Sokoloff & Sokoloff

Case [2024] FedCFamC1F 509

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1)

Sokoloff & Sokoloff [2024] FedCFamC1F 509

File number: MLC 8362 of 2021
Judgment of: HARTNETT J
Date of judgment: 31 July 2024
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the mother seeks equal shared parental responsibility – Where the Court finds the mother does not have any desire to support the children’s relationship with the father – Where the father seeks a change of residence order – Where a change of residence order is made – Where there is family violence – Where the parties have a highly conflictual co-parenting relationship – Where there is parental alienation – Where the children’s best interests are promoted by a moratorium on their time with the mother – Where the father’s evidence is preferred – The father to have sole parental responsibility – The children to live with the father – The children to have no contact with the mother for 12 weeks – Changeover of the children to be enacted at the Melbourne Registry with attendance by the ICL and a Family Consultant.
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 61C, 61DA, 65AA, 65DAA, 65Y, 67Z, 68Q, 68P

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 6.04
Cases cited:

Blinko & Blinko [2015] FamCAFC 146

CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 76

Goode & Goode (2006) FLC 93-286

Isles & Nelissen (2022) 65 Fam LR 288

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92

Mulvany & Lane (2009) FLC 93-404

Potter and Potter (2007) FLC 93-326

Re C and B (Children) (Care Order: Future Harm) [2001] 1 FLR 611

Russell & Close [1993] FamCA 62

ZP v PS (1994) 181 CLR 639
Division: Division 1 First Instance
Number of paragraphs: 391
Date of last submissions: 15 April 2024
Date of hearing: 20 – 24 November 2023; 27 November 2023; 29 February 2024 – 1 March 2024
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Dellidis
Solicitor for the Applicant: Aston Legal Group
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Taylor
Solicitor for the Respondent: Robinson Gill
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr James
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Victoria Legal Aid

ORDERS

MLC 8362 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN:

MR SOKOLOFF

Applicant
AND:

MS SOKOLOFF

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

HARTNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:  

1.All previous parenting orders be discharged.

2.The father have sole parental responsibility for decisions regarding the long-term care, welfare and development of X born 2012 and Y born 2014 (collectively known as “the children”) including determining:

(a)any medical or health issue; and

(b)any allied health issue, including psychological or psychiatric treatment or counselling.

3.The father inform the mother in writing…

Continue reading Sokoloff & Sokoloff

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sokoloff & Sokoloff [2024] FedCFamC1F 509
Case
[2024] FedCFamC1F 509
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sokoloff & Sokoloff, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining parenting arrangements for the children X and Y, born in 2012 and 2014, respectively. The father sought sole parental responsibility, while the mother sought equal shared parental responsibility. The court had to decide whether the children’s best interests were served by granting sole parental responsibility to the father, given the highly conflictual relationship between the parents, instances of family violence, and allegations of parental alienation.

The court found that the mother had exhibited behaviours that were detrimental to the children, showing an inability and unwillingness to co-parent effectively. The evidence indicated that the mother did not support the children’s relationship with the father and actively sought to undermine the father’s attempts to engage with the children. The father’s evidence was preferred, leading the court to conclude that sole parental responsibility for the father was in the children's best interests. The court determined that a moratorium on the children’s contact with the mother was necessary to promote their best interests, with supervised visits to resume after a 12-week period.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory considerations under Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, particularly focusing on the benefit of the children having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and the likely effect of changes in their circumstances. Given the evidence of the mother’s actions and the expert opinions supporting a moratorium, the court found that a significant change in the children’s living arrangements was warranted. The final orders granted sole parental responsibility to the father, mandated a 12-week moratorium on contact with the mother, and outlined detailed arrangements for supervised contact, changeovers, and special occasions. The court also included provisions for the children’s education, travel, and communication between the parents.

Orders

Orders of the court

MLC 8362 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)

BETWEEN:

MR SOKOLOFF

Applicant

AND:

MS SOKOLOFF

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

HARTNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JULY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. All previous parenting orders be discharged.

2. The father have sole parental responsibility for decisions regarding the long-term care, welfare and development of X born 2012 and Y born 2014 (collectively known as “the children”) including determining:

(a) any medical or health issue; and

(b) any allied health issue, including psychological or psychiatric treatment or counselling.

3. The father inform the mother in writing of any decision he has made regarding the long term care, welfare and development of the children as soon as practicable upon making such decision.

4. The children live with the father from 11.00am this day.

5. Changeover is to be effected at the Court Children’s Service of the Commonwealth Courts Building as directed by the Director of Court Children’s Services (Victoria) in consultation with the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”). At changeover, the ICL and/or counsel for the ICL and a Family Consultant shall be in attendance.

6. The mother after delivery of judgment shall forthwith leave the Commonwealth Courts Building, and not return to within 500 metres of the Commonwealth Courts building for a period of 24 hours, and the children shall remain in the care of the Court Children’s Service, and the mother shall not further interact with the children.

7. The father shall attend upon the Court Children’s Service as directed by the Family Consultant and follow the instructions of the ICL and Court staff.

8. Prior to changeover being effected the ICL and/or counsel for the ICL shall explain to the children in the presence of the Family Consultant the Orders as made by the Court.

9. There is liberty to the Family Consultant to obtain the services of MSS Security and/or Victoria Police to assist in the handover of the children from the mother to the father.

10. The father is to forthwith engage Ms B, psychologist, or such other psychologist as recommended by the ICL at the father’s expense, to provide therapeutic support to the children as may be agreed between the father and Ms B, or other psychologist, to assist with:

(a) the transition of the children into the father’s care;

(b) supporting the children with respect to compliance with these Orders; and

(c) to provide reportable therapeutic support, with such therapy to continue for a period not exceeding twelve (12) months and the costs of same to be met by the father.

11. For a period of twelve (12) weeks (“contact moratorium period”) from the making of these orders, the mother, her servants and/or agents be and are hereby restrained from spending time or communicating with the children by any means, including mail, telephone, email, text message or social media.

12. Upon compliance with, and upon the conclusion of the contact moratorium period, the children shall spend supervised time with the mother. Such supervision shall be by C Family Services or like supervision provider as selected by the father, and as paid for by the parties equally. Such supervised time is to occur for a period of eight (8) weeks for up to four hours each Sunday (“supervision period”).

13. After the completion of the supervision period in accordance with Order 12, and for a period of eight (8) weeks, the children shall spend time with the mother each alternate weekend from 6.00pm Thursday to the commencement of school, or 9.00am on Monday, unless the Monday is a public holiday in which case such time shall extend to before school, or 9.00am on Tuesday.

14. Thereafter the children shall spend time with the mother each alternate week, including during school term holidays, from the conclusion of school on Monday (or 3.30pm if a non-school day) until the conclusion of school the following Monday (or 3.30pm if a non-school day).

15. Such further or other time spent with between the children and the mother shall be as agreed between the parties in writing.

16. During the contact moratorium and supervision periods:

(a) in the event the children contact or communicate with the mother, the mother shall not respond to such contact or communication and shall report such contact or communication to the father via email within 24 hours of her receiving it;

(b) in the event the children attend upon the mother at her home, or any other location save as explicitly outlined in these Orders, the mother shall report the same to the father and shall do all things necessary to facilitate the children’s return to the father;

(c) the mother shall be at liberty to contact the children’s school in a manner approved by the school but not to include the mother’s personal attendance at the school to obtain updates in relation to the academic progress of the children, and the mother shall be at liberty to provide a copy of these parenting orders to the children’s school as authority for same and the mother shall otherwise be restrained from contacting or personally attending upon the children’s school;

(d) the mother shall be restrained by injunction from:

(i) attending at, or being within, 200 metres of the residential address of the father, the residential address of the father’s parents, or any premises at which the children are living or temporarily staying; and

(ii) attending at, or being within, 200 metres of any venue where the children are undertaking extracurricular activities, including the children’s sports club.

(e) the father have sole discretion to:

(i) restrict the children’s access to telephones and electronic devices;

(ii) determine the children’s attendance at school and extra-curricular activities;

(iii) enlist the assistance of Dr D and/or Dr E, to provide him with advice or support regarding the formulation of a safety plan and devising risk minimisation strategies with respect to the children, at the Father’s expense;

(iv) enlist assistance of his mother, father, brother, sister-in-law with his care of the children and operation of these Orders; and

(v) be at liberty to travel interstate on a holiday with the children during the moratorium period.

17. For the purposes of the supervision period:

(a) the parties share equally in the cost of supervision;

(b) the times on Sunday be as agreed between the parties in writing, in consultation with C Family Services,

(c) changeovers take place at a venue to be agreed between the parties in writing in consultation with C Family Services; and

(d) each party comply with all lawful directions of C Family Services including submitting application forms in a timely manner.

18. At all times the children are in her care, the mother, her servants, and agents be and are hereby restrained from:

(a) causing the children to attend upon any medical practitioner except in the event of a medical emergency;

(b) causing the children to attend upon any psychologist, therapist or counsellor without the express written consent of the father;

(c) denigrating the father and members of his family in the presence or hearing of either child, or allowing them to remain in the presence of anyone so doing;

(d) discussing these proceedings and the allegations in these proceedings in the presence or hearing of either child, or allowing the children or either of them to remain in the presence of anyone so doing;

(e) permitting the children to view any material filed or tendered in these proceedings;

(f) permitting the children to hear, attend with, or be present at, any appointment for the mother with a counsellor, therapist, psychologist or medical practitioner; and

(g) directing, authorising or permitting another person to do the things prohibited in the aforementioned sub-paragraphs.

19. Each parent, their servants or agents, aside from as provided by these orders, be and are hereby restrained from:

(a) abusing, insulting, belittling, rebuking, stalking or otherwise denigrating the other parent, or allowing any other person to do so in the presence and/or hearing of the children or either of them;

(b) discussing these proceedings or the contents of any court-related documents filed in or intended for use in these proceedings with or in the hearing of the children or either of them, or with or in the hearing of the public, or allowing any other person to do so;

(c) allowing either of the children to attend with, or be present at any appointment for the parent with a counsellor, psychologist or general practitioner;

(d) permitting either child to view any material filed or tendered in these proceedings; and physically disciplining the children or either of them; and

(e) leaving the children in the sole care of an adult unknown to the other parent unless agreed between the parents in writing.

Special Occasions

20. From 1 December 2024, notwithstanding any other order to the contrary, the children spend time with each parent on special occasions as follows:

(a) for Christmas:

(i) in 2024 and even numbered years thereafter, with the father from 4.00pm Christmas Eve until 4.00pm Christmas Day in 2024 and with the mother from 4.00pm Christmas Day until 4.00pm Boxing Day; and

(ii) in 2025 and odd numbered years thereafter, with the mother from 4.00pm Christmas Eve until 4.00pm Christmas Day in 2024 and with the father from 4.00pm Christmas Day until 4.00pm Boxing Day.

(b) on the children’s birthday, with the parent in whose care they are not already in, from the conclusion of school, or 4.00pm if a non-school day, until 8.00pm;

(c) on each of the parent’s birthday from the conclusion of school, or 10.00am if a non-school day, until 8.00pm;

(d) during Easter as follows:

(i) in 2025 and odd numbered years thereafter, with the mother from 4.00pm Easter Thursday until 4.00pm Easter Saturday and with the father from 4.00pm Easter Saturday until 4.00pm Easter Monday; and

(ii) in 2026 and even numbered years thereafter, with the father from 4.00pm Easter Thursday until 4.00pm Easter Saturday and with the mother from 4.00pm Easter Saturday until 4.00pm Easter Monday;

(e) with the father from 10.00am on the Saturday immediately preceding Father’s Day until the commencement of school on Monday following Father’s Day;

(f) with the mother from 10.00am on the Saturday immediately preceding Mother’s Day until the commencement of school on Monday following Mother’s Day; and

(g) at any other time as agreed between the parties in writing.

Long Summer Holidays

21. From the long summer holidays commencing in 2024, on a week-about arrangement commencing as follows:

(a) in 2024 and 2026 with the father from the conclusion of school for a period of seven (7) consecutive nights;

(b) in 2025 with the mother from the conclusion of school for a period of seven (7) consecutive nights; and

(c) as may otherwise be agreed between the parties in writing.

22. From the long summer holidays commencing in 2027, the week-about arrangements be suspended, and the children live with each of the father and the mother as follows:

(a) in 2027 from 4.00pm on the middle day until the recommencement of school, and each alternate year thereafter, with the father;

(b) in 2028 from 4.00pm on the last day of school until 4.00pm on the middle day, and each alternate year thereafter with the father; and

(c) otherwise with the mother; and/or

(d) as may otherwise be agreed between the parties in writing.

23. For the purpose of these orders, all long summer holidays shall be the holiday period as published by the school (which includes the school website) the child attends and include pupil free days falling either side of such holiday period.

24. Where one of the children has a longer school holiday period than the other child, the school holiday period will be calculated based on the longer school holiday period.

Changeovers

25. Save as otherwise provided in these Orders, changeovers take place as follows:

(a) at the children’s school on school days; and

(b) on non-school days, at the mother’s residence at the commencement of the children’s time with her and at the father’s residence at the conclusion of their time with the mother.

26. The father is at liberty to have his parents or either of them assist him in the operation of these Orders.

Information and Communication

27. The parents keep each other informed in writing of:

(a) Their current residential addresses and contact telephone numbers, including mobile phone numbers at least seven (7) days prior to the change where practicable and otherwise, as soon as possible after the change.

28. Each parent communicate with the other regarding the children and the operation of these Orders:

(a) by utilising the AppClose communication App;

(b) by text message in the event of an emergency; and

(c) as may otherwise be agreed between the parties in writing.

29. In the event of an emergency, the parents may communicate by text message or telephone.

Medical

30. The parents keep each other informed in writing of:

(a) all serious illnesses and/or injuries sustained by the children or either of them whilst in their respective care requiring medical attention and notify the other parent of the name and contact details for the treating medical practitioner as soon as practicable; and

(b) details of all medication prescribed to and administered to the children or either of them in the 24 hours prior to all changeovers, and in the event prescription medication is to be administered to the children or either of them during the other parent’s time with the children, the medication be exchanged at changeover together with instructions as to timing and dosage.

31. Save as otherwise provided in these orders, each parent:

(a) be at liberty to communicate with any medical or health practitioner and allied health professional upon whom the children attend; and

(b) be at liberty to receive all reports prepared by any medical or health practitioner and allied health professional upon whom the children attend.

Education

32. The mother forthwith do all acts and things required to ensure the father is listed as the emergency contact for the children at their respective schools;

33. Save as otherwise provided in these orders, each parent be at liberty to:

(a) communicate with the children’s schools;

(b) attend for separate parent-teacher interviews and special school events to which parents are normally invited such as such as concerts, sports days, graduation or like events;

(c) receive all notices, school reports, applications for photographs and like information normally provided to parents;

(d) access all school-based Apps to which parents are ordinarily provided access; and

(e) each parent do all things to ensure both parents are named as emergency contacts on the children’s school enrolment forms.

Travel and Passports

34. Pursuant to s 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the “Act”), each parent be at liberty to travel outside of Australia with the children during any period the children are in their care in accordance with these Orders, for the purposes of a holiday, provided that:

(a) The travelling parent provides 30 days’ written notice of their intention to travel, together with an itinerary, a copy of return flights, the addresses where the children will be staying and a contact telephone number upon which the travelling parent and the children may be reached; and

(b) Any travel does not unreasonably interfere with the other party’s time with the children and if so, that any missed time with the children be made up upon their return from travel.

35. Each parent do all such acts and things necessary to obtain an Australian passport for each of the children at their equal expense.

36. The father retain in his possession X’s passport and the mother retain in her possession Y’s passport and each parent provide to the travelling parent the relevant passport at least seven (7) days prior to travel and return same within seven (7) days of returning to Australia.

Dissemination

37. The father have leave to provide a sealed copy of these Orders and any Reasons for Judgment to:

(a) any medical, health or allied health practitioner upon whom the children may attend;

(b) Dr D;

(c) Dr E; and

(d) Dr F.

38. The father have leave to provide copies of the filed affidavits of Dr F and Dr D and a sealed copy of these Orders and any Reasons for Judgment to:

(a) Ms B; and

(b) any other medical professional engaged by the father for reportable counselling or therapy;

39. The father have leave to provide a sealed copy of these Orders to:

(a) the Registrar of the Magistrates Court of Victoria at … or …;

(b) the Commissioner of Victoria Police;

(c) the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, Child Protection Service;

(d) the Principal of the children’s school; and

(e) C Family Services.

Inconsistency With Intervention Order

40. Pursuant to ss 68Q and 68P of the Act, the Court declares that, to the extent that any of these orders conflict with the extant Intervention Order against the father in favour of the mother (No. …) or any extension of the Intervention Order, then the Intervention Order is invalid to the extent of the conflict.

Independent Children’s Lawyer

41. The order appointing the Independent Children’s Lawyer be discharged seven (7) days after the making of these Orders.

42. All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Ms L expressed various critical opinions about the father and Dr D. She had never interacted with the father and accepted without question the mother’s entirely negative version of her marriage. She expressed grave concern for the children’s time with the father, accepting the mother and children’s adverse descriptions. Ms L strongly disapproved of Dr D questioning Y to see if there was any ‘truth’ to Y’s assertions to his mother, her friends, and the supervisor, that his time with his father was terrible.Evidence of Ms K, the mother’s friend Ms K (“Ms K”) is a friend of the mother, and her children are friends of the children in this proceeding. Both Ms K’s children play at the same sports club as X and Y where the mother is a coach and involved as a parent volunteer. The mother’s partner is also a coach at that club. Ms K was not cross-examined, and her evidence is unchallenged. I accept it. Some of her evidence I have given little weight to where her views are formed solely based on a history as provided to her by the mother. or where they are an opinion, she is not qualified to give. Ms K observed the mother to be a “very committed mother” who had “done her upmost to ensure that the children have a normal and happy life”.[145] Ms K stated the mother has a close and loving relationship with the children and “is always getting involved with them and their activities.”[146] Ms K described the mother to be “hands on” and “always be trying to help the children to grow and develop.”[147][145] Affidavit of Ms K filed 15 November 2023, paragraph 7.[146] Affidavit of Ms K filed 15 November 2023, paragraph 7.[147] Affidavit of Ms K filed 15 November 2023, paragraph 7. Ms K deposed both children are bubbly, vibrant children when they are playing with her children and interacting with her. She described X as chatty, talkative, intelligent and engaging well with adults. She described Y as a “bit of a joker”, always trying to make people laugh, playful and rambunctious.[148][148] Affidavit of Ms K filed 15 November 2023, paragraph 10. Ms K deposed the only time when the mother appeared anxious and timid was on evenings when the father attended sports training. During this time, she observed the mother to be “on edge, hyper vigilant and visibly anxious” and gave evidence that the mother had stated to Ms K “she feels that he is watching her and that she is still fearful of him”.[149] I observe that the mother is not required to be at the training on those nights. [149] Affidavit of Ms K filed 15 November 2023, paragraph 21.CONSIDERATION The father, at the commencement of the trial, sought an equal shared parental responsibility order for the children. As the evidence unfolded however, and the mother’s behaviours became more exposed, behaviours which were detrimental to the children and which were evidence of an inability and unwillingness to co-parent, the father changed his position and sought parenting orders for sole parental responsibility for the children to him. The ICL supported the approach of the father.

Decision

Reasons for decision

During the commencement of supervised time with the supervisor, X was engaging with the father and making good progress. As the visits continued, X’s engagement slowly ceased, with no explanation. The supervised (by the grandparents) visits with the father were unsuccessful. The telephone communications were also unsuccessful. The father does not attempt to collect X from school, in the absence of a moratorium. Nevertheless, the father is confident that with counselling assistance as provided by Ms B, he will be able to regain his relationship with X while continuing his relationship with Y. The loss of this relationship has been difficult for the father to reconcile as he had a close bond with X prior to the parties’ separation. It has also been difficult for the paternal grandparents to confront, as they too had a close relationship with X.Section 60CC(3)(c)-(ca) the parents opportunity to participate in decision making, spend time and communicate with the child and the fulfilment of the parent’s obligations to maintain the children The evidence of the parties demonstrated that since this proceeding commenced, the acrimony and ineffectual communication between the parties has precluded an opportunity to engage in joint decision making. Particularly, in relation to issues of medical and counselling treatment. The father has had no real opportunity to participate in decision making, save for when orders have been made by the Court. The father was required to obtain orders of the Court to be able to see and speak to his children following separation. His ability to spend time with them, and communicate with them, continues to be adversely impacted by the mother’s approach as described above in these reasons. The father has fulfilled his obligations to maintain the children.Section 60CC(3)(d) the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances Both children are doing well at school. Y has done particularly well in writing and reading and has strong creative thinking and critical thinking abilities. Y is an energetic child, well-liked by all his teachers and peers at school. X is a confident girl and has excelled in writing and visual arts. X has been described as driven and mature for her age. Both children have been well supported by the mother in their academic and sporting pursuits. The father does not seek to change their schooling nor sports participation and wishes for their regular attendance at school in the long term. The ICL and father’s proposed change in the circumstances of the children, being that they do not see their mother for a three month or 12 week period, and then see her for a limited supervised period, before the children commence spending equal time with each of their parents, is a notable change for the children. The likely effect of that change will be more traumatic for X than Y, although Y is likely to be impacted negatively by X’s responses. Dr F and Dr D supported a moratorium period whilst acknowledging its likely effects upon the children. Dr F considered that a moratorium would be confusing for Y and could result in a rupture to Y’s relationship with the mother, who has been his primary carer his entire life. Dr D considered that a moratorium could potentially result in a further escalation in relation to X’s conduct which included threats of self-harm, and engender real psychological harm for her.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Given the father’s admission that he assaulted the mother, s 61DA(2) of the Act provides that the issue of parental responsibility can be determined on a consideration of what is in the best interests of the children without a presumptive starting point. Given the evidence in this matter, I have concluded that the highly conflictual relationship between the parties precludes joint decision-making that would advance the children’s best interests. Indeed, the lack of possibility for the parties to effectively co-parent was referred to by Dr F in her oral evidence before the Court. She described it as a “fantasy”.[151] In her view, it was in the children’s best interests for the father to have sole parental responsibility for them. That is a view with which I concur, informed by the significant and helpful expert evidence received in the proceeding and by the evidence given by each of the parties. The father is rational in his approach. The mother is impulsive and driven by her desire to sever the relationship between X and the father, and not support the relationship between Y and the father. Whilst the mother consented to orders, she acted to undermine them, and to undermine the input of Dr D whom she was clear in her evidence, she considered to be intimidating and unethical. Her response to him spoke volumes. She did not want to hear what he said if it challenged her views, or that of the children, and she did not want the therapeutic intervention he provided to re-unite the children with their father. She has encouraged X’s ‘acting out’ behaviours. Her unilateral referring of the children to various agencies and medical professionals was, as described by Dr D, systems abuse with its purpose being to support, and gain evidence, around her narrative about the father. I find it not probable that the parents will effectively consult each other in relation to long term decisions in respect of the children and nor will there be, by the mother, any genuine effort made to come to a joint decision. The father must have sole parental responsibility to best advance the children’s interests.[151] Transcript 8 January 2024, p.398 line 35.Primary ConsiderationsSection 60CC(2)(a) the benefit of the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents I find it is of benefit for the children to have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents. Whilst both of their parents stated that to be their respective positions, the mother made her position conditional at the commencement of the trial, stating that although she sought orders to achieve that outcome, she wished them to be operational only “..once it is safe to do so and at a pace which just does not further jeopardise the children’s health having regard to their reluctance and resistance to spend meaningful time with the father”.[152] By the conclusion of the trial the mother had removed the condition, but her evidence, and the series of events which occurred after November 2023, left me with little confidence that the mother truly accepted that it would be of benefit for the children to have a meaningful relationship with their father. It is probable that she does not.[152] Mother’s outline of case document filed 17 November 2023, p.4.