the time referred to in Order 4(a) shall be suspended during these times)
Parent’s Birthdays/Children’s Birthdays
(7) That the Children spend time with the parent they are living with/spending time with on the Children’s birthdays or a parent’s birthday.
(8) That the parent who is not living with/spending time with the Children on the Children’s birthdays or that parent’s birthday is at liberty to video call the Children between the hours of 6pm to 6:30pm on that day.
Christmas
(9) That the Applicant Mother spend time with the Children from 9am Christmas Eve to 9am Boxing Day in even numbered years.
(10) That the Respondent Father spend time with the Children from 9am Christmas Eve to 9am Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
Mother’s/Father’s Day
(11) That the Mother spend time with the Children on each Mother’s Day.
(12) That the Respondent Father spend time with the Children from 4pm on the day prior to Father’s Day to 4pm on Father’s Day.
School Holidays
(13) During the mid-term school holidays, the Children spend time with the Respondent Father from 9am Thursday to 3pm Monday in week 1 of each mid-term school holidays.
(14) During the December/January school holiday period, each alternate week from 9am Thursday to 3pm Monday.
(15) Thereafter, for half of all school holidays taken on a week on week off basis with the Respondent Father to take the first week and the Applicant Mother take the second week and alternatively each week thereafter.
Telephone
(16) That the Respondent Father is at liberty to telephone or Facetime the Children between the hours of 6:00 to 6:30pm on Tuesday and Thursday when the Children are in the Applicant Mother’s care.
(17) That the Applicant Mother is at liberty to telephone or Facetime the Children between the hours of 6pm to 6:30pm on Wednesday and Saturday when the Children are in the Father’s care.
(18) For the purpose of facilitating Orders 16 and 17 above, the Respondent Father will provide the Children with an iPad device.
(19) That the parents will facilitate telephone or Facetime calls between the other parent and the Children at all reasonable times requested by the Children.
Travel
(20) The Applicant Mother is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, or internationally, during periods when the Children are spending time with her pursuant to these orders.
(a) The date of departure and return to Sydney;
(b) A copy of the itinerary provided by a travel agent or airline in relation to the interstate holiday (if applicable);
(c) A copy of the return airline ticket for the Children; and
(d) Details of how the Children can be contacted whilst away from Sydney, including contact telephone number(s) and address(es) at which the Children will be residing whilst away from Sydney.
(21) The Respondent Father is permitted to take the Children for a holiday within Australia, or internationally, during periods when the Children are spending time with him pursuant to these orders.
(a) The date of departure and return to Sydney;
(b) A copy of the itinerary provided by a travel agent or airline in relation to the interstate holiday (if applicable);
(c) A copy of the return airline ticket for the Children; and
(d) Details of how the Children can be contacted whilst away from Sydney, including contact telephone number(s) and address(es) at which the Children will be residing whilst away from Sydney.
(30) The Applicant Mother to engage in psychological counselling to provide assistance with the parenting dispute and the Children spending unsupervised time with the Respondent Father.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks the following remaining final parenting Orders as contained within their Minute of Order tendered in Court on 24 September 2024, and forming Exhibit ‘D’ in these proceedings:
(1) That all previous orders be discharged.
(3) That the Children live with the Mother.
(4) That until the child [Y] is aged seven (7), the Children shall spend time with their Father in Sydney area, at such times as agreed, but failing agreement:
(a) For a period of twelve (12) months~~, or following the completion of a Men’s Behaviour Change Course [whichever occurs first]~~ from the date of these orders as follows:
(i) From 9am to 5pm Saturday on the 1st weekend of each calendar month.
(ii) During any school holiday period, between 9am to 5pm every Friday and Saturday of that school holiday period.
(b) For a period of twelve (12) months from the conclusion of the time in order 4 above:
(i) From 9am Saturday to 9am Sunday on the 4th and 8th weekend of each school terms, such time suspended during school holidays.
(ii) From 9am Saturday to 3pm Sunday during all school holidays provided the Paternal Grandmother or other agreed person remains overnight with the Children.
(c) Thereafter:
(i) From the conclusion of school on Friday (or 3pm if a non-school day) to 3pm Sunday on the 4th and 8th weekend of each school terms, such time suspended during school holidays on the 4th and 8th weekend of each school terms, such time suspended during school holidays.
(ii) For half of the NSW shorter school holidays with the first half in even and the second half in odd numbered years provided the Paternal Grandmother or other agreed person remains overnight with the Children.
(iii) For half of the NSW Christmas school holidays, with the first half in even and the second half in odd numbered years provided the Paternal Grandmother or other agreed person remains overnight with the Children.
(d) That provided the father is in Sydney:
(i) Between 9am and 3pm on Father’s Day;
(ii) On the father’s birthday from between 9am and 3pm on a weekend and from 3pm to 7pm on a weekday.
(iii) From 10am to 5pm Christmas Day in even numbered years
(iv) From 10am to 5pm Boxing Day in odd numbered years.
(e) Such other times as agreed.
(5) That upon the child [Y] turning seven (7) school holidays may take place in the father’s home in Queensland, provide an address and contact number is provided to the mother as to where the Children shall be spending this time.
(6) That the father shall advise the mother of the proposed location of all overnight time pursuant to order 4 above.
(7) That the father shall provide the mother with as much notice as possible, and no less than twenty-one (21) days' notice of his inability to exercise the time with the Children pursuant to Orders 4 and 5 including providing confirmation that he has secured leave from work for holiday periods.
(8) That for the purposes of facilitating the father's time with the Children pursuant to these Orders, the changeover location shall be as agreed in writing between the parents and failing agreement:
(a) until [Y] is aged seven (7) years, the Father and the Paternal Grandmother shall attend upon the Mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of time;
(b) after [Y] is aged seven (7) years, the father (or his agent known to the Children) shall attend upon the Mother’s home at the commencement and conclusion of time;
(9) For the purpose of implementing time in accordance with Order 4 c above, the "first half" of the school holiday period means from the conclusion of school or 3pm on the last day of the school term until 5pm on the Sunday falling closest to the midpoint of the holiday period and the "second half" of the school holiday period means from 5pm on the Sunday falling closest to the midpoint of the school holiday period until 5pm on the final Sunday of the school holiday before school recommences.
(10) That the Children shall communicate with the father on a weekly basis by telephone/Facebook and to give effect to this order, the mother shall arrange for the Children to place a call to the father and the Children shall be given privacy during the calls.
(11) Without limitation to any other Order providing for communication between the parents and the Children, the Children may communicate with both parents by electronic means at any reasonable time whilst they are in the other parent's care and each parent shall do all things necessary to facilitate the Children communicating with the other parent by electronic means on a regular basis.
(12) That the parents are restrained by injunction from doing any of the following or permitting any other person doing so:
(a) Discussing with the Children or with any other person in the Children’s presence of the details of these proceedings or showing any document related to these proceedings to the Children.
(d) Interrogating the Children about the time they have spent with the other parent and each parent shall do all reasonable things necessary to prevent any other person from doing so in the presence or hearing of the Children.
(13) That, without admissions, the Respondent Father shall be restrained from consuming ~~any alcohol or~~ illicit drugs whilst the Children are in his care and in the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to the Children coming into his care.
(18) That each parent shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure all communication between the parents is respectful and limited only to matters concerning the parenting arrangements for the Children.
(19) That except in the case of an emergency the parents are to communicate with one another via the co-parenting app 'App Close' and each parent shall do all things and things and acts necessary to download and subscribe to such application within seven (7) days from the date of these Orders. Thereafter, each parent shall use all reasonable endeavours to communicate all necessary matters concerning the Children whilst they are in their care; such information to include but not be limited to routine, dietary requirements, medication as required, toileting and any other necessary information.
(20) That the mother shall use her best endeavours to ensure that the father is informed of the Children's medical needs so far as is necessary for the father to care for the Children during periods which he is spending time with them, including but not limited to providing any medication for the Children and instructions as to required dosages and times.
(21) That the mother shall use all reasonable endeavours to communicate the Children's schooling and extracurricular activities to the father.
(22) That each parent shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that all items supplied for the Children when they are spending time with the other parent shall be returned with the Children to the parent who supplied the items at the conclusion of their time including but not limited to clothing, toys, books, or medication.
(26) Each parent shall keep the other informed of his or her ~~current residential and~~ email address and mobile telephone number and shall notify the other within seventy-two (72) hours of such change occurring.
(27) That the mother is restrained from changing the names of the Children without the consent of the father or Order of the Court.
(28) That the mother is restrained from relocating the Children's place of residence outside of the Sydney area without the consent of the father or Order of the Court.
(29) That in the event that either parent proposes to change the Children's primary local Government area of residence then they will provide to the other parent not less than twenty-eight (28) days prior written notice of the new address.
THE LEGISLATIVE PATHWAY
The Court considers the legislative pathway determining what is in the best interests of the Children having regard to s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Section 60CC(1) provides when determining what is in a Child’s best interests the Court must:
(a)Consider the matters set out in subsection (2); and
(b)If the child is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child--also consider the matters set out in subsection (3).
The Court is not aware that the Children are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Children.
The Act specifies six (6) matters which must be considered in determining what is in the child’s best interests at subsection 60CC(2). The matters to be considered include:
(a)what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i)the child; and
(ii)each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b)any views expressed by the child;
(c)the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e)the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
Pursuant to section 60CC(2A), in contemplating the foresaid matters, the Court must consider:
(i)any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(ii)any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child's family.
The Court notes the many allegations made by the Mother against the Father that she relies upon in support of the Orders she seeks being that the Children would spend time with the Father daytime only until the Children commence high school.
At paragraph 18 of the Mother’s Outline of Case document filed on 2 September 2024 under the heading “s.60CC Considerations” it was submitted that:
The Mother raises further concerns with the Father’s misuse of drug use, his mismanagement/non-compliance with the drug testing regime which has been in place by way of interim orders, and his testing positive for drugs arising from his hair follicle test [in] 2023. The father’s trial affidavit with respect to this issue at paragraphs [36] to [39] only raises further concern with respect to the Father’s insight into this issue.
It was clear to the Court that a significant part of the Mother’s case was that related to risks associated with illicit drug use by the Father. To be clear, the Father had never tested positive for illicit drug use. Rather, it was conceded in the hearing that the type of drugs for which the Father did test positive for were related to his medication for adult ADHD.
Cross-examination of the Mother on the topic of illicit drug use shed significant light on the subject of reasonableness of the Mother’s beliefs around illicit drug use and left the Court in little doubt that the issue was nothing short of a ‘beat up’ by the Mother where she could not provide a scintilla of credible evidence to support that she had ever seen the Father take illicit drugs or be under the influence of illicit drugs. For the purposes of making very clear this point, the Court has included a full excerpt of the transcript of the proceedings that provides the exchange between the Mother, the Father’s solicitor being Mr Hart, Counsel for the Mother being Mr Havenstein and the Court:
MR HART:Right. Okay. And are there any other instances? I believe there’s allegations of drug misuse?
MOTHER:                Yes.
MR HART:               Okay. Can you explain that?
MOTHER:We were at home and [X] found a little clear Ziploc bag that had been slit on both sides, so it would open lengthways. And when I asked [Mr Rehmann] about that, he denied it. But at that time, I could just tell by his behaviour.
HIS HONOUR:           So, you didn’t actually ever see him use any drugs?
MOTHER:                Pardon?
HIS HONOUR:           Did you ever see him use any drugs?
MOTHER:                No.
HIS HONOUR: When you say you could tell, do you have any sort of medical background at all, or     ?
MOTHER:So, I know – everybody knows somebody on drugs. And you can tell by their behaviour.
HIS HONOUR:           Can I say, I don’t.
MR HART:                .....(inaudible)
HIS HONOUR:        Just to be clear, it’s a statement. You can make that statement if you want. But can you think about the statement you made?
MOTHER:                What’s the question? Sorry.
MR HART:               Who
HIS HONOUR:         What     ?
MOTHER:                Did I see him taking drugs?
HIS HONOUR:           Yes?
MOTHER:                No.
MR HART:So, who do you know on drugs? As you said, everybody knows someone on drugs. Who do you know on drugs?
MR HAVENSTEIN:     Well, your Honour, I object to that. Because what’s the relevance of it
MR HART:                Well
HIS HONOUR:           Well, because it goes towards the
MR HAVENSTEIN:     someone taking drugs?
HIS HONOUR:        But the mother makes a big allegation in this case about drug abuse. The father has done a hair follicle. Unless I’m mistaken, the father – we’ve not picked up any illicit drug use in the case. We’ve picked up some
MR HAVENSTEIN:    No.
HIS HONOUR:        We’ve picked up some use of some drugs that are prescription drugs that the father says go towards the issues in relation to ADHD.
MR HAVENSTEIN:     Apparently.
HIS HONOUR:           Say that again?
MR HAVENSTEIN:   Apparently.
HIS HONOUR:        Well, I have an issue if – has there been a subpoena to the PBS?
MR HAVENSTEIN:   Well, it’s his positive read, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:        Yes, but I’m saying that it’s – the onus of proof falls on your client to prove that he was illicitly using drugs. It’s a question, has there been a subpoena issued to the PBS?
MR HAVENSTEIN:    I can probably say comfortably, no.
HIS HONOUR:        Okay. Because just for future reference, it’s really easy. Somebody says, “I’m prescribed” – I don’t know. Whatever it is. One of the drugs for ADHD. I can’t even think of the name. Whatever. […]– “prescribed [medication].”
MR HAVENSTEIN:   [Medication].
HIS HONOUR:        And you do a subpoena to the PBS. And surprise, surprise, there ain’t no scripts coming out of the PBS for the prescription benefit scheme for [medication]. So, you might be taking it, but you’re not prescribed it.
MR HAVENSTEIN:   Anyway, I will ask the father some questions about it.
HIS HONOUR:           Yes, you can.
MR HART:                In any case, so who have you observed?
MR HAVENSTEIN:   Your Honour, can I approach? She has
THE WITNESS:          I’ve got – I’ve got tissues .....
HIS HONOUR:           Sorry? [Ms Sayed], what was the answer?
MOTHER:                 To who do I know?
MR HART:                Yes?
MOTHER:It’s – I’ve never seen drugs. I’ve never touched drugs. It’s only what I see in the movie – in the movies.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 46, lines 14-45, page 47, lines 1-46, page 48, lines 1-12).
The Court firstly finds based on the Mother’s evidence that it is not appropriate nor necessary for the Court to make a general Order that the Father be prohibited from consuming illicit drugs, as sought by the Mother.

The Court notes the correspondence of Dr L of J Medical Clinic that confirms the Father being a patient of that Centre since 2020 annexed to the Father’s Trial Affidavit marked ‘MRR-6’. Dr L confirms that the Father is prescribed medications and remains under Dr L’s care and further that Dr L had viewed the Father’s hair follicle test results and made the comment “I have no concerns that Mr Rehmann has a drug or alcohol addiction”. The Court further notes that Ms G set out in her Family Report at paragraph 63 that “substance abuse does not appear to be a current risk factor impacting upon Mr Rehmann’s parenting capacity”.
The Mother’s allegations made against the Father for illicit drug use that appear to be based upon something she saw in a movie seriously calls the Mother’s credibility into issue and the way in which she has conducted these proceedings into doubt.
For these reasons the Court finds that an Order restraining the Father from consuming illicit drugs whilst the Children are in his care and in the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to the Children coming into his care, as sought by the ICL, would be arbitrary in circumstances where such an Order lacks any sort of foundation having regard to the evidence.
The Court further finds that it is unnecessary to restrict the Father’s time to short periods or daytime only with the Children in this matter based upon the Mother’s baseless allegations of drug abuse. In other words, it is not necessary to put in place any specific arrangements to promote the safety of the Children or the Mother including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm in the context of an unsubstantiated allegation made against the Father of drug abuse.
The Court notes the issue of family violence in these proceedings. It is important to see the family violence for what it is, not any worse or any better than what it is in the context of considering what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the Children and the Mother.
Contained in the Mother’s Outline of Case Document filed on 2 September 2024 under the heading ‘Background’ at paragraphs 7-11 is the following narrative:
7. [In mid] 2023, the Father was found guilty of [an offence] against the Mother and was sentenced, placed on a Good Behaviour Bond. An Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was also issued for the protection of the Mother and the Children which is current for two years.
8. On 17 August 2023, the parties attended a Conciliation Conference before Senior Judicial Registrar Tran and resolved their property proceedings on a final basis.
9. [In early] 2024, the Father entered a plea of guilty in relation to [offences] against the Mother.
10. [In mid] 2024, the Father was found guilty in relation to offences and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order. A second AVO was issued for the protection of the Mother and the Children.
11. The interim orders dated 31 March 2023 continue to remain in place.
The Court sought to clarify from Counsel for the Mother, Mr Havenstein exactly what the fraud charges related to during the Father’s cross-examination. The Courts questions to Mr Havenstein and his responses are found at pages 94-104 of the transcript of the proceedings on 10 September 2024. To be clear, Mr Havenstein was not across the issue at all. The Court was only just able to ascertain that the Father had forged the Mother’s signature on documents that appeared to be some sort of loan application. The Court understood that the amount of money obtained was perhaps $27,000 or $100,000 and that perhaps the money was paid to the Father’s Father. It looks as though whatever amount obtained was probably taken into account in the parties’ property settlement that was made by consent on 17 August 2023. Mr Havenstein was forced to concede that he had not read the amended police facts sheet despite the documents having been produced to the Court and subsequently made available for inspection.
Despite the deficiencies around a lack of understanding with respect to the issue of the fraud offences, it is clear on the face of the evidence to the Court that the Father’s actions were not justifiable and that his actions did (based on the wide definition of family violence found at section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) amount to family violence.
In respect of the conviction for assault based upon the Mother’s evidence contained at paragraph 102 of her trial Affidavit, the Court understands that the incident occurred at the Maternal Grandmother’s home in early 2021 where following an argument over the Father spending overnight time with the Children, the Father grabbed the Mother’s face and yelled at the Mother words to the effect, “You won’t take the boys away from me”.
The Court acknowledges that the Mother made other complaints regarding the Father’s conduct towards the Children and in general including the allegations that:
·In early 2021 at a meeting at the Suburb E property the Mother asserts the Father berated her for 3 hours, the Father berates himself, hits himself in the head, saying “This is all your fault. Look at what you've done to me. You’ve made me this bad, I even wanted to hurt myself. I've had thoughts of harming myself because of what you've done”. (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 74-79);
·In early 2021 the Father assaults the Mother by grabbing her by the shoulders and shaking her aggressively. (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 91-93);
·In early 2021 the Father starts banging his head on his steering wheel and the car door in front of the Children and speeds away with the Children in the car. (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 104-105);
·Sometime around mid-2021 the Father is aggressive, confrontational, and would occasionally strike himself and yelled at one point “I will fucking self-harm… I went fucking crazy” (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 111-116);
·Sometime in May/June 2021 the Mother asserts that she located a weapon in the Suburb E property – the Mother reports this to police. (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 117-120);
·Sometime in December 2023 the Mother asserts that X starts touching and holding his genitals ‘for no reason’ after the Children had spent time with their Father. When confronted by the Mother he replies, ‘My dad lets me do it’. The Mother reports this to police. (Mother’s trial Affidavit paragraphs 168-172).
To be clear, despite the Mother’s allegations above, this is a matter where the Mother contends that there should be time between the Children and the Father that is unsupervised at some stage. The Court remains concerned about the Mother’s credibility given her serious allegations about illicit drug use by the Father that lacked any proper foundation and as such, the Court is not prepared to just accept the Mother’s narrative about the Father as set out above.
In any case, cross-examination of the Mother in relation to safety is telling as to future risk where she gave the following answers to questions put by Mr Hart, the solicitor appearing on behalf of the Father:
MR HART:[Ms Sayed], I noticed that paragraph 138 of your affidavit, you stated that since May 2021, that you’ve been able to communicate, effectively, with the respondent by email     ?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:     in regards of the kids?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:     And there has been no issue?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:All the communications, is it correct, has been polite between each other?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:     And amicable?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:Okay. So, it seems that going forward, that you will both be able to communicate respectfully and effectively?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:Also, I refer to point 166 of your affidavit also, where you refer to the report of [Ms M], the child expert?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:Okay. You referred to how it appears that the respondent minimises his insight into the behaviours of family violence.
MOTHER:      Okay?
MR HART:Would you say that the conclusions and evaluations of the experts were correct?
MOTHER:      No.
MR HART:     In what respect?
MOTHER:      I – I don’t feel like he has shown any remorse for his actions.
MR HART:     You don’t feel like he has shown any remorse of his actions?
MOTHER:      No.
MR HART:     Okay. He pleaded guilty, did he not, to     ?
MOTHER:      Yes. the issue before?
MR HART:     And he stood trial in respect to that?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:He was sentenced with a community corrections order, which, as you understand, he hasn’t breached today (to date)?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:With regards to the other issues of family violence, he was issued with an AVO. Is that correct?   Yes,
MOTHER:      yes.
MR HART:     And there has been no breach of that since then?   No.
MOTHER:      No.
MR HART:And again, you state that your relationship with [Mr Rehmann] has remained amicable?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:And in the interest of the Children? As I understand, the Children have decided to spend some time with [Mr Rehmann]. Right?
MOTHER:      Yes.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 40, lines 20-46, page 41 lines 1-15).
The evidence of the Mother was startling given the Orders she sought that would effectively mean that the Children would not spend overnight time with the Father for a period of nine years following the hearing.
Given the Mother’s evidence, the Court specifically asked the Court Child Expert (‘CCE’) for her opinion on the issue in cross-examination as follows:
HIS HONOUR: Can I ask you one question, because it’s important. I will just ask it to you and you can answer yes or no, or whatever you want to answer. If the mother gave evidence at the beginning of her cross-examination that the communication between the father and her is respectful and effective, and they’ve got an amicable relationship, is that something that’s a positive with respect to the Children spending time with their father?
[MS G]: Yes, that would be positive.
(Transcript 24 September 2024, page 180, lines 40-45)
Far from limiting the Mother’s case to the promotion of safety for the Children and the Mother, Counsel for the Mother and the Mother herself focused on the issue of the Father’s remorse. This can be seen in the answers given by the Mother in cross-examination above and in the following series of questions and answers in cross-examination of the Father below:
FATHER:But right now, I know, after being convicted, that I am sorry and remorseful for my actions. And – and I understand the wrong
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 67, line 47, page 68, lines 1-2)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, I will go to that in a moment. You deny squeezing her cheeks with force and said that it wasn’t a harmful touch. Do you recall saying that to [Ms G]?
FATHER:Yes. But understanding the law now, I realise that it’s not okay to do so.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir, at the time of meeting with the expert, you had been found guilty and convicted in the Local Court of assaulting [Ms Sayed], hadn’t you?
FATHER:Yes. But over time, I’ve been remorseful and thinking about my wrongful actions.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir, I haven’t asked you about over time. What I’m saying to you is, when you met with [Ms G], you had already been convicted and sentenced in relation to a common assault against [Ms Sayed], hadn’t you?
FATHER:‑‑‑I can’t remember the dates. Can you clarify the dates? If ‑ ‑ ‑
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir ‑ ‑ ‑?
FATHER                   ‑‑‑If it is, then yes, I agree.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    On 6 July – and this is at paragraph 220 of the mother’s affidavit, your Honour. Because you don’t tell the Court about this in the trial affidavit, do you?
FATHER:                 ‑‑‑Sorry?
MR HAVENSTEIN:    You don’t mention your conviction in your trial affidavit prepared for this hearing, do you?
FATHER:                 ‑‑‑Actually, in the ‑ ‑ ‑
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir, is it a yes or a no?
FATHER:                  ‑‑‑I do mention some comments of remorse.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 68, lines 21-42)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    You placed your hands on [Ms Sayed], didn’t you?
FATHER:                  Yes, correct.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Yes?
FATHER:I’ve been convicted for that already. And – and I am very remorseful for this.
MR HAVENSTIEN:    Okay. But you weren’t remorseful enough, sir, when you went to see the expert and denied you had ever assaulted, or been violent towards, [Ms Sayed]?
FATHER:                 Well, with a lot of
MR HAVENSTEIN:    didn’t you?
FATHER:Well, with a lot of – with a lot of therapies that I’ve been going through, I – I acknowledge my defaults and – and the laws that everybody has been explaining to me. I acknowledge my faults. And if you could kindly, please, take my apology and explain to [Ms Sayed] that I’m very sorry for the wrongful I’ve done towards her. And all I want to do is co-parent with her for our future.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 71, lines 4-17)
And later:
Mr HAVENSTEIN:     Because in your affidavit, the extent of your remorse is, at paragraph 65, you say: After separation from [Ms Sayed]…..
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 71, lines 42-44)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    And yet despite that, what the expert identifies is what I just put to you: The area of concern, however, is the father does not appear cognisant of how his violent and aggressive behaviours have affected the mother and emotionally impacted the Children.?
FATHER:                  And as I
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Do you recall reading that?
FATHER:As I said prior to this, you have repeated the same thing over and over again and my answer is, from now to then, I am completely remorseful. And I ask for
MR HAVENSTEIN:    But what has changed, sir? Because as of last year, when you met with the report writer, you maintained that you had never perpetrated family violence against the mother despite being convicted of it?
FATHER: What has changed is that it has been three years. And – and I’m tired of the fight. I’m tired of everything. I ---
MR HAVENSTEIN:     You’re---? ----- just want--- You’re tired of the fight?
FATHER: ---I just want the boys to live a happy life with both parents.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 74, lines 30-47, page 75, line 2)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    well, do you agree that [Y] was in distress in this particular moment?
FATHER:I wouldn’t say that he wasn’t. He would – he would be in distress, but [as an infant], he could be crying about anything else, but I do acknowledge my faults on that day and in the past, and I’m telling you that I have complete remorse, and I apologise for my actions, and I guarantee you that those actions won’t happen again.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 81, lines 18-23)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir, you’ve assaulted her. So, that’s not correct, is it?
FATHER:Well, at that point – at that time – I told you that I’m, again, back to that same topic, my same answer to that day, is that I’m remorseful of my actions. And I’ve apologised.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Well, sir, you keep saying this, but see the problem is, you put affidavit evidence on that doesn’t support your remorse. Do – do you agree with that?
FATHER:This is all new to me, so I’m telling you to – I am very remorseful. I am very sorry.
MR HAVENSTEIN:    As you sit there in the witness box, you realise?
FATHER:                  You can ask anyone in my life.
HIS HONOUR:        Mr Havenstein, 66: I’m sorry for the trauma caused [Ms Sayed]. It’s paragraph 66 of the ..... affidavit. So, to say to him, “You put on an affidavit that doesn’t say you’re – you’re showing any remorse. I’m sorry for any trauma that I caused [Ms Sayed].
MR HAVENSTEIN: Well, your Honour, may I put it too – too hard on him. But –but
HIS HONOUR:           Yes, this is it. So, yes, it’s not necessarily
MR HAVENSTEIN:    I hear your Honour.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 89, lines 28-45, page 90, lines 1-6)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    And in terms of that conviction, that was a conviction in the Local Court?
FATHER:It was definitely in the Local Court. I pleaded guilty there, and
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Yes?
FATHER:I am remorseful of that, as well. I have learnt my lesson, definitely, from that. I’ve been charged, and I’m on a Corrections good behaviour bond.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 94, lines 35-39)
And later:
MR HAVENSTEIN:    Do you agree that you forged her signature and that you were also convicted in relation to two fraud offences against the mother?
FATHER:As I told you multiple times, I’ve been charged, and I’m remorseful of that.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 137, lines 37-39)
The cross-examination of the CCE was significantly curtailed and cut short by her availability or lack thereof. The Court sought to manage the CCE’s time evenly across the parties’ and ICL’s representatives. Unfortunately, Counsel for the Mother took up the majority of the time that the CCE was available for cross-examination. The following exchange between the Court and Counsel for the ICL captures this issue and the issue of the Father’s remorse:
MR CAIRNS: Your Honour, there’s – you will see the ICL has outlined a progressive regime. It certainly doesn’t go anywhere near nine years, and I wouldn’t be – notwithstanding what the expert has said, I wouldn’t be
HIS HONOUR:        Yes. Well, there’s going – there’s a number of assumptions that I’m being asked – there’s a number of things that were put to the expert; there are a number of things that were not put to the expert. So – including the father’s contrition and
MR CAIRNS:             Yes. Certainly.
HIS HONOUR:           And his
MR CAIRNS:          I would have submitted to your Honour a number of times in the witness box there was remorse.
HIS HONOUR:           Yes, there was.
MR CAIRNS:          And I would say – well, in my assessment. Of course, that doesn’t matter. It’s up to your Honour, but it was, in my view, very genuine what he was putting.
HIS HONOUR:        Just for the record, I got that feeling, as well. Anyway, look, it’s – that’s the point of it. From the point of the ICL, is there – now that you’ve heard the evidence, is there any – is there a minute that you want to put to the Court?
(Transcript 24 September 2024, page 181, lines 13-37)
As set out above, the Court is required to, among other things, consider what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the Children and the Mother. If it is suggested by the Mother that the Court would find that an arrangement be put in place where the Children do not spend overnight time with the Father for some nine years because of a lack of remorse by the Father for having committed family violence, then such a suggestion is rejected. The Court sat and observed the Father’s demeanour, the manner in which he answered questions including pauses, expressions and inflections in his voice and says this… either the Father is worthy of an Academy Award for his acting skills, or he is genuine. The Court chooses the latter and notes the Father genuinely looked broken by what had happened, had reflected on his actions and showed genuine remorse. In addition, as set out above, the Father has agreed to engage in a Men’s Behavioural Change program that further promotes safety. To this extent, the Court does not accept that the Children’s relationship with the Father should be limited to daytime only for nine years or any other period of time as a means of promoting the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the Children and the Mother. The Courts conclusion is based on the Mother’s own evidence that since May 2021:
·The Mother and Father had been able to communicate, effectively, by email in regards to the Children;
·There had been no issue in relation to their communication;
·All the communications between the parties has been polite between each other;
·All the communication between the parties has been amicable;
·That going forward, the Mother and Father will both be able to communicate respectfully and effectively.
·In respect of issues of family violence, the Father was issued with an AVO and there has been no breach of that since it was issued;
·That the Mother’s relationship with the Father has remained amicable.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 40, lines 19-45, page 41 lines 1-12)

The Court further notes the Mother’s concessions made during cross-examination around the benefits to the Children spending time with the Father as follows:
MR HART:So, going back, you don’t want the Children to miss out on having time with [Mr Rehmann]?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:You see the benefits of the Children spending time with [Mr Rehmann]?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:And [Mr Rehmann] has – would you say that [Mr Rehmann] has attributes the kids can learn from?
MOTHER:      Yes.
MR HART:Yes. So, would you say it would be a benefit to the Children to spend more time with [Mr Rehmann]?
MOTHER:      Yes.
(Transcript 10 September 2024, page 51, lines 19-28)
The Father agreed to an Order by consent to undertake a Men’s Behavioural Change program. The Court making Orders for attendance at a Men’s Behavioural Change program is not a means by which an offending parent is punished or a means by which a parent is forced into showing remorse. Men’s Behavioural Change programs are ordered by the Court as a means of specifically ameliorating and diminishing risk of a Father subjecting or exposing a child or carer to family violence. Given the Mother’s evidence of what has occurred between the parties since May 2021, the Court would not have necessarily required the Father to undertake a Men’s Behavioural Change program. The Father chose to consent to Orders to do the program and the Court finds that the Father undertaking the program promotes the safety of the Children and the Mother.
The Mother sought to justify her application that would prevent the Children having overnight time until Y was in high school based on her view and belief around the idea that “he will be able to communicate better” (Transcript 10 September 2024, page 53, line 10). The Court felt the Mother’s suggestion was arbitrary and further that basing the commencement of overnight time upon the start of Y at high school based on her perceived views of his communication skills in nine years’ time lacks any real basis.
While Counsel for the Mother sought to prosecute a case that would curtail the Children having overnight time with the Father for nine years, and as good a job Mr Havenstein did trying to persuade the Court to do so, such efforts cannot and did not overshadow or overcome the Mother’s answers given to the Court in cross-examination where her evidence was tested.
The Court finds that there is no unacceptable risk to the Mother or the Children from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm if the Children immediately commence spending overnight time with the Father. The Court finds that an arrangement of the Children immediately spending overnight time would promote and not diminish or put at risk the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of the Children and the Mother by any actions of the Father.
The Court considers any views expressed by the Children.
The Court notes that the CCE recorded at paragraph 50 of her Family Report that X:
discussed that his father lives in QLD and expressed his excitement to see his father later that day, he continually asked, “where is my dad” and “what time is he coming”.
The Mother conceded in cross-examination that the Children love their Father, that the Children are excited to see him, that there is a physical affection between the Children and the Father when he collects the Children with the Children running up to the Father and hugging him, that the Children want to spend time with the Father and that the Children speak about the Father when they are with the Mother. (Transcript 10 September 2024, pages 42-44)
To the Mother’s great credit, she gave evidence that she speaks to the Children in a positive way about the Father and has told them the Father loves them. (Transcript 10 September 2024, page 64)
The Court accepts the views of the Children are that they love both parents, feel loved by both parents and want to spend time with their Father.
The Court notes that the Children have no particular developmental, psychological, emotional need greater than any ordinary child their ages. The Court is unaware of the Children having any particular cultural needs that specifically need to be met by the making of Orders by the Court.
As set out above, Orders were made by consent that the Mother should hold decision-making responsibly for the Children. The Court finds that the Mother has the capacity to provide for the Children's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
The Court heard cross-examination of the Father around the issue of and criticism of his housing in New South Wales. The Court was unimpressed by any suggestion that perhaps the Father should not have overnight time because of his accommodation in New South Wales. It is an agreed fact that the Father lives in Queensland in Region C. He is not, having heard the evidence, able to afford the costs of permanent accommodation in Sydney. The Court notes the criticism made about the Father in the oral submissions made by Counsel for the Mother in relation to the Father seeking to accommodate the Children in holiday rental accommodation (Transcript 24 September 2024, page 189). To be clear, this Court will not engage in a debate about whether a parent’s accommodation is of a particular type or up to a certain socio‑economic standard or make value judgments about whether a parent is wealthy enough to afford to purchase accommodation in order to ensure stability of accommodation such that the parent should or should not spend overnight time with their child/children. To do so would belittle the Father because of his financial circumstances and also the circumstances of many other capable loving parents who in this country live in a variety of accommodation types from multi-million-dollar waterfront homes on Sydney Harbour to Strata units, granny flats, housing commission accommodation, boarding houses, intergenerational housing, bush camps, caravan parks and a variety of other accommodation types. If the Father in these proceedings cannot consistently provide accommodation at the same premises and moves between a variety of accommodation types on the weekends he spends time with the Children in Sydney, then so be it.
The Court heard cross-examination of the Father around his health as a result of the Father having experienced an episode of amnesia and questions around his mental health. The questions felt much like a fishing expedition and did not elicit any evidence from the Father that would call into doubt the Father’s capacity to keep the Children safe and provide for their needs.
The Court does not find that the Children’s safety is at risk in relation to issues of accommodation or mental or physical health. The Court finds that the Father has the capacity to provide for the needs of the Children including their developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs.
There is a benefit of the Children having a relationship with both parents.
As set out above the Court notes that the Father lives in Queensland. The Father residing in Queensland is in the view of the Court relevant to the particular circumstances of the Children. The Mother seeks orders that would see the Father spend one day each weekend with the Children being a Saturday in one week and the Sunday in the following week. The Mother’s suggested orders are in the view of the Court disingenuous where the Mother in the view of the Court knows full well the Father resides with his partner in Region C and would quite reasonably want to at least spend time with his partner one weekend out of two. The Court is concerned the Father is in effect overreaching by offering to spend more time than is reasonably practicable. The Court does not want the Children disappointed where the Father misses a weekend and while the Court acknowledges that the Father has consistently spent time with the Children in Sydney, the Court is cognisant that the commitment will last for many many years into the future.
Rather than just adopting the position of the Mother or Father, the Court provided the parties procedural fairness in respect of the frequency of time the Children might spend with the Father. The comments made by the Court are found at pages 155 and 156 of the transcript of proceedings on 11 September 2024 that provides:
HIS HONOUR: Can I say this, and it’s only for this purpose is, if I’m considering making orders that nobody seeks I’ve got to provide people with procedural fairness, and when I say I’m not necessarily considering it, but I’m just turning my mind to the issue of it, so maybe the father can think about it maybe a little bit more than anybody else. Living in two cities is not easy.
You’ve got a partner, and you’ve got her children that you’re living with, and presumably you want to make a go of it, she’s here supporting you yesterday, so she obviously cares about you. Saying to her, “I won’t be in our house every single second weekend, week on week off, week on week off”, it’s a big ask. I’m not persuaded that, necessarily, it’s a financial issue at all, but it’s just an emotional issue, and it’s an issue in your household if your partner says, well, you’re torn between two states because you’re spending a fair bit of time with your children down here. In a lot of cases parents feel guilty, they feel guilty because it’s, in some cases, not necessarily yours, not yours at all, which is a good thing.
The other parent might be saying “he’s up in Queensland he can’t be bothered, he’s up in Queensland he’s got a new family, he’s in Queensland he doesn’t want to come down and see you, he would rather stay up there than come down here”, that’s not your life, that’s not your situation, as her mum’s fighting against you spending any overnight time, basically, for another nine years.
I’m not saying that you should do it, but if you could think about whether – I know that the ICL suggested a couple of times a term, that’s not a lot, but if you did do something like every third week rather than every second week, it would take some pressure off your household, if you want some pressure off your partner, it will at least give you a couple of weekends in a row to do something, whereas you’re never going to be able to do that if you’re coming down backwards and forwards backwards and forwards every second weekend.
The Court is of the view that an arrangement of the Children spending time with the Father each third weekend during school terms is desirable for the reasons the Court suggested to the parties and ICL as set out above.
The Court notes the issue of whether Orders should be made permitting the Children to travel domestically and/or internationally with the Mother and/or the Father whilst in their care.
The Court is not persuaded that there should be a blanket prohibition on the Father being able to travel with the Children interstate. The Father lives in Region C. If the Father ultimately wishes to take the Children to his home in Region C and fly them up and back on a weekend or during the holidays, the Court can see no issue that goes to issues of risk, safety, capacity or the like that should prevent the Children from doing so. The flight between Sydney and Region C is a short flight. This Court has made many Orders that allow children to travel to spend time with parents’ interstate.
Whilst nothing in this case stands out such that the Court should require the Father to spend his time with the Children only in Sydney, the Court agrees with the Orders sought by the ICL that provide that until the Child Y is aged seven, the Children shall spend time with their Father in Sydney. However, from the point of view of the Court, the prohibition should only relate to time the Children spend with the Father during the school term and should not extend to school holidays. The practical effect of the prohibition during the school term would prevent the Father flying the Children up and back from Region C each third weekend until the Children would be well old enough to deal with the frequency of such flights during school time. Flights during school holiday periods would not in the view of the Court be problematic as the Children would not be having to fly up on say a Friday after school or conceivably fly back late on a Sunday night with school the following day on Monday.
The Court now considers the issue of overseas travel. In the decision of Line & Line [1996] FamCA 145 with respect to the relevant matters to be taken into account when considering the authorisation of international travel,the Full Courtheld:
4.49    The next matter is obviously the degree of risk that the departing parent, once permitted to leave Australia, will, despite assurances to the contrary, choose not to return. In assessing that degree of risk, obvious considerations are the existence (or otherwise) of continuing ties between the departing parent and Australia (such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests, or the residence of close family or friends here), the existence and strength of possible motives not to return (including the level of conflict between the parents, particularly over child related issues) and the existence and strength of possible motives to remain in the other nominated country (such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests, or the residence of close family and/or personal friends there).
4.50    We think it will also be relevant, in exercising this discretion, to consider whether the country to which the departing parent intends to travel with the Children is or is not a signatory to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction signed at the Hague on the 25 October, 1980 (“the Convention”). However, in considering and deciding what weight to give to this factor, the Court would have to bear in mind that, even if the designated destination is a convention country, once the departing parent has left Australia there may be little to prevent him or her deviating from that designated destination to another destination in a non-convention country or, after going to the designated destination, from then travelling on to a non-convention country.
4.51    Finally, we think that a relevant consideration in the exercise of this discretion is the financial circumstances of both parties, and in that context the relative hardship which the departing parent would suffer by the imposition of security at a particular level as compared with the hardship which the non-departing parent would suffer if the security were fixed at a lower level. In each case, questions of hardship to the Children flowing from any hardship experienced by the relevant parent would also come into consideration.
This is not a case where the Court is at all concerned the Father will seek to take the Children overseas to some other country and not return. There was no mention in the Mother’s Outline of Case document filed on 2 September 2024 that went towards the Mother seeking to prevent the Father taking the Children overseas and then not returning and the Mother deposed to no evidence at all in her 226 paragraph trial Affidavit filed on 28 August 2024 that went to the issue of the Father travelling overseas with the Children and not returning, nor was there any evidence supporting an Order that the Children should not travel overseas with the Father or that the parties be permitted to only travel to Hague Convention countries.
For the sake of completeness, the Court is satisfied that the Father has continuing ties to Australia. He has his partner in Australia, business in Australia and family in Australia. Noting the Mother’s evidence as to the amicable relationship the parties have with one another there is, in the view of the Court, no obvious motive to take the Children overseas and not return. There was no evidence in the proceedings as to the existence and strength of possible motives to remain in another country such as the ownership of real estate, the existence of business interests, or the residence of close family and/or personal friends there. The Court finds that there is no risk that the Children will be removed by the Father from the Commonwealth of Australia and retained overseas.
There is no evidence that would persuade the Court that the parties should only visit Hague Convention countries and no such evidence that either parent is likely to take the Children to a country with problematic unsafe travel warnings. As such, the Court will make Orders that allow the parties to travel with the Children outside of the Commonwealth of Australia. For the purposes of ensuring the Children’s ability to travel, the Court will make Orders that will see the Children obtain and then maintain current passports with the parties to equally contribute to the costs of such passports where there is no evidence that suggests that they should not.
The Mother sought some ancillary Orders that are not supported by evidence of the Mother and as such the Court declines to make those Orders where there is no evidentiary basis to do so.
The parties seek orders for special occasions that include such things as Christmas Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day and the like. The Mother’s Orders in the view of the Court failed to take into account the distance between the parties and further the Orders she sought would see the Children excluded from spending time with the Father on Christmas Day in the morning each year. The Father’s Orders were in the view of the Court less one-sided than the Mother’s and considered the distance between the parties where for instance the Children would spend alternating Christmas Days with each parent. The Court wishes for there to be finality and to put aside any issues of uncertainty or contempt bred from unfairness of the way in which Orders for time with the Children on special occasions operate. The Court will accordingly make Orders for special occasions in accordance with the Father’s proposal.
The Court considers the earlier Partial Final Orders that were made by consent for the allocation of parental responsibility in favour of the Mother. Those Orders in part replicate one of the “major long-term issues” encompassing changes to living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the Child/ren to spend time with a parent that is found at s 4 of the Act. The ICL was awake to the potential for the Mother to relocate to an area that would make it more difficult for the Children to spend time with the Father. The Court has spent considerable time and effort attempting to craft Orders that are in the best interests of the Children. The Court does not want to make Final Orders and the Mother then relocates to a remote area in Western Australia for instance. The Order sought by the ICL that would prohibit the Mother moving with the Children out of Sydney without the Father’s permission or further Order of the Court is in the best interests of the Children and the Court will make such an Order.
For the reasons set out in this decision, the Court makes Orders mostly as sought by the Father, and specifically save and except that the time the Children spend with the Father take place every third weekend during the school term with the first weekend during the school term to commence on the first weekend following the Children having attended school.

I certify that the preceding ninety-three (93) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Myers.
Associate:
Dated: 14 February 2025

File number(s):	PAC 5597 of 2022
Judgment of:	JUDGE MYERS
Date of judgment:	14 February 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – Parenting proceedings - best interests of child – two children aged 4 and 6 - where the Father resides in Queensland and the Mother resides in Sydney – where the Mother seeks a gradual increase in the Father’s time commencing as supervised and moving to unsupervised – where the Mother seeks orders for her to travel with the Children – where the Mother’s allegations of drug abuse against the Father are unsubstantiated - where the Father seeks his time be unsupervised – where the Father seeks orders permitting both parents to travel with the Children - where the Court orders the Father’s time be unsupervised – where the Court orders both parents be permitted to travel with the Children.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC.
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	93
Date of last submission/s:	24 September 2024
Date of hearing:	9-11 September 2024 and 24 September 2024
Place:	Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Havenstein
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Reuben George Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Hart Law Group
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Cairns
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mason Mia & Associates-Solicitors & Advocates

PAC 5597 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS SAYED Applicant
AND:	MR REHMANN Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MYERS
DATE OF ORDER:	14 FEBRUARY 2025