Stabile & Petrauskiene - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1790

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Stabile & Petrauskiene [2024] FedCFamC2F 1790

File number(s): NCC 3228 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE CARTY

Date of judgment: 16 December 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Applicant father seeks a final order that the three children spend equal time with each parent – Respondent mother opposes order for equal time and seeks an order that the children continue to live with her and spend time with the father – Parties agree that there will be an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children – Consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for the children to spend equal time with each parent – Consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for the children to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents – HELD that it is in the best interests of the children to live with the mother – HELD that it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable to spend substantial and significant time with the father

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65DAA, 68, Pt VII

Cases cited:
Goode and Goode (2006) 36 FamLR 422

H v M [2006] FamCA 1071

Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518

MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 198

Date of last submission/s: 24 January 2024

Date of hearing: 1 September 2023, 23 & 24 January 2024

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Bithrey

Solicitor for the Applicant: Berryman Partners

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Bateman

Solicitor for the Respondent: Tee Legal

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Mr Taylor

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Fielden & Associates
ORDERS

NCC 3228 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MR STABILE

Applicant

AND:
MS PETRAUSKIENE

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CARTY

DATE OF ORDER:

16 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS BY CONSENT THAT:
1.The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children X born in 2013, Y born in 2015 and Z born in 2018 (“the children”).
2.Changeovers will be as agreed in writing between the parents, and failing agreement:
(a)Where a changeover is due to occur at school or pre-school, by the parent who is due to have the care of the children collecting the children from school and the parent who has the care of the children ensuring that the children are at school to be collected by the other parent; and
(b)Where a changeover is not due to occur at school or pre-school, then changeover will occur at Suburb B McDonalds.

3.The children will communicate with each parent between 5.00pm and 6.00pm on any Wednesday or Sunday that the children are not already in the care of that parent, with the communicating parent to call the other parent’s mobile phone to initiate the call and the facilitating parent to ensure that their mobile phone is switched on and charged and that the children are ready to receive the communicating parent’s call.
4.Pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) the parents are each hereby restrained by way of injunction from:
(a)Physically disciplining the children or any of them and from allowing any other person to physically discipline the children or any of them.
(b)Directing or allowing any other person to direct the children or any of them, to physically discipline or punish themselves.
(c)Denigrating or bad-mouthing the other parent, their partner or any member of the children’s extended family in either household in the presence of or within hearing of the children.

5.Each parent is at liberty to travel internationally with the children X (born in 2023), Y (born in 2015) and Z (born in 2018) (“the children”) during any time that they would ordinarily be spending with the children provided that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not advise against travel to such destination and provided that the Commonwealth of Australia maintains a High Commission or Embassy in such Country.
6.Should either parent propose to travel outside the Commonwealth of Australia with the children then they will, at least sixty (60) days prior to the intended departure date, write to the other parent and provide the following details:
(a)Proposed departure and return dates.
(b)Flight details, including airline(s), and a copy of forward and return flight details.
(c)An itinerary of where the children will be staying and name(s) of any other person(s) attending.
(d)Contact details for all accommodation.
(e)Proof of travel insurance with medical and medivac cover for the children.
(f)If the proposed travel occurs during time that the children would ordinarily live or spend time with the non-travelling parent then the travelling parent will propose make-up time to be agreed between the parents prior to any travel taking place.

7.The mother and the father will do all acts and sign all documents required for each of the children to be issued with an Australian travel document (including a Passport) or for such travel document to be renewed, within fourteen (14) days of a written request by the other parent and the travel document for each child will be held in safe custody by the mother.
8.The mother will release each child’s travel document to the father within twenty-one (21) days of a written request by the father, and the father will return each travel document to the mother within fourteen (14) days of returning to the Commonwealth of Australia.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS ON A FINAL BASIS THAT:
9.The children live with the mother.
10.The children will spend time with the father at all such times as agreed in writing between the parents and failing agreement:
(a)Until the commencement of Term 3 in 2025, during each school term, each alternate week from after school or 3.00pm on Thursday until the start of school or 9.00am on the following Monday commencing on the first Thursday after the children return to school at the start of the new school term and each alternate week thereafter.
(b)From the commencement of Term 3 2025 and during each school term, each alternate week from after school or 3.00pm on Thursday until the start of school or 9.00am on the following Tuesday; and
(c)The time in Order 10(b) hereto will commence on the first Thursday of each new school term in even numbered years and on the second Thursday of each new school term in odd numbered years,
(d)During the terms 1, 2 and 3 school holiday period as follows:
(i)For the first half of the school holiday period in even-numbered years, commencing from after school on the last Thursday of the school term until 3.00pm on the second Saturday of the school holiday period: and
(ii)For the second half of the school holiday period in odd-numbered years from 3.00pm on the second Saturday of the school holiday period until 9.00am or the start of school on the first day of the new school term.

(e)During the term 4 school holiday period which commences in 2024 on an alternate weekly basis as follows:
(i)From after school or 3.00pm on 20 December 2024 until 4.00pm on 27 December 2024;
(ii)From 4.00pm on 3 January 2025 until 4.00pm on 10 January 2025; and
(iii)From 4.00pm on 17 January 2025 until 4.00pm on 24 January 2025.

(f)During the term 4 school holiday period commencing in 2025 and each year thereafter, for one half the school holiday period as follows:
(i)In odd numbered years, commencing at 3.00pm on the day that falls at the mid-point of the school holidays, and if there is an odd number of days in the school holiday period then the children will spend the additional day in the care of the father, until the date that falls two clear days before any of the children are required to attend school for the first day of the new school term.
(ii)In even numbered years, commencing from after school on the last day that pupils are required to attend school until 3.00pm on the day that falls at the mid-point of the school holiday period, and if there is an odd number of days in the school holiday period then the children will spend the additional day in the care of the Father.

(g)On the following special occasions:
(i)On each child’s birthday, if the children are not otherwise due to spend time with the father that day, from after school or 3.00pm until 7.00pm.
(ii)If the children are not otherwise in the care of the father on the Father’s Day weekend, from 3.00pm Saturday until 3.00pm on Father’s Day.

(iii)On Christmas Day in even-numbered years from 3:00pm on Christmas Eve until 3:00pm on Christmas Day.
(iv)On Christmas Day in odd-numbered years from 3:00pm on Christmas Day until 3:00pm on Boxing Day.

11.The children’s time with the father is suspended on the following special occasions and the children will live with the mother:
(a)On each child’s birthday, if the children are not otherwise due to live with the mother on such birthday, from after school or 3.00pm until 7.00pm.
(b)If the children are not otherwise in the care of the mother on the Mother’s Day weekend, from 3.00pm Saturday until 3.00pm on Mother’s Day.
(c)On Christmas Day in even-numbered years from 3:00pm on Christmas Day until 3:00pm on Boxing Day.
(d)On Christmas Day in odd-numbered years from 3:00pm on Christmas Eve until 3:00pm on Christmas Day.

12.Each parent will notify the other parent as soon as reasonably practicable in the event of any of the following happening:
(a)The attendance of the NSW Ambulance Service, NSW Police or NSW Department of Communities and Justice in relation to the children or any member of the parent’s household.
(b)Any of the children being required to attend an Emergency Department for triage or treatment.
(c)Any of the children being prescribed medication which they are required to consume whilst in the other parent’s care.
(d)Any of the children being diagnosed with a serious health condition or being involved in a serious adverse health event that requires their attendance on a healthcare practitioner for multiple appointments.
(e)An appointment being made for any of the children with a clinical specialist, and in such event the parent making the appointment will immediately provide the details of the appointment and the name and contact details of the specialist to the other parent.
(f)An appointment being made with a NDIS organisation to negotiate a NDIS plan for any of the children.

13.These Orders are sufficient authority for each parent to obtain, at their own expense, information about each child’s health, healthcare, diagnoses, treatment, NDIS file and therapeutic interventions, from any healthcare practitioner, allied healthcare practitioner or NDIS provider upon whom the child attends.
14.Unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parents, the children's primary health care provider will be C Clinic, and each parent must ensure that as far as reasonably practicable the children’s primary healthcare is provided by C Clinic, and in the event one of the children is required to attend upon another medical practice or General Practitioner, then the presenting parent must request that the records of such attendance are forwarded to the child’s primary healthcare provider.
15.These Orders are sufficient authority for each parent to obtain, at their own expense, information which is available from any school or educator pertaining to each child including school reports, school photos and Learning Support Plans.
16.These Orders are sufficient authority for each parent to attend any educational or extracurricular activity and event to which parents and members of the community are normally invited.
17.Unless the parents reach agreement as to the use of a co-parenting app, the parents will use text message or email to communicate with the other parent about parenting matters and each parent must ensure that their communication with the other parent is respectful and child focused.
18.Each parent must keep the other parent promptly informed about any change to their mobile phone number or email address.
19.Each parent is at liberty to travel intrastate and interstate with the children during any period that the children are ordinarily living with or spending time with that parent.

AND BY CONSENT THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
20.Within 12 months of the date of these Orders, the applicant father will pay the sum of $6,507.50 being his share of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer with such costs to be paid directly to the Legal Aid NSW and any queries, proposed payment plans or payment arrangements may be directed to Legal Aid NSW.

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 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 CARTY
INTRODUCTION

The hearing of this final parenting proceeding commenced prior to 6 May 2024 when substantial amendments to the provisions of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) came into effect by virtue of the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) (“the Amendment Act”). The proceeding is therefore to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act which were in force prior to the Amendment Act.
The applicant father Mr Stabile (“the father”) seeks orders that the three children, who were 10, 8 and 5 years respectively at the date of hearing, spend time with him during school terms for five nights each fortnight until the youngest child commences school in 2024, and thereafter that the children live with each of the parents in an equal time week about arrangement.
The respondent mother Ms Petrauskiene (“the mother”) opposes the father’s application and seeks orders that the children continue to live with her, and that the children continue to spend time with the father for three nights each fortnight and during one half of the school holiday periods.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks orders that the children live with the mother and spend substantial and significant time with the father, in a block period of five nights each fortnight during school terms, and for one half of the school holidays.
The parties agree that there will be an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children. The key issue in dispute is whether there will be an order that the children spend equal time with each parent and if not equal time, whether the children will spend substantial and significant time with the father.
For the reasons which follow I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the parents have equal parental responsibility for them and that the children spend substantial and significant time with the father, increasing from the current three nights each fortnight to four nights and ultimately to a five night per fortnight arrangement and for half of the school holiday periods.
BACKGROUND
In this background statements of fact are to be construed as findings, unless otherwise stated.
The father was 36 years old at the date of hearing. He lives in a rental property at Suburb D New South Wales, and works fulltime as a professional.
The mother was 31 years old at the date of hearing. She lives in a rental property at Suburb E New South Wales, with the three children and their maternal half-brother F aged 14 years. The mother is engaged full-time in home duties and has previously worked as a health professional until 2022.
The parents commenced cohabitation in 2012 when the mother, and F who was then about 3 years old, commenced living with the father. The parents separated on a final basis on 6 December 2020. They were not married. They shared their home with the father’s relatives.
The three children of the relationship are:
(a)X born in 2013;
(b)Y born in 2015; and
(c)Z born in 2018.
Upon separation the mother left with the children, and they have lived with the mother since then. The parents sat down together and discussed arrangements for the children to spend time with the father, and the father typed up an agreement. In cross examination, the father conceded that he made changes to the agreement when he typed it up, which the mother was not happy about. The children spent time with the father each alternate weekend and during school holiday periods.
From about early 2021 until mid-2022, the mother was in a relationship with Mr G. The father says that he became concerned that Mr G was using excessive physical punishment on the children. When the two older children were interviewed by the Court Child Expert in late March 2022[1] neither reported any concern about physical discipline in the mother’s household. The father expressed his concern that the youngest child had told him that “[Mr G]” was their new dad.
[1] The interviews occurred for the purposes of the Court Child Expert preparing the Specific Issues Report dated 4 April 2022
In early 2021 the mother informed the father by text message that she had decided to change the eldest children’s school enrolment from H School to J School. The father objected and sought mediation. The mother enrolled the children at J School. Between early 2021 and mid‑2021, the mother withheld the children from the father. The father concedes that he did not attempt to contact the mother or the children during that period and said that he feared that the mother would telephone the police if he contacted her. The father had instructed a lawyer by this time, and he could have contacted the mother through his lawyer.
In mid-2021 the parents attended mediation. The mother says that she experienced the father as controlling and demanding at the mediation. The parents reached an interim agreement for the children to spend time with the father each alternate weekend from after school on Friday until school time on Monday and for one half of the school holidays. The arrangements were impacted by the pandemic lockdowns, and the parents were able to agree to swap some weekends.
On 27 September 2021 the father filed an Initiating Application seeking interim and final parenting orders, including an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and that the children spend time with the father for five nights each fortnight until the youngest child commences formal schooling, and thereafter the children live with the parents in an equal time arrangement.
In late 2021 the children allegedly told the mother that the father had “flogged” them for referring to Mr G as “Dad”. The father denies that he flogged the children. The mother says that in late 2021 the two eldest children were interviewed by police, who attended at her home. The mother says that she spoke to a person at the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”) and was told that the matter was being investigated and met the criteria for risk of harm.[2] The mother again ceased to facilitate the children’s time with the father.
[2] Mother’s affidavit [48]-[52]

On 1 November 2021 the mother filed a Response in which she sought final parenting orders, including that she have sole parental responsibility for the children and that the children live with her and spend supervised time with the father.
On 3 December 2021 interim parenting orders were made, including that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, and the children spend time with the father each alternate weekend from after school Friday until school time on Monday, and on special occasions, and for block periods of time during school holidays. By consent, it was ordered that the children live with the mother and that the parents complete a Parenting after Separation course, and each attend upon their General Practitioner (“GP”) to obtain a Mental Health Plan and referral to a counsellor to address family and anger management issues. It was further ordered by consent, pursuant to section 68B of the Act, that the parents and their agents are restrained from changing the school/pre-school enrolments for the children, and from physically disciplining the children or allowing anyone else to do so, and from allowing the children to call any person, other than their biological parents, the names "dad" or "mum" and from denigrating or bad-mouthing the other parent, their partner or any member of the children’s extended family in either household.
On 7 April 2022 a Specific Issues Report was prepared by Court Child Expert Ms K (“the Expert”). The evidence of the Expert is discussed further in these reasons.
On 7 November 2022 additional interim parenting orders were made by consent which made provision for the children to spend block periods of time with the father during the term 4 school holiday period. The parents were required to participate in a parenting program, and to arrange for the two older children to participate in a children’s support program.
On 15 December 2022 the mother filed an Amended Response in which she sought final parenting orders including that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and that the children live with her and spend time with the father each alternate weekend from Friday after school until school time Monday, and for one half of school holiday periods, and on special occasions.
On 24 January 2024 the Court made additional interim orders by consent relating to international travel for the children with each parent, and it was noted that the parents agree that those travel orders can be made on a final basis by consent.
The parental homes are now located a distance of about 17 km apart by road with a driving time of around 12 minutes. The children attend J School which is in the vicinity of the mother’s home at Suburb E. The youngest child was due to commence school at J School in 2024.
The children have continued to live with the mother and spend time with the father each alternate weekend from Friday after school until Monday morning, and for block periods of time during school holidays, and on special occasions. The children communicate with the father by telephone when they are not otherwise in his care.
THE HEARING
The hearing proceeded over the course of three days on 1 September 2023, and on 23 January 2024 and 24 January 2024.
Mr Bithrey of Counsel appeared for the father.
Ms Bateman of Counsel appeared for the mother.
Mr Taylor of Counsel appeared for and with the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Fielden.
Documents
In support of his case the father relied upon:
(a)His Case Outline document filed 30 August 2023.
(b)His Second Amended Initiating Application filed 3 August 2023.
(c)His affidavit filed 3 August 2023.
(d)Affidavit of Ms L filed 3 August 2023.
(e)Exhibits F1-F4 inclusive.
In support of her case the mother relied upon:
(a)Her Case Outline document dated 1 September 2023.
(b)Amended Response to Initiating application filed 28 August 2023.
(c)Her affidavit filed on 28 August 2023.
(d)Specific Issues Report prepared by the Expert Ms K dated 7 April 2022.
(e)Exhibit M1-Amended Minute of proposed orders with respect to the children’s time with the father during the school holidays.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer relied upon:
(a)Case outline, including minute of proposed order at Annexure A.
(b)The Specific Issues Report.
(c)Exhibits ICL1 – ICL10 inclusive. ICL 10 is the Minute of Order proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer by the conclusion of the trial.
THE PARTIES’ PROPOSALS
The father’s proposal
The father seeks final parenting orders in accordance with his second Amended Initiating Application filed on 3 August 2023. In summary the father seeks orders that:
(1)The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
(2)Until Z commences formal schooling, the children live with the mother and spend time with the father five nights each fortnight and during one half of all NSW school holiday periods.
(3)When all children have commenced formal schooling, the children live with each parent on a week about basis with changeover to occur from after school or 3.00pm each Friday or as otherwise agreed in writing.
(4)The children communicate with the parent they are not with between 5.30pm and 6.00pm on Wednesday or Sunday, with the communicating parent to call the other parent’s mobile phone to initiate the call.
(5)Changeovers occur either at the children’s school or day care, or the McDonald’s restaurant closest to halfway between the parents’ homes.
(6)Each parent be at liberty to travel intrastate and interstate with the children during any time the children are spending time with that parent.
(7)The parents and their agents are restrained by injunction from:
(a)Changing the school or day care enrolment of the children without the written consent of the other parent;
(b)Allowing the children to call any other person other than their biological parent the name “dad” or “mum” or equivalent;
(c)Physically discipling the children or any of them and from allowing any other person to physically discipline the children or any of them;
(d)Directing or allowing any other person to direct the children or any of them, to physically discipline or punish themselves;
(e)Denigrating or bad-mouthing the other parent, their partner or any member of the children’s extended family in either household;
(f)Interrogating or questioning the children or any of them about the other parent, their partner or the other parent’s lifestyle and from allowing any other person to do so;
(g)Using or taking illicit substances when the children are in their respective care, or within 12 hours of the child coming into their care, and from allowing the children to be in the presence, hearing or sight of any person so affected;
(h)Consuming alcohol to excess whilst the children are in their care.
(i)Allowing the children to be exposed to family violence and immediately remove the children from any environment where it is taking place;
(j)Withholding or retaining the children from the other parent, save and except for in compliance with these Orders; and
(k)Using the children or any of them to communicate with the other parent or to pass on messages to the other parent.
The mother’s proposal
The mother sought final parenting orders in accordance with her Amended Response to Initiating Application filed on 28 August 2023, except that the mother did not press proposed orders 1 and 4 and instead sought an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children and that the children spend time with the father as agreed and failing agreement each alternate weekend from after school or 3.00pm Friday until 9.00am or school time Monday. The mother proposed that the children spend time with the father during half of school holiday periods, in accordance with the orders set out in Exhibit M1.
In summary the mother seeks orders that:
(1)The parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
(2)The children live with the mother.
(3)The children spend time with the father as agreed and failing agreement:
(a)each alternate weekend from after school or 3.00pm Friday until 9.00am or school time Monday;
(b)for one half of the gazetted school holiday periods, being the first half in odd numbered years and the second half in even numbered years;
(c)The children spend time with each of the parents on special occasions; and
(d)Changeover be at school, pre-school or at Suburb B McDonalds.
(4)The children communicate with the father each Wednesday and Sunday between 4.30pm and 6.00pm
The proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The Independent Children’s Lawyer foreshadowed in her Case Outline Document that she supports the recommendations of the Court Child Expert. She foreshadowed that she did not support an equal shared care week about arrangement due to practicalities arising from the distance between the parental households and the children’s school.
On the final day of the hearing, and prior to the commencement of final submissions, the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed final orders in accordance with a Minute which was tendered and marked Exhibit ICL 10. During final submissions Learned Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer did not press proposed Order 7 in Exhibit ICL 10 and did not press the restraints proposed in Order 8 (a), (b) , (f), (l) and (j) of that Exhibit.
In summary the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposes that:
(a)The parents have equal shared parental responsibility.
(b)The children live with the mother.
(c)The children spend time with the father during school terms initially for 4 nights each fortnight, and thereafter for 5 nights each fortnight, and for half of the school holiday periods, including a week about arrangement during the Christmas school holidays up until 2028, and on special occasions.
(d)Restraints
(e)Orders relating to communication between the parents and notifications and authorities.
(f)The father pays one half share of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
Orders which may be made by consent of the parties
It is evident that there are several final parenting orders which may be made by consent. Those orders are:
(1)That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children.
(2)That changeover occurs either at the children’s school, or the McDonald’s restaurant closest to halfway between the parents’ homes, which appears to be Suburb B.
(3)That the children spend time with each of the parents on special occasions.
(4)That the children spend time with the father for one half of each school holiday period.
(5)The children communicate with each parent on Wednesday and Sunday, unless spending time or living with him or her at those times. The father seeks that the communication occurs between 5.30pm and 6.00pm and the mother seeks that it occurs between 4.30pm and 6.00pm. I will make an order that the time frame is between 5.00pm and 6.00pm noting that this would seem a reasonable compromise and will still afford the three children sufficient time to speak with the relevant parent individually.
(6)Non-denigration order.
(7)Travel and passports orders.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The court must determine the following issues:
(1)Whether it is in the best interests of the children to live in an equal time arrangement.
(2)The spend time arrangements for the children with the father during school terms if the court does not order an equal time arrangement.
(3)The spend time arrangements for the children during Term 4 school holidays, that is whether the children’s time with each parent will be spent on a week about basis or in a three-week block period.
(4)Further restraints.
Relevant to the Court’s determination of the above issues are the following matters in particular:
(a)The capacity of the parents to communicate with each other about the care, welfare and development of the children.
(b)The father’s capacity to attend to the children’s needs, including their medical appointments, and to deliver and collect the children to and from school and support the children’s day to day activities and their additional needs.
(c)The impact on the mother’s parenting capacity if the children spend equal time with father.
(d)The impact of an equal time arrangement on the children’s sibling relationships with F.
(e)The developmental needs of the children.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
As noted previously, the final hearing in this matter concluded prior to the commencement of amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) which came into effect on 6 May 2024. The proceeding is therefore to be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act which were in force prior to the amendments taking effect.
Parenting orders are made under the provisions of Part VII of the Act. Section 60B of the Act sets out the Objects of Part VII of the Act and the principles underlying the Objects.
When making a parenting order the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.[3] In determining what parenting order is in the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the matters set out in s 60CC of the Act.
[3] Section 60CA
The two primary considerations[4] which the Court must consider are:
(a)The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and
(b)The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
[4] Section 60CC(2)
When applying the primary considerations, the Court must give greater weight to the need to protect the children from physical or psychological harm, than to the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.[5]
[5] Section 60CC(2A)
The Court must ensure that any parenting order it makes does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.[6]
[6] Section 60CG(1)(b)
The Court must consider the additional considerations set out in s.60CC(3) of the Act, which are relevant to the circumstances of each case.
When making a parenting order the Court must consider whether to apply the presumption that it is in the best interests of a child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, or whether the presumption has been rebutted.[7] Depending on what order, if any, the Court makes in relation to parental responsibility for a child, the Court may be required to consider whether it is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable, for the child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each parent.[8]
[7] Section 61DA
[8] Section 65DAA
Section 65DAA(5) of the Act provides that in determining whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the child’s parents the court must have regard to have regard to:
(a) how far apart the parents live from each other; and
(b) the parents' current and future capacity to implement an arrangement for the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with each of the parents; and
(c) the parents' current and future capacity to communicate with each other and resolve difficulties that might arise in implementing an arrangement of that kind; and
(d) the impact that an arrangement of that kind would have on the child; and
(e) such other matters as the court considers relevant.
Note: Paragraph (c) reference to future capacity—the court has power under section 13C to make orders for parties to attend family counselling or family dispute resolution or participate in courses, programs or services.
THE EVIDENCE
The Court Child Expert Ms K (“the Expert”)
The Court has had the benefit of the evidence of the Expert Ms K who prepared the Specific Issues Report dated 7 April 2022. The Expert was cross examined and was the first witness in the hearing. It is important to record that, as the Expert notes, the information which she reviewed and synthesised is limited, given the more limited nature of a Specific Issues Report as compared to a Family Report.
In her report, the Expert noted that the parents were abiding by the current interim orders and that they agreed they had improved on their capacity to communicate with each other and to co-parent the children. The parents reported that they have been able to be flexible when circumstances required a variation of the orders.
The father expressed that he is open to being flexible and said that he is:
“…just wanting more time with my children and I need to think about what it is that they want and need.”[9]
[9] Specific Issue Report [8]
Learned Counsel for the mother asked the Expert whether she would expect the parents to be flexible if the mother wanted to take the children on holiday with extended maternal family members, slightly outside of the half school holiday arrangements. The Expert answered:
“I would hope they’d be able to negotiate…especially if there was make up time offered, absolutely yes.”
When asked whether a failure to be flexible, resulting in the children not being able to spend time with extended maternal family even though make up time was offered, would be an indication of coercion and control on the part of the father, the Expert answered
“If there was no other reason for inflexibility then yes, I would question the rationale. If there is no reason to not spend time [together]. Making good memories with parents is good for the children and an agreement would be appropriate...”
The Expert noted that the mother reported that the interim arrangement is working well and that she would be happy for that arrangement to continue.[10] The mother became teary when discussing the shared care proposal of the father, and was worried how she would cope with prolonged absences from the children[11] and expressed her concern that she may not be able to cope with a shared care arrangement.[12] The Expert identified that the impact on the mother of the father’s proposal to progress to a shared care arrangement is an additional issue which requires consideration in this case.[13]
[10] Ibid [14]
[11] Ibid [13]
[12] Ibid [10]
[13] Ibid [12]
The Expert reported that the father spoke lovingly about the children. He acknowledged that a shared care arrangement may be difficult for the mother but was of the view that the children should not be denied time with him based on the mother’s needs alone. He said that the two older children had been asking him for increased time.
In cross examination with Learned Counsel for the father, the Expert was taken to her recommendation that the children spend equal time with each parent from the time that the youngest child is at school. The Expert said that she considers that each child has reached a developmental age where they are able to manage such an arrangement, if things are progressing as both parents reported, and she would assume the youngest child would be comfortable by school age, because that is an age when developmentally children can handle being away from their primary caregiver.
The Expert agreed that mid-week time with the father, or a five night per fortnight arrangement, could benefit the children because they would have the opportunity to observe the father implementing a midweek routine with them, which does not occur when they are spending only alternate weekend time with him. The Expert agreed that part of the reason she recommended equal time for the children with the father was so the children would have the opportunity to spend time in the father’s household mid-week.

The Expert was asked whether, if the court determined that an equal time arrangement is not in the best interests of the children, one block each of five nights each fortnight during school terms might be better than two shorter block periods each week. The Expert said that one block period might be better and smoother and that one of the advantages of a block period is that it halves the travel time for the children during the school term. The Expert said that she is not against a five-night block period each fortnight, and that a block period tends to work best for parents and children because it allows routine and predictability. I pause to note that in his oral evidence, the father said that he would prefer a block period of five nights over the split arrangement proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The expert was of the view that five nights each fortnight is substantial and significant time for a child with a parent.
The Expert was aware that the children have medical issues which require the children to attend medical appointments reasonably regularly. When asked whether it would trouble her if the father hadn’t taken the children to medical appointments and was minimally involved in a medical context in the past, the Expert said that this would not really cause her disquiet but that she hoped that the father would be able to negotiate his work commitments and meet the children’s requirements in the future. If the father relied on the paternal grandmother to take the children to medical appointments, then it would depend on whether information was relayed to the mother by the father. The Expert referred to her recommendation that the parents download a parenting app to assist them with their communication about the children. She said that the parents would have to be able to communicate, and in first instance the mother or father should attend medical appointments, but grandparents do help when parents are not available. The Expert said that she supports the mother being able to attend medical appointments for the children, given that the mother has been engaged in medical appointments to date and she would need to be involved.
The Expert confirmed her evidence that the mother’s ability to cope with changed arrangements is a consideration, because the mother has the care of four children and her ability to cope has potential impacts for those children. The Expert said that she doesn’t think changes in the arrangements would impact on the mother’s parenting capacity, but the mother’s emotional response is an issue and a graduated spend time arrangement would be appropriate so that the mother can adjust.
The Expert readily accepted that she had not considered in any detail the issue of F in the mother’s household, because she prepared a limited issues report. She is not sure of the impact on the children if they have reduced time with F and was unable to comment.
During cross examination by Counsel for the mother, the Expert clarified that her recommendation is for the children to spend five nights per fortnight with the father until the youngest child starts school, and then equal time with him. She said that if the Court did not find that the parents have the capacity to communicate well about the children, then an equal time arrangement would not be supported. When asked whether her recommendation would be impacted if the court found that the father was coercive and controlling and that the mother is still impacted by such coercion and control, the Expert answered:
It is hard to make a comment as the mother was very clear in her interview that there was no family violence. It comes down to the parents’ capacity to communicate. If their capacity to communicate is impacted by coercion and control, then I am less likely to recommend equal time
The Expert confirmed that she was aware that the mother alleges that the paternal grandmother denigrated her and mentioned that in her report. She said that if the mother had told her that the denigration by the paternal grandmother was still impacting her then equal time would not have been recommended. If the paternal grandmother had denigrated the mother, then the Expert would not encourage the two women to encounter one another.
The Expert re-affirmed that her recommendation for equal time was based upon the ability of the parents to communicate and to be flexible with one another. She confirmed her view that for an equal time arrangement to work the parents would have to have good capacity to communicate, including on occasions when the children request to spend more time with the other parent. She agreed that she cannot be certain that an equal time arrangement will work in this family and conceded that it may not be the best outcome.
In cross examination with Learned Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer the Expert agreed that if the children are safe then substantial and significant time with both parents is appropriate. She said that she does not really know the children and does not know if the children would readily adjust and expected that there would be a period of adjustment and that the children would most likely adjust once a predicable routine is in place.
The Expert said that ideally parents should attend children’s medical appointments, and that her preference is for the parents to prioritise medical appointments. If there are odd appointments that a grandparent takes a child to, then that is okay parents should attend routine appointments parents’, because it can create issue if a grandparent attends, including communicating what occurred in the appointment.
I accept the evidence of the Expert, and place considerable reliance on her evidence.
The father’s evidence
The father provided an affidavit in the proceeding and was cross-examined at the hearing.
At the trial the father did not express any concern for the safety and wellbeing of the children in the mother’s household. He said that the co-parenting relationship had improved following the making of the interim parenting orders in early December 2021.
There is no doubt that the father has discussed the parenting dispute with the children, and thereby exposed them to the adult issues, when it would have been more appropriate for him to confine any discussion about the adult issues to discussions between himself and the mother, either directly, or via his lawyer, or at mediation. The following are examples in the father’s evidence where, in my view, he has inappropriately exposed the children to the parental conflict and adult issues:
(a)In early 2021 the father told the children that Mr G is not their Dad, and asked the oldest child “Who told you that?”[14]
(b)Two months later in 2021 the father told the eldest child, who was then 8 years old, that things the mother had reportedly told the child were not true. Even if the child did report an untruth told by the mother, the appropriate manner to deal with that would have been to talk to the mother about it and to shield the child from the adult issues.[15]
(c)Over the weekend in mid-2021, the father again engaged in conversation with the eldest child about adult issues.[16]
(d)In mid-2022 the father questioned the eldest child about persons in the mother’s household.[17]
(e)A month later in 2022 the father discussed the mother’s friendship with “Mr M” with the children.[18]
(f)Two months later in 2022, the father questioned the children about the mother’s friendship with “Mr M”.[19]
[14] Father’s affidavit [40]
[15] Ibid [44]
[16] Ibid [57]
[17] Ibid [72][73]
[18] Ibid [81]
[19] Ibid [90]
Questioning the children or encouraging the children to disclose information about the other parents’ home, can impact negatively on the children by placing them in loyalty binds, and is confusing and stressful for the children. The children benefit if both parents are able to shield the children from the adult issues and allow the children freedom to enjoy their relationships with both parents, without being placed in the position of a go-between or being provided with confusing information such as the other parent is not telling the truth, which can harm the trust that a child places in both parents and can damage the parent-child relationship.
It is encouraging that the father completed two courses in 2021, and that he found the courses helpful and eye-opening. Given that some of the inappropriate discussions with the children occurred after the father completed the course, perhaps he can do more to assist him to gain insight into his parenting practices and the impact of his choices on the children.
The father feels that the courses assisted him to re-open constructive dialogue with the mother, and that is certainly very positive for the children.
The father denies the mother’s allegations that he and his family put her through domestic abuse. He denies being coercive or controlling. He says that the parents had their “fair share of arguments during our relationship” and says that police were never involved. I pause to note that the absence of involvement by police does not, in and of itself, exclude the possibility that a party has perpetrated family violence during a relationship. Survivors of family violence may not report incidents to the police for a variety of reasons, including fear of repercussions, shame, or because they do not want to further diminish an already poor relationship. The father’s evidence about his conversations with the eldest child, and the tenor of his evidence about the mother’s relationships with other males, does cause me some concern that he may have attempted to control the mother post-separation through his focus on her relationships with others.
The father denies that he denigrated the mother in front of the children during the relationship. He said that he did not swear at the mother or prevent her from spending time with friends or family. Under cross examination by Counsel for the mother, the father denied that he’d heard his mother, or his grandmother, make negative comments about the mother. He denied that the paternal grandmother had sworn at the mother in front of the children. The father said that the mother’s allegations were not true, although he volunteered that he knew the two women “had a little spat” and he said that he didn’t know what it was about. The father does accept that the mother was feeling overwhelmed living in his household with his relatives.
During his evidence in chief on 1 September 2023 the father adopted his affidavit sworn on 3 August 2023. In cross examination by Counsel for the mother it became apparent for the first time that the father’s employment changed in 2023. The father is now employed in a business at Suburb N. During cross examination with Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer the father said that he has moved into rental accommodation at Suburb D, and that his relatives moved there with him.
The father works from 9.00am until 3.30pm on Mondy to Friday. The driving time between the father’s home and the children’s school is about 20 minutes, and between the father’s workplace and the children’s school the driving time is, according to the father, around 40 minutes. The father agreed, under cross examination, that the children can be delivered to school from about 8.15am onwards and that they come out of school about 3.10pm each school day. When Counsel for the mother put to the father that he is not available to collect the children from school, he replied, “My boss is flexible” and said that he has “a handshake agreement” and that he can leave work early if he makes up the hours. He said that he is currently negotiating with his new boss.
When cross examined at the hearing on 1 September 2023, the father agreed that he would not have been able to deliver the children to school during the week before and said that he starts work at 7.00 am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. He agreed that he has not cared for the children in the afternoon on a weekday, except on a Friday, and he said that he makes up the lost work time during the alternate week. The father agreed that if he had the children in an equal time week about arrangement then this would involve a much greater commitment of time and greater encroachment on his work hours. He has not calculated how much lost work time he would need to make up if he had the children in his care each alternate week. He conceded that he would likely have to make up about 12 ¼ hours of lost time in the alternate week, when he did not have the children. He could not say that he would be able to work from home.
To the date of trial there had been ten school holiday periods when the children were scheduled to spend time with the father pursuant to the interim parenting orders. The father has 14 days holiday leave per annum. He agreed that one half of the school holidays each year amounts to six weeks per annum. The father must rely upon assistance from relatives to look after the children while he is at work, when the children are on school holidays. The father took time off work to spend time with the children during the Christmas period in 2020, and during the Term 4 school holidays in 2021 and 2022, and during the Term 3 school holidays in 2023. On a further six occasions the father’s relative stayed in the home with the children while the father went to work. The father said that he has relied more heavily on his sister Ms O to care for the children during school holidays, than on the paternal grandmother.
The father said that he had accrued more than five weeks of holiday leave, but he relied on his sister during six of the last ten school holiday periods to care for the children while he worked because the children need multiple surgeries, and he has stored up his holiday leave so that he can take time off work when the children need surgery. Now that the father has new employment with a different business it is not clear whether he still has five weeks leave accrued, or whether his accrued leave was paid out.
The father agrees that there are a significant number of medical appointments each year for each child. He said that he has not calculated the total time commitment involved in having to leave work early to pick up the children from school to take the children to medical appointments, and to make up the lost work time. The father was unable to say whether such time commitments are logistically possible for him. He agrees that the eldest child has medical issues and he agrees that the mother had always been responsible for specialist appointments and liaising with specialists for the child. The father accepted that the mother has kept him informed about events at school, extra-curricular activities and medical appointments for the children.
The father estimated that he has attended on a GP with one or other of the three children about a dozen times over a 10-year period, and he accepted that the mother has been to about 100 medical appointments relating to the children during that period. The father has not attended any school events involving the children. The father has not cared for any of the children when they are unable to attend school due to sickness.
The father agreed that if the Court ordered that the children spend more than three nights each fortnight with him, then he would prefer one block of time and not two separate periods spread over two weeks.
The father agreed that the mother informed him in 2023 that she proposed to take the children with her on a family holiday in 2024. He conceded that, until early 2024, he had not provided his consent to the mother taking the children with her, notwithstanding she has offered him make-up time.
The paternal grandmother Ms L
Ms L is the children’s paternal grandmother. She swore an affidavit in support of the father’s case on 3 August 2023 and was cross-examined at the hearing.
Ms L was 59 years old at the date of hearing. She works as a health professional in Suburb P. Ms L’s rotating roster requires her to work in Week 1 from 6.30am until 3.00pm Saturday to Thursday[20] and in Week 2 from 6.30am until 3.00pm Monday to Wednesday. The travel time by car between Ms L’s workplace and the children’s school is about one hour.
[20] In her Affidavit Ms L deposed that in week 1 she works from Sunday through to Thursday [37]. Under cross examination she said that in Week 1 she works from Saturday to Thursday.
Ms L lived with the parents and the children until the parents separated in late 2020. Ms L deposes that she “…let [Mr Stabile], [Ms Petrauskiene] and the boys have their own life day to day as a family unit but was always around the house with them.”[21] I accept that Ms L has a close relationship with the children, and that she has left the parenting of the children up to the parents.
[21] Paternal grandmother’s affidavit [11]
Since the mother separated from her previous partner Mr G, Ms L holds no concerns for the children in the mother’s care.
Ms L deposes that the father was a “nervous wreck” during the first year after the separation and that she has noticed an improvement in his mood and general affect since then. She has also noticed an improvement in the co-parenting relationship.
Ms L said that the paternal great-grandmother lived with the family some years ago. She denied hearing the paternal great-grandmother making derogatory remarks about the mother, and she denies denigrating the mother herself. She agrees that the mother cooked dinner many times, but she denied throwing a dinner plate in the bin. She admits that there is swearing within her family, but said swearing does not occur frequently. Ms L denied that the children were permitted to watch television shows outside of those recommended for their age group, and she denied watching violent television shows in front of the children. She denies ever hearing the father telling the children to play up on the mother or telling them not to tell the mother things.
When asked about her daughter Ms O, who is the children’s paternal aunt, and Ms O’s mental health issues, Ms L was hesitant before accepting that Ms O does have mental health issues. She did not accept that Ms O has very severe depression, and said that Ms O is on medication for depression, and that she is not aware of any other diagnosis. Ms O stays overnight in the home during school holidays to care for the children while the father works, including during the last Christmas holiday period, and for two weeks at Easter 2023. The father does not leave the children alone with the paternal grandmother as she is too old to care for them, but the great-grandmother has assisted to care for the children by making the children’s lunches for school.
Ms L was at home with the children on one occasion when an allied health professional attended upon the oldest and the middle child, and she agreed that the father was not home.
Ms L agreed that the father commenced a relationship with someone called “Ms Q” in 2023.
Ms L’s evidence about the father’s work arrangements was in some respects inconsistent with the evidence which the father provided. For example, Ms L said that some mornings the father starts work as early as 5.00am or as late as 7.30am. She said that he finishes work sometimes as late as 7.00pm and that sometimes he works from home. The father was clear to say he cannot work from home, and he said that his work hours are from 9.00am until 3.30pm each weekday, although he has started at 7.00am. The discrepancies in the evidence of the father and the paternal grandmother about the start and finish times for the father’s work may be due to the father working longer hours when the children are not with him to make up for work time lost when he collects the children from school on Friday afternoon and when he delivers the children to school on Monday morning, each alternate week.
Ms L is available to assist the father with the care of the children when she is not working. She is not generally available to collect the children from school or deliver them to school, due to her work commitments.
The mother’s evidence

The mother provided an affidavit in the proceeding, and she was cross-examined at the hearing.
The mother alleges that the father has perpetrated coercive control during the relationship and post separation. She deposes that he has continuously insinuated that she is in a relationship with Mr M who the mother says she has known since High School. The mother insists that she and Mr M are just friends. The mother says that the father has insinuated that she is in a relationship with her brother’s best friend and has known the mother’s family for decades. The mother deposes:
“I believe that [Mr Stabile] is trying to isolate me from my friends, family and networks. [Mr Stabile’s] constant allegations that I am in relationships with men is relentless and persistent bid in an attempt to isolate and suffocate my relationships.”[22]
[22] Mother’s affidavit [16]
I have noted already that the father questioned the children about the mother’s household and her relationships, and I accept the mother’s evidence that she feels that the father has attempted to exert control over her.
The mother deposes that during the parents’ relationship, the father and his relatives made upsetting and negative comments about her and frequently denigrated her in front of the children. She says that the father and the paternal grandmother were critical of her if she wanted to visit her family and friends.[23] The mother expressed concern that the father and the paternal grandmother will continue to speak negatively about her and her parenting skills in front of the children and this might jeopardise the children’s relationships with the mother.[24]
[23] Ibid [20]
[24] Ibid [39]
The mother says that recently the children are acting aggressively and are defiant and irritable when they return from the father’s care.[25] She deposes that the oldest child has told her that the father tells the children to play up for the mother and offers them rewards to do so and that the father’s relatives say mean things about her to the children.[26]
[25] Ibid [40]
[26] Ibid [45]
Notwithstanding the mother’s concerns, she acknowledged during her oral evidence that it is important for the children to have grandparents, and she understands that the father may have to rely on his mother from time to time, and she said that she does not think the paternal grandmother would do any harm to the children. The mother said that she would not liaise with Ms L herself.
The tenor of the evidence which the mother provided in her affidavit was inconsistent with what she reported to the Expert in late March 2022, when she spoke about the parents capacity to converse in a child focussed manner, and how pleased she felt that the co-parenting capacity had significantly improved since the interim orders were made.[27] The mother conceded under cross examination by Counsel for the father, that her evidence that she usually sends a text message to the father and only ever calls him in the case of an emergency to avoid conflict [28] was not true, and she conceded that she and the father do sometimes speak by phone outside of emergencies. The father tendered evidence of the parents communicating by text message in a child-focussed and polite way when the youngest children was in hospital.[29]
[27] Specific Issues Report paragraph 15
[28] Mother’s affidavit [114]
[29] Exhibit F4
The mother is concerned about whether the father can manage the children’s health needs.[30] She expresses concern about the quality of the children’s diet in the household of the father, which she says impacts their behaviour.[31]She is concerned that the father leaves the children with the great-grandmother, who the mother describes as
“…approximately 85 years old, and is very frail with limited mobility and is unable to care for the children on her own, particularly if one of the boys has a medical emergency.” [32]
[30] Ibid [41]
[31] Ibid [46]
[32] Ibid [45]
Considering the evidence given by the paternal grandmother about the father’s mood during the first year following separation, I consider that the mother harbours genuine concerns about the father’s capacity to manage the individual needs of each child after separation.
Although not everything that the mother said in cross examination withstood scrutiny, I consider that she did her best to answer questions honestly. She made appropriate concessions, and was thoughtful and child focussed in her responses. She was not unduly critical of the father in her oral evidence. She demonstrated her patience and willingness to communicate with the father, and she prioritises the children’s needs. The mother demonstrated respect for the children’s father, and she values the children’s important relationships with him.
I accept the submission of Counsel for the mother that the mother has some mixed feelings about the father. She trusts that the father loves the children and values the children’s relationships with him. She knows that the father can take care of the children on alternate weekends, and during school holidays with the assistance of his relatives, but the mother does have genuine concerns about how the father would manage the day to day, and relatively complex needs of the children in an equal time arrangement, because historically he has demonstrated a lack of interest in their education and he has not been able to prioritise the children’s medical appointments over his work commitments.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Section 60CC(2)(a) The benefit of the children of having a meaningful relationship with both of their parents
The children have two loving and capable parents. The parents agree that the children benefit from their meaningful relationships with both parents, and I accept that to be the case.
I am mindful of the observation of Brown J in Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518, that a meaningful relationship or meaningful involvement is a qualitative adjective, and not a strictly a quantitative one.[33]
[33] Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 at [26]
In H v M [2006] FamCA 1071 Strickland J observed that:
“There is no issue here that a meaningful relationship with the mother and the father will benefit the child… although the dispute centres around the extent of the time that the child should spend with the father, that alone does not determine whether there will be a meaningful relationship or not. Other important factors include how the time is spent and the input of the parent during that time.”[34]
[34] at [101]
On either parents’ proposal, I am satisfied that the children will continue to have the benefit of the meaningful relationships they currently have with both parents.
Section 60CC(2)(b) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse neglect of family violence
Both parents expressly conceded that neither parent poses a risk of physical or psychological harm to the children. The parents agrees that the children are not at risk of being subjected or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence in the household of the either of them.
RELEVANT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Section 60CC(3)(a): any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child's maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
The eldest child was 7 years old when he was interviewed by the Expert. He stated that he had no worries or concerns in either parent’s household and expressed his wish to spend more time with his father and wanted “even time”.[35] The Expert said that the child’s views were developmentally appropriate and children in this age group have a desire for fairness.
[35] Specific Issues Report [32]
The middle child was 7 years old when interviewed by the Expert. He also expressed that he would like to spend more time with the father and stated that he would like 12 nights with each parent.[36]
[36] Ibid [36]
The youngest child was not interviewed due to his young age and his stage of language development.[37]
[37] Ibid [38]
The Expert did not suggest that the children’s views should be determinative and said that their views are not an extremely influential factor in this case, because young children cannot apprehend the full implications of what they wish for. I accept that evidence.
While it is appropriate to give more weight to the eldest child’s view than to the middle child’s views, I have considered the views of both children and agree with the Expert that the children’s views are not determinative.
Section 60CC(3)(b): the nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparents or other relative of the child)
The children have solid relationships with both parents. The father concedes that the mother has been generally the primary carer for the children, the children are assessed by the Expert to share a close and loving relationship with the mother.[38]
[38] Ibid [49]
I accept that the father has always been involved with the children[39]and the children have important relationships with the father.
[39] Father’s Affidavit paragraph 22
The children were observed to be comfortable in the presence of both parents, and to seek affection from both parents. The eldest and middle children appeared safe and secure in their attachment with the mother.[40] The children were observed to settle quickly into the company of the father.[41] The youngest child was observed to be comfortable with both parents.[42]
[40] Specific Issues Report [42]
[41] Ibid [44]
[42] Ibid [39]
There is no direct evidence of the children’s relationships with their maternal half-brother F, but I consider that sibling relationships are important and that the children have lived predominantly in their mother’s home with F.
The paternal grandmother has always been a part of the children’s lives, and the mother has conceded that grandparents are important to the children and that the paternal grandmother would not do any harm to the children. I consider that the paternal grandmother is an appropriate person to assist the father to care for the children when he requires assistance.
Section 60CC(3)(c): the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in making decisions about major long-term issues in relation to the child; and to spend time with the child; and to communicate with the child
I am comfortably satisfied that each parent has taken every opportunity to spend time and communicate with the children, and to make decisions about the children.
Section 60CC(3)(ca): the extent to which each of the child’s parents have fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligation to maintain the child
During the parents’ relationship they agreed to divide their responsibilities so that the mother would work casually and provide the primary caregiving for the children and the father would work fulltime and provide the primary financial assistance to the family.[43]
[43] Father’s affidavit [23]
The father pays child support as assessed by the Child Support Agency[44] and contributes to the costs of the specialist appointments and towards other expenses
[44] Ibid [146]
I am satisfied that both parents have fulfilled their obligation to maintain the children.
Section 60CC(3)(d): the likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of the child’s parents; or any other child or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom he or she has been living
The father’s proposal involves significant changes in the care arrangements for the children. The children would no longer have one primary residence with the mother.
The children will likely be pleased to spend more time with the father, and the two older children expressed a clear desire to do so. However, the children have not lived in an equal time arrangement before and there would have to be some adjustments for both the children and the parents in such an arrangement.
The father has managed the care of the children, in addition to his work commitments, in the current spend time arrangement whereby the children spend three nights each fortnight with him, and half school holidays, but his capacity to manage the full-time care of the children each alternate week while working full-time is untested. The father acknowledges that his work commitments will necessitate him calling on the paternal grandmother and his sister to assist him, and he conceded during his oral evidence that he has not calculated how many hours he would lose in work time and would have to make up if the children are in his care, noting that the would have to transport them to and from school each for 5 days each alternate week. The father has not calculated the time involved in having to leave work early to pick up the children from school to take them to medical appointments, and he would have to make up the lost work time. He could not say whether the time commitments involved in caring for the children each alternate week would be logistically possible for him.
If the father’s work commitments were to remain unchanged then the children may not have the benefit of a parent who is consistently available to meet their day-to-day needs. I accept that parents do have busy lives, and that sometimes arrangements need to be made, but I consider that there are subtle benefits for the children if a parent undertakes some tasks and does not delegate those tasks to other people, including to grandparents.
The mother has been consistently available to provide care for the children, including when one of them needs to be picked up the child from school if he is sick.
On the father’s proposal the children will experience a separation from the mother and their half-brother each alternate week. The children and the mother would be required to adjust to that arrangement, and the impact on the mother is likely to be significant as she adjusts, as she has been the children’s primary caregiver.
On the mother’s proposal there would be no change in the existing arrangements, except that the children would spend a block period of three weeks during the term 4 school holiday period with each parent. That is a significant change for the children, who have not spend more than 7 nights away from the mother, and not more than about 11 nights away from the father.
On the mother’s proposal, the children would not have the benefit of the father being involved in their daily routines, in particular their mid-week school day routines.
If the children were to spend one or two additional nights each fortnight with the father, they would have the benefit of the father implementing their mid-week routine without the more significant changes that an equal time arrangement would entail.
Section 60CC(3)(e): the practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis
The parents live a distance apart of about 17 kilometres by car and driving time is about 12 minutes.
The real practical difficulty comes about due to the location of the father’s place of employment at Suburb N and the location of the children’s school. The driving distance is more than 70 kilometres and involves about an hour’s drive, including a lengthy stretch along a motorway. The father would have to manage his work commitments around his responsibilities to make sure the children are delivered to school and picked up and that they attend medical appointments and therapies.
Section 60CC(3)(f): the capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person to provide for the needs of the child including emotional and intellectual needs
Both parents are capable and responsible and can meet the children’s day to day needs. The children have additional needs, which require specialist appointments, therapies and surgeries.
The mother has expressed her concern that the father lacks capacity to prioritise the children’s medical needs, in the context of his work commitments. The father conceded in cross examination that the mother’s concern is reasonable and that to date he has not “stepped up” to meet the children’s additional needs on a day-to-day basis. As discussed already, the father is employed full time in a business which is about one hour’s driving time from the children’s school. The father conceded in cross examination by Counsel for the mother that there are a very significant number of medical appointments for each of the children every year. Although the father conceded under cross examination that he has not calculated the number of hours required each week to attend to the medical needs of each child, the father was not prepared to concede that it would be difficult for him to fulfil the children’s medical commitments if they were in his care half the time, but he conceded that he can’t say whether it is logistically possible for him to meet the children’s medical commitments, given his work commitments.
The oldest child has several medical issues, and he is required to attend appointments with his GP and with Mr R who is a specialist, and the child sees an allied health professional. When he was 7 years old, the child was diagnosed with a medical condition and he regularly attends a specialist clinic at Suburb S.
The middle child is diagnosed with medical issues and he attends upon a GP and Mr R, and upon an allied health professional, and another medical professional about every 6 months. He is also diagnosed with another medical condition. In 2017 he was reviewed by Dr T. The doctor assessed that there was no need for therapy and suggested a review in 18 months.[45] He continues to see a medical professional every 12-18 months.
[45] Exhibit F1
The youngest child is diagnosed with medical issues. Like his older brothers he regularly attends upon a GP, Mr R, and an allied health professional. Additionally, he was born with a another medical condition, and he has had surgery for the condition and regularly attends upon specialists.
There are certainly occasions when the father has attended to the children’s medical needs. For example, in early 2022 he took the youngest child to U Hospital due to health issues. The child was diagnosed and treated. He responded well and was discharged home, with a medical plan. In mid-2022 the father took the youngest child to U Hospital due to concern about the child’s health issues. The child was diagnosed and discharged home with advice on when to represent.[46] The father conceded that he cannot think of a time when he has taken time off work to care for one of the children when they have been sick and unable to attend school.
[46] Exhibit F3
The mother has prioritised the children’s needs over her employment arrangements. She has always been available to meet the day to day needs of the children, including delivering and collecting them to and from school and pre-school, and caring for each child when he is sick. It is common ground that the mother has always been responsible for booking the children’s medical appointments, liaising with medical professionals and attending the appointments with the children. The mother has been responsible for arranging and attending with the children for their regular therapies.
The mother expresses her concern that the father lacks capacity to prioritise the children’s educational needs, in the context of his work commitments. The father conceded in cross examination that he has never attended any of the children’s school events. He calculated that transporting the children to and from school five days each week would involve a number of hours of travel.
The evidence leads me to conclude that the father does not have the flexibility in his employment arrangements to ensure that he is available to meet the day to day needs of the children if they were in his care for half the time. The father is unlikely to be available to attend to the children at short notice, for example if they cannot attend school due to illness or if they need to be picked up at school early. I accept that in a medical emergency the father is able to drop everything at work, and he has done so on at least one occasion, but overall I am not satisfied having seen and heard the father give his evidence that he has the capacity to be consistently available to meet the medical and educational needs of the children.
Section 60CC(3)(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background of the child and of either of the child’s parents and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant

There is nothing which I need to add under this section.
Section 60CC(3)(h): The child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child
In both his Application for Final Orders filed on 27 September 2021 and his Amended Application filed on 9 February 2022 the father expressly nominated that neither he nor the mother identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
In her Response filed 1 November 2021, her Amended Response filed 9 February 2022 and her Amended Response filed 28 August 2023 the mother expressly nominated that neither she nor the father identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
For reasons which are entirely unclear, in his Second Further Amended Application the father identified the mother as Aboriginal.
There is not a scintilla of evidence before the Court that either of the parents identifies themselves or any of the children as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
Neither of the parents made any submission that any of the children are an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child.
Although in her Case Outline the Independent Children’s Lawyer made a submission that “The three children identify as Aboriginal” that submission is not based on the evidence, and no oral submission was made to that effect on behalf of the Independent Children’s Lawyer or either of the parties at the trial.
I am not satisfied that any of the children in this case are an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child, and this subsection of the Act is therefore not enlivened.
Section 60CC(3)(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
In my view both parents have demonstrated an appropriate attitude to the responsibilities of parenting.
Section 60CC(3)(j) any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family
The father claims that in 2021 he became concerned that the youngest child had some injuries and that the mother’s partner Mr G was using excessive physical discipline on the children. The father says that his sister reported the concern to the Department of Communities and Justice. There is no evidence of any action taken by the child protection authority.
The mother was extremely distressed when the father made the above allegations. She says that she and the father shared a very close relationship and that he knows that she would never do anything to put the children in harm’s way.[47]When interviewed by the Expert about the children’s health the father
“…praised the mother for her response…[to the children’s medical issues]…saying “she doesn’t miss much” when it comes to the children and their health.”[48]
[47] Mother’s affidavit [67]
[48] Specific Issues Report [40]
I cannot be satisfied that the mother permitted Mr G to physically discipline the children or to injure them in any way, or that the mother has caused an injury to the children.
The mother claims that in 2021 the eldest child and the middle child disclosed that the father had “flogged” them because they referred to her then partner as “Dad”. The father denies the allegation. The mother says that the allegation was investigated by police. There is no evidence of any action taken by police or any child protection authority. I cannot be satisfied that any such event occurred.
The parties propose that there will be an order which restrains each parent from using physical punishment on any of the children or permitting anyone else to do so. That order will be made by consent. Both parents have complied with court orders made in this matter to date, and in my view the proposed restraint will ameliorate any risk that either parent will resort to physical punishment or permit any other person to inflict physical punishment on any of the children.
The mother details a history of her feeling denigrated and belittled by relatives in the father’s household, which both the father and the paternal grandmother deny.
The mother claims that the father engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour towards her, which the father denies. There is some corroboration of the mother’s concern in the email she sent to the middle child’s doctor’s surgery in 2021, where the mother wrote that the parents are separated due to psychological domestic violence, and that she is concerned that the father will attempt to degrade her and that he is trying to dominate and control her, and she wants to be able to speak freely without having to stress or be concerned about her mental health.[49] I also have regard to the father’s concession that he made changes to the agreement that the parents had reached, when he typed it up.
[49] Exhibit ICL 1
I am not able to make a finding that the father or his relatives perpetrated family violence against the mother. However, feelings are not facts, and I accept that the mother felt overwhelmed in the father’s household, and at times she has felt that the father was trying to control her.
The parties propose that there will be an order which restrains each parent from denigrating the other parent or any member of their family in the presence or within the hearing of the children and that order will be made by consent. In my view the proposed restraint is in the best interests of the children because it will ameliorate the risk that they will suffer emotional and psychological harm from being subjected to neglect of their needs, including their need to be shielded from the adult conflict and issues, and will ameliorate any risk that the children may be exposed to family violence by virtue of them hearing derogatory words spoken about their other parent.
The parties agree that currently the children are not at risk of harm from being subjected or exposed to family violence in the household of either parent.
Section 60CC(3)(k) If a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child’s family – any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order
There is no evidence that a family violence order applies or has applied to any of the children or to any member of the children’s family. This subsection is not enlivened.
Section 60CC(3)(l) Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child
It is each child’s best interest not to be placed in the position where they are at the centre of parental conflict, including due to being the subject of a family law dispute between the parents.
I consider that it is in the best interests of each child to make orders that are least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the child, and the orders which the court will make take this consideration into account.
Section 60CC(3)(m) Any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks relevant
There are no other relevant matters to note.
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
I am satisfied that I must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of each child for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The parents agree that there will be an order that they have equal shared parental responsibility for the children, and that order is supported by the Expert.
When the parents spoke with the Expert in March 2023, they each reported a significant shift in their capacity to co-parent after the interim orders were put into place, and agreed that they currently have the capacity to engage in conversations with each other which are child focused.
Each parent is loving and devoted to the children, and each parent has a lot to offer the children. The parents are willing to consult with each other about major long-term issues[50] in relation to the children and willing to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about those issues.[51]
[50] Defined in s.4 of the Act
[51] As required by s.65DAC of the Act, in force at the time of the hearing
I accept that an order that the parents have share equal shared parental responsibility for the children is an order which is in each child’s best interests.
Live with arrangements for the children
As noted previously, section 65DAA of the Act is enlivened if a parenting order provides that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.
The father seeks an order that the children live with each of the parents in an equal time week about arrangement when the youngest child starts school in 2025.
The mother opposes the father’s proposal for equal time, and she seeks an order that the children continue to spend time with the father each alternate weekend and during the school holidays and on special occasions.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer proposes that the children continue to live with the mother and that the children spend substantial and significant time[52] with the father.
[52] As defined in s 65DAA(3) of the Act
In considering whether it is in the children’s best interests and reasonably practicable for the children to spend equal time with each of the parents I take into account the following matters[53]:
(a)The parents live a driving distance of approximately 18 km apart with a driving time of about 20 minutes;
(b)The children attend J School and the father works for a business in Suburb N, a driving distance of more than 70 km from the children’s school which takes not less than 40 minutes, according to the father;
(c)The children have medical diagnoses and additional needs, which requires each child to attend regularly on medical practitioners and therapists, and historically the father has more often than not left it up to the mother to arrange and liaise with the children’s doctors and therapists;
(d)The father works full time each weekday and he would need to arrange to take time off work to deliver and collect the children to and from school, and so he could attend the children’s medical appointments and therapies. I formed the view while hearing the father give his evidence that he has not thought through the full implications of what he proposes in terms of the impact on his work and his capacity to properly attend to the children’s medical and educational needs if the children were to live with him for one half of their time;
(e)While the parents’ capacity to communicate has recently improved, there have been significant challenges since separation, and clearly there remains a distinct lack of trust in the co-parenting relationship. I take into account that the mother felt overwhelmed while living in a household with the father and his relatives and that she has experienced the father’s behaviour towards her as controlling[54] and that she does not feel comfortable to communicate with the paternal grandmother, upon whom the father proposes to rely for assistance to manage the children’s day to day needs including their medical appointments and therapies;
(f)The children have always lived primarily with the mother, and they have not experienced living in the father’s household in an equal time arrangement. It is difficult to predict how the children will respond to being separated from the mother for one half of their time during school terms;
(g)The children have always lived in a household with their maternal half sibling F. It is difficult to predict how the children will respond to being separated from F for one half of their time during school terms, including any impact on the cohesion of the maternal family unit; and
(h)There are different approaches to parenting in the respective parental households, including expectations and practices, which can be difficult for the children to manage and can also present challenges for the parents.
[53] Section 65DAA(5)
[54] Expression of it seen in 2021 email ICL 1 – Medical reception
Having regard to the evidence in this matter, I consider that there are likely to be significant challenges for the children, and for the parents, in participating in an equal time arrangement. Equal shared care arrangements can be particularly difficult for children, as they are required to transfer from one home to another every week, which some children find burdensome and tiring. The children must constantly adjust to their changed physical environment, their different personal items, different behavioural expectations in the respective homes, different parental responses, routines, social opportunities and support networks. Some children adapt well, and other children find it very challenging. It is difficult to predict the outcome for each individual child.
In this family the parents have not, to date, developed a committed co-parenting relationship and, notwithstanding the abundance of evidence of recent improvement, the communication between the parents is still challenging. This fact is evidenced because the parents have not demonstrated the capacity to resolve fundamental issues relating to the children’s care, such as with whom the children will live and how much time the children will spend with the other parent. The conflict is also demonstrated by the stark contrast in the evidence of each of the parents about their co-parenting relationship, with the father highlighting the positives and the mother highlighting the negatives. Having had the considerable advantage of hearing and seeing both parents in the witness box, I consider that while both parents were generally honest and child focussed witnesses, they each tailored their evidence to suit their own case.
Where the parents remain in such conflict, it is unlikely that they will manage an equal shared parenting arrangement successfully. If the children are placed at the centre of parental conflict, their wellbeing will be compromised, and their capacity to maintain positive relationships with both parents may be undermined.
For the above reasons I consider that it is not in the best interests of the children to make an order that they live in an equal time arrangement with the parents, nor is it reasonably practicable given the father’s work commitments and the distance between his workplace and the children’s school.
Consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents
In my view, the spend time with arrangements which the mother proposes would not permit the children to spend substantial and significant time with the father, because the children would not spend time with him on days that do not fall on weekends, and the time that the children would spend with the father would not allow him to be involved in their daily routine during the week.
I accept the submission of Counsel for the father that the children will likely benefit from seeing each of their parents implement daily routines. That submission is clearly consistent with the evidence of the Expert. I consider that it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable that they spend significant and substantial time with the father. A block period with the father each alternate week will reduce the need for the children to have to pack up and transfer between the parental homes and will provide sufficient time for the father to be involved in the children’s daily routines.
I take into account the mother’s anxiety in relation to whether the father will prioritise the children’s day to day needs, including in relation to their additional needs and their education, over his work commitments. I accept the evidence of the Expert that a gradual increase in the time that the children spend with the father during school terms will assist the mother to adjust. I also consider that a graduated increase in the time will help the children adapt and adjust.
I consider that the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer, that the children’s fortnightly time with the father during school terms ought to increase initially from the current three nights to four nights before increasing to five nights in a block period, will best meet the needs of the children.
Noting the children’s close and loving relationships with the father, and noting further that the children are already spending block periods of five nights with the father during the school holidays, I consider that it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for the children to spend time with the father for a block period of four nights each fortnight during terms 1 and 2 in 2025, and that commencing from term 3 in 2025, and continuing thereafter, the children spend time with the father, during school terms, in a block period of five nights each fortnight.
The above arrangement is intended to allow the children sufficient time to adjust to the changed school term arrangements and will allow the children to spend substantial and significant time with the father, providing the opportunity for the father to be involved in the children’s weekly routines including their school routines.
The spend time arrangements for the children during Term 4 school holidays. Whether the children’s time with each parent will be spent on a week about basis or in a three-week block period.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks that the children spend equal time with each parent during the term 4 school holiday periods on a week about basis until 2028, and thereafter in a block period.
I will order that the time occurs on a week about basis during the 2024 term 4 school holidays, unless otherwise agreed, and that thereafter the time occurs in a block period.
To date the children have generally not spent more than seven nights in a block period away from the mother, and they have not generally spent three weeks away from the father either. The youngest child is only six years old, and he is about to complete his first year of schooling.
In my view it is too much to expect the children to move straight into a three-week block period with the father, without giving the children some time to adjust to the changes in their parenting arrangements which will be implemented because of the orders the court will make. Further, I consider that the father is unlikely to be able to spend a three-week block period of time with the children this year without appropriate notice, given his work commitments, and he has historically relied upon his sister to care for the children during school holiday periods while he works. I consider that by the end of 2025 the children will have had time to adjust to the changes in their parenting arrangements and the youngest child will be 7 years old and a block period of 3 weeks away from both is unlikely to exceed the coping capacity of the younger child.
Orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer relating to the communication between the parents, notifications and authorities
While there was no express consent to the orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer relating to the communication between the parents, notifications and authorities, there was no express opposition. I intend to make the relevant orders proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer because I consider that they are in the best interests of the children and will promote the Objects set out in s.60B of the Act, in particular the object that the children have the benefit of both of their parents being involved in their lives to the maximum extent possible, and the object that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential, and the object to ensure that the parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
Costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer
The Independent Children's Lawyer sought an order that the father pay a half share of her costs calculated in the sum of $8,157.50. There were no submissions addressing this proposed order during final submissions.
My chambers have communicated with each party to place them on notice that oral submissions on the proposed costs order will be heard following delivery of these reasons.
CONCLUSION

I consider that the orders provided at the forefront of these reasons are the orders that are in the best interests of each child.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety-eight (198) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Carty.
Associate:
Dated: 16 December 2024

File number(s):	NCC 3228 of 2021
Judgment of:	JUDGE CARTY
Date of judgment:	16 December 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Applicant father seeks a final order that the three children spend equal time with each parent – Respondent mother opposes order for equal time and seeks an order that the children continue to live with her and spend time with the father – Parties agree that there will be an order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children – Consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for the children to spend equal time with each parent – Consideration of whether it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable for the children to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents – HELD that it is in the best interests of the children to live with the mother – HELD that it is in the best interests of the children and reasonably practicable to spend substantial and significant time with the father
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 60CG, 61DA, 65DAA, 68, Pt VII
Cases cited:	Goode and Goode (2006) 36 FamLR 422 H v M [2006] FamCA 1071 Mazorski & Albright (2007) 37 Fam LR 518 MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	198
Date of last submission/s:	24 January 2024
Date of hearing:	1 September 2023, 23 & 24 January 2024
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Bithrey
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Berryman Partners
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Bateman
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Tee Legal
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Taylor
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Fielden & Associates

NCC 3228 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MR STABILE Applicant
AND:	MS PETRAUSKIENE Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CARTY
DATE OF ORDER:	16 DECEMBER 2024