The Big Picture
This was a very difficult case. Both parents had problems. Both presented some risks to their children. The judge openly said he had to choose the "least worse option" – not a perfect solution, but the safest one available.
If you're involved in family law proceedings, this case shows you how the Court thinks when neither parent is perfect.
What the Case Was About
A mother and father with two young children (aged 4 and 3) could not agree on:
Whether the mother could move with the children to the USA
Whether the father was a risk to the children (physical violence, sexual abuse)
Whether the mother's mental health affected her parenting
Who the children should live with
How much time the father should spend with the children
The key fact: The mother had previously taken the children to the USA without permission (against court orders) and hidden from authorities.
How the Court Made Its Decision
The judge followed a clear process. Here's what the Court looked at, in plain language:
1. Safety is the #1 Priority
The law now focuses on promoting safety – not just protecting from harm. The Court asks: What arrangement will actively keep these children and their carers safe?
2. Unacceptable Risk – What Does That Mean?
The Court doesn't have to prove something definitely happened in the past. Instead, it asks: Is there a real chance (even if less than 50%) that future harm could happen, and would that harm be serious enough to say 'no' to that parenting arrangement?
Small risk of very serious harm → may be unacceptable
High risk of minor harm → may be acceptable
3. The Judge Considers Everything Together
The Court looks at the whole picture – not just one incident. Individual events might seem small, but together they can show a pattern.
What the Court Found in This Case
About the Father:
✅ He did commit family violence – including physical assaults, choking, verbal abuse. The Court was very clear about this.
❌ BUT – The Court found he did not pose an unacceptable risk of:
Sexual abuse of the children
Grooming behaviour
Physical violence directly toward the children (his violence was toward the mother)
🔴 However – The Court was worried about his attitudes. He hadn't really addressed why he used violence. He needed therapy.
About the Mother:
✅ She was a good historian in some areas, and her parenting was adequate – DCJ had no concerns.
❌ But she had significant issues:
She minimised her mental health problems (post-natal depression, anxiety, emotional dysregulation)
Her evidence was sometimes confusing, evasive or inconsistent
She had a distorted view of events (e.g., the McDonald's incident – she saw aggression that wasn't on CCTV)
She absconded overseas with the children and evaded authorities
🔴 The Court was concerned about her insight and ability to accept a decision that didn't go her way.
The Final Decision – Who Got What?The Mother:
✅ Children live with her in Australia (not allowed to relocate to USA)
✅ She has sole parental responsibility (makes major decisions)
✅ She keeps primary care
The Father:
✅ Gets gradually increasing time with the children:
Starts with day visits
Moves to overnight stays
Eventually reaches 5 nights per fortnight
✅ Time is unsupervised (Court said supervision not needed)
Both Parents:
Must attend therapy – and provide reports to the Court
Cannot denigrate each other in front of the children
Children placed on Airport Watchlist (can't be taken overseas without permission)
What's Unusual About This Case:
The judge made interim orders (not final) for most things, except the relocation ban. That means the Court will keep watching how the parents follow the orders. If someone doesn't comply, the matter can come back quickly.
What This Means for YOUR Case – Key Lessons1. The Court May Choose the "Least Worse Option"
Don't expect perfection. If both parents have problems, the Court will pick the arrangement that is safest, not the one that's ideal.
2. History of Absconding is Very Serious
Taking children overseas without permission – especially against court orders – will strongly count against you in a relocation application. The Court will fear you'll do it again.
3. Mental Health Matters – But It's Not Decisive by Itself
The mother had mental health issues, but the Court still kept the children with her because:
She was engaging with help
Her parenting was proven to be adequate over time
There was no evidence her issues harmed the children
Lesson: If you have mental health challenges, get treatment and stick with it. Show the Court it doesn't stop you being a good parent.
4. Family Violence Findings Don't Automatically Mean No Time
The father was found to have committed serious violence against the mother. Yet he still got unsupervised time with the children. Why?
The violence was toward the mother, not directly at the children
The risk could be managed by keeping parents apart
He had a good relationship with the children
He agreed to therapy
Lesson: Past violence is a major factor, but it doesn't automatically mean no contact with the children. The Court looks at whether the risk can be managed.
5. Sexual Abuse Allegations Need Real Evidence
The mother's sexual abuse allegations were not accepted by the Court. Key problems:
She withdrew them under oath in the US proceedings
The alleged incidents had innocent explanations
There was no pattern of predatory behaviour
She seemed hypervigilant (overly worried without good reason)
Lesson: Making unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations can harm your credibility. The Court takes them very seriously, but you need real evidence.
6. Your Credibility Matters – A Lot
The judge didn't believe the mother about many things. Consequences:
Her evidence about family violence was still accepted (because there was other proof)
But on most other issues, the Court preferred the father's version
Lesson: Be honest and consistent. If you exaggerate or mislead, the Court may stop believing you – even on issues where you're telling the truth.
7. Therapy Can Be Ordered – With Consequences
Both parents were ordered to attend therapy, and their time with the children was made conditional on attending. For the mother: if she doesn't go to therapy, the children go to the father.
Lesson: The Court can and will make therapy a condition of parenting time. Take it seriously.
8. "Interim" Orders Can Last a Long Time
Even though called "interim," these orders will likely stay in place for 12 months or more until a further hearing. Don't assume "interim" means temporary or unimportant.
Practical Advice for Your Situation
If this sounds like your case... | What you should do |
|---|---|
You've previously taken children overseas without permission | Get legal advice urgently. You will struggle to get relocation approved. |
You have mental health challenges | Engage with a psychologist/psychiatrist now. Get evidence of treatment. Be open about it. |
You've been violent in the past | Do a men's behaviour change program. Get therapy. Show the Court you've changed. |
You're worried about sexual abuse | Gather objective evidence (police reports, medical reports, child disclosures). Be prepared for the Court to test your claims rigorously. |
You and the other parent can't communicate | Propose using a parenting app (like Our Family Wizard). Be realistic – don't ask for joint decision-making if you can't agree. |
You fear the other parent | Ask for changeovers at school or public places with CCTV. Seek orders keeping parents physically apart. |
The Most Important Takeaway
The Court's job is not to decide who is a "good" or "bad" person. It is to decide what arrangement will best promote the safety and wellbeing of the children – even if that means choosing between two imperfect parents.
Be honest. Get help for your problems. Show the Court you can put your children first. And understand that the "least worse option" might still feel unfair – but the Court is only trying to protect the children.
This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with one of our qualified solicitors for advice tailored to your specific situation. Contact us today for an appointment.
