Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)

Hashemi & Latifa [2023] FedCFamC2F 188  
File number(s):	PAC 2097 of 2019	
		
Judgment of:	JUDGE NEWBRUN	
		
Date of judgment:	23 February 2023	
		
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Best interests of children – Orders made. 	
		
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA,, 65D, 65DAA, 65Y	
		
Cases cited:	Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119	
		
Division:	Division 2 Family Law	
		
Number of paragraphs:	205	
		
Date of hearing:	6–8 February 2023 	
		
Place:	Parramatta	
		
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person with Language L interpreter	
		
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Yu	
		
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ellis McLachlan	
		
Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Mr Hill	
		
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Brian Samuel & Associates	

ORDERS
	PAC 2097 of 2019	
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)	
BETWEEN:	MS HASHEMI
Applicant
	
AND:	MR LATIFA
Respondent

order made by:	JUDGE NEWBRUN	
DATE OF ORDER:	23 FEBRUARY 2023	

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	All previous parenting orders in respect to the children W born in 2010, X born in 2011, Y born in 2014, and Z born in 2016, (“the children”) shall be discharged.
2.	The mother and father shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children on all aspects except for travel.
3.	The father shall have sole parental responsibility for the children for the aspect of travel including both domestic and international travel. For the purposes of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), any requirement of the mother to consent to obtaining a passport or travel document for the children, is dispensed with.
4.	Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the father shall be permitted to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia at his discretion for the purposes of international travel.   
5.	The children shall live with the father.
6.	The mother shall forthwith attend to the following:
(a)	Re-engage with Ms B, or equivalent psychologist, and follow all reasonable directions and recommendations of such psychologist;
(b)	Re-engage with Dr C, or equivalent psychiatrist, and follow all reasonable directions and recommendations of such psychiatrist;
(c)	Re-engage with Ms D from E Clinic, or equivalent mental health social worker;
(d)	Engage in a certified English-speaking course;
(e)	Engage with a professional in-home family support service;
(f)	Apply for National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding for herself. 
7.	The mother shall forthwith provide her treating professionals listed at Orders 6(a)–(c) with a copy of these Orders and the Single Expert Report of Dr F dated 7 December 2021.
8.	The children shall spend time with the mother on a graduating basis as follows:
(a)	For two consecutive Saturdays for no less than two hours on each occasion (for a period nominated by the father), at a public venue such as a park (nominated by the father) supervised by the father (with the father to stay at a distance where he can see the children but not hear what is being said) and then;
(b)	For at least two consecutive Saturdays for no less than four hours on each occasion, at a public venue (or venues) such as a park supervised by the father (with the father not to interfere with the mother’s time with the children unless the father is of a reasonable view that the children are at imminent risk) and then;
(c)	Upon the mother providing to the father details of her compliance with Orders 6(a)–(d), unsupervised overnight time at a frequency of one Saturday night each week over a period of eight weeks, and then;
(d)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to 10.00am Sunday (two overnights) over a period of eight weeks, and then,
(e)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (three overnights) over a period of 12 weeks, and then,
(f)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Thursday (or 3.00pm Thursday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (four overnights).
9.	In relation to Order 8(c) above, the mother shall be deemed to have provided to the father details of her compliance with Orders 6(a)–(c) if she provides a letter to the father from each of the psychologist, psychiatrist, and mental health social worker, to the effect that she has re-engaged (or engaged with their equivalent) with such practitioner and that such practitioner is supportive of the mother’s time with the children progressing to overnight time. The mother shall be deemed to have provided to the father details of her compliance with Order 6(d) if she provides a letter to the father from a certified English speaking provider to the effect that she has engaged in their certified English-speaking course.
10.	The mother shall provide the father with six monthly updates (by way of letter) of her engagements with her psychiatrist, psychologist and her mental health social worker. 
11.	The father shall forthwith do all things necessary and sign all documents required to enrol the children into a Language L speaking and comprehension class and ensure that the children attend said classes punctually and consistently. 
12.	The mother and the father shall forthwith take all necessary steps to enrol in and complete the Tuning into Kids (for the three youngest children) and Tuning into Teens (for the eldest child) parenting courses so as to facilitate the provision of emotionally attuned parenting by each of them. Such courses can be completed through G Counsellors or other accredited organisation.
13.	The children be removed from the Airport Watch List.
14.	WITHOUT ADMISSION the mother and the father be restrained from the following: 
(a)	Exposing the children to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the children, the mother, the father or any other member of either party’s household;
(b)	Physically disciplining the children;
(c)	Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the children and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so;
(d)	Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so;     
(e)	Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings;
(f)	Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the children or whilst the children are in his or her care and;
(g)	Knowingly bringing the children into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess;
(h)	Failing to adequately feed the children when the children are in their care.
15.	In the event that any of the children shall suffer any injury, be hospitalised or suffer any significant illness the parent in whose care such child or children are in at the time shall notify the other parent immediately except in the case of an emergency where they shall do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.

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).

Section 121 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 Hashemi & Latifa has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE NEWBRUN:
Introduction
1	This hearing relates to the children W born in 2010, X born in 2011, Y born in 2014, and Z born in 2016,  (“the children”).  The eldest child W is in Year 8; the child X is in Year 6; the child Y is in Year 4; and the child Z is in Year 1.
2	On 25 October 2019, interim parenting orders were made by consent and which provided, inter alia, that, after certain time between the children and the mother increased on a graduating basis, the mother was to spend time with the children during school term each Saturday from 9.00am to 5.00pm and each Wednesday from after school to 7.00pm; the child Z was to live with the mother with the three other children to live with the father; and during school holidays the children were to spend Wednesdays and Saturdays with the mother.
3	On 5 August 2021, the Court made interim parenting Orders by consent as follows:
1.	That the mother spend time with the children as agreed between the parties, but failing agreement, as follows, in the presence of the father:
1.1	Each Wednesday between 3pm and 5pm
1.2	Each Saturday between 11am and 1pm
1.3	At any other time as agreed between the parties.
2.	That the mother be permitted to communicate with the children by telephone each Tuesday and Thursday at 5pm, and at any other time as agreed between the parties.
3.	NOTATION: The court notes that the mother maintains that her time with the children should be unsupervised and for longer periods and seeks that [Z] return to live with her. The parties have agreed to these orders to facilitate the mother’s ongoing relationship with the children while awaiting the preparation of the expert report of [Dr F], who has arranged appointments with the parents and children in October 2021.
4.	NOTATION: The court notes that these orders finalise all current interim proceedings on foot.
…
4	The mother was hospitalised with adverse mental health for two weeks in December 2020.  On 21 December 2020, interim parenting orders were made in the absence of the mother, including an order that the child Z live with the father.
5	In about November 2022 the children’s time with the mother ceased.
6	The mother’s former solicitor, Ms H of Legal Aid NSW, served a Notice of Ceasing to Act upon the mother on about 18 November 2022 and a Notice of Withdrawal as Lawyer was filed by Legal Aid NSW on 29 November 2022.
7	This Court made the following Orders and Notations on 12 December 2022:
1.	Pursuant to s 102NA(1)(c)(iv) Family Law Act 1975, the requirements of s 102NA(2) are to apply to the cross-examination by the mother of the father, in circumstances where the mother has made allegations of family violence against the father.
2.	The mother be provided with a Language L interpreter for the final hearing beginning 6 February 2023 (final hearing estimate three days)
3.	Leave is granted to the respondent father to file and serve by 13 January 2023 a further Amended Response and short updating affidavit.
AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:
A.	The mother is requested to complete the Family Violence Cross Examination Form available at https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/for-lawyers/family-violence-and-cross-examination-of-parties-scheme as a matter of priority and return their completed form to Legal Aid NSW:
i.	In person at any Legal Aid NSW office; or
ii.	In person to a Family Advocacy and Support Services lawyer or support worker at the Parramatta Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia; or
iii.	By post to PO Box K847 Haymarket NSW 1240; or
iv.	By email to crossexamscheme@legalaid.nsw.gov.au.
8	The mother did not take up the opportunity to obtain legal representation for the final parenting hearing pursuant to the Court’s above Orders of 12 December 2022.  Prior to the commencement of the final parenting hearing on 6 February 2023, and on 6 February 2023, the mother did not seek an adjournment of the final parenting hearing and indicated she was content for the final parenting hearing to proceed without legal representation.  The Court had informed the mother that she would be legally prevented from cross-examining the father personally by reason of not having a legal representative to represent her at the final parenting hearing noting the prior section 102NA Order made on 12 December 2022. The course of the final parenting hearing and other relevant matters were explained to the mother with the assistance of her Language L interpreter.
Proposals
9	The Mother seeks orders, inter alia, that the children spend three nights each week with her, together with birthday time.
10	The Father’s proposals were set out in his Further Amended Response filed 11 January 2023.  Inter alia, he sought final parenting orders that he have sole parental responsibility for the children; that the children live with the father; that the children spend time with the mother as agreed between the parties and based on the wishes of the children; if the children express a wish to spend time with the mother, the father will facilitate supervised time either supervised by himself or by a professional supervision agency at the cost of the mother; that the mother be at liberty to telephone the children each day between 5.00pm and 6.00pm.
11	The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) sought final parenting orders as set out in his Minute of Proposed Orders, to the effect, inter alia, that the children live with the father; and the children spend time with the mother increasing on a graduated basis to unsupervised overnight time for one Saturday night a week but subject to certain conditions including the mother re-engaging with her former treating mental health professionals.
Material relied upon
12	The mother relied upon her:
(a)	Affidavit filed 19 August 2022.
13	The Father relied upon his:
(a)	Further Amended Response filed 11 January 2023;
(b)	Affidavits filed 8 August 2022 and 11 January 2023.
14	The ICL relied upon his Case Outline filed 11 January 2023 and the following document:
(a)	Single Expert Report of Dr F dated 7 December 2021.
15	The following documents became Exhibits:
(a)	Exhibit A: Father’s Tender Bundle containing subpoenaed material from NSW Police; the mother’s psychologist, Ms B; and Region J Local Health District;
(b)	Exhibit B: Affidavit of Dr F dated 15 December 2021 annexing his Single Expert Report.
Evidence
16	In determining this case, the Court has had regard to all the written evidence referred to above together with the oral evidence given. Throughout these Reasons the Court will refer to a number of facts taken from that evidence.  Any such reference should be regarded as a finding of fact unless a contrary intention is clear from the context. In determining disputed questions of fact the Court is required to assess the evidence on the balance of probabilities. In order to limit the size of this judgment not all factual issues will be addressed, and the Court will not set out the entirety of the evidence. Evidence of the parties relevant to the Court’s determination will be considered either in this section or whilst addressing the section 60CC considerations (ie section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“The Act”)) (see below).  In the event of any conflict between the evidence in this section and evidence referred to under the Court’s discussion under section 60CC, the latter evidence shall take precedence.
The mother’s affidavit 
17	The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the mother’s affidavit.
18	The mother is aged 36 years. The Father is aged 46 years.
19	The parties married in Country K in 2006.  The father remained in Country K for about two months after the marriage and then returned to Australia.  In 2009, the mother arrived in Australia and the parties commenced their cohabitation.
20	In about mid 2018, Z and the mother travelled to Country K.  This is the date when the mother considers the parties’ relationship broke down.  The other three children have remained in the father’s care since this date.
21	The mother arrived back in Australia in about February 2019 with Z.  The mother commenced these proceedings in about May 2019 with a view to spending time with the other three children.
22	Z remained living with the mother in Sydney until December 2020 when the mother was hospitalised due to her mental health.  Z has lived with the father and other children since this time.
23	The mother speaks Language L and she speaks to the father in this language.
24	The mother does not have any family in Australia.
25	The parties and children lived in Country K between September 2017 and February 2018.
26	Until separation in May 2018 the mother was the primary carer of all of the children. In March 2017 the father stopped working as a manual worker and began assisting the mother with the school drop-offs and pickups.
27	In about mid-May 2018 was the last time that the mother saw the children W, X and Y until she saw them at the Child Inclusive Conference interviews in August 2019. Z had remained in the mother’s primary care. 
28	The mother did not spend time with the three eldest children throughout 2019 apart from a brief visit on 7 December 2019.
29	The mother completed the Triple P parenting program online in about January 2020.
30	Following a mediation in January 2020 the mother began to spend time with the three eldest children during the daytime on a regular basis.  During visits, the children often appeared hesitant and rarely engaged with the mother.  It took some time for the children to start to become comfortable in the mother’s care.
31	The mother did not facilitate the youngest child Z spending time with the father in accordance with the October 2019 Orders except on very limited occasions.
32	The mother does not recall talking and laughing to herself as alleged by the three eldest children to Dr F.
33	In late 2020 the mother stopped spending time with the children.  In mid-October 2020 the mother’s then lawyer withdrew as her lawyer in the proceedings.  The mother does not remember everything from this time, however she can now see that her mental health was deteriorating at this time.  Although the mother was still able to care for Z and meet her needs she felt low and stressed.
34	After the birth of Z the mother began hearing voices, but they disappeared for a while.  The voices returned towards the end of the mother’s stay at a refuge in July 2020 when the mother was struggling to reconnect to the 3 eldest children.  The mother cannot remember exactly what the voices said to her but she remembers that they were nasty and made her upset.  Shortly after, the voices in the mother’s head became increasingly louder but she always fought back these voices.  The mother often heard these voices when she was extremely stressed.  At times, these voices told her to hurt herself but they never told her to hurt Z.  The mother always tried to shut the voices out.  Towards late 2020 the mother’s symptoms became increasingly severe to the extent that she had no energy to spend time with the children, and the voices told her not to go and see the children.  On 17 December 2020, the mother disclosed to, inter alia, her caseworker from the Domestic Violence Service that she was hearing voices telling her to hurt herself.  She stated that she always fought the voices, but that she was tired of fighting them.  The mother was taken by ambulance to M Hospital for mental health assessment and treatment.  Z was placed in the father’s care.
35	The mother stayed in hospital for about two weeks and was prescribed Olanzapine to be taken twice daily.  The discharge summary from M Hospital refers, inter alia, to the mother presenting to the hospital with psychotic symptoms.  Under the heading “Current presentation” the summary refers to the mother expressing that she felt like hurting herself and her four-year-old daughter.  Under the heading “MSE on admission” it is stated that the mother denied homicidal ideas or ideas to hurt the child or others, and it was stated that the mother lacks insight and judgement.  Under the heading “Progress since admission”, it was stated that the mother was showing improvement in her mental state and the psychotic symptoms were under control.  Under the heading “Medications on Discharge”, it was stated that the mother was taking certain medication on discharge being Olanzapine.
36	The mother, since her discharge from hospital, has engaged with mental health supports and feels well supported in managing her mental health on an ongoing basis.  She sees her GP every three to four weeks.  He also speaks Language L.  She discusses her mental health with her GP.  The mother saw a psychiatrist, Dr C referred to by her GP, on about three occasions between September 2021 and February 2022 to discuss her mental health and medication.  This psychiatrist, in her report dated 22 September 2021, states, inter alia, that she has seen the mother in consultation.  The mother has no symptoms at present.  She refers to the mother’s discharge from O psychiatry hospital six months ago and her discharge on medication.  The mother was complying with her medication well.  The mother was having access to the children Wednesdays and Saturdays.  The mother completed primary education only.  On mental examination the mother, inter alia, reported normal mood and she denied psychotic phenomena.  She denied self-harm thoughts.  She had no aggressive thoughts.  She had good insight and was willing to comply with the prescribed medication.  The psychiatrist stated that the mother’s clinical presentation was consistent with the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia in remission.  She had organised a follow-up appointment in two months’ time.
37	The mother stated her understanding that her GP would refer her back to the above psychiatrist if needed in the future.  The mother continues to take medication, and she does not hear the voices anymore, or experience any symptoms of acute mental illness.  She states her mental health is managed by her taking Olanzapine as prescribed by her doctor. 
38	The mother states that she was referred to a psychologist, Ms B, from P Centre in Suburb Q who has been helping her monitor and assess her mood to address any stressors or triggers that may cause psychotic symptoms. Ms B’s report is dated 19 August 2022 and, inter alia, states:
Dates of Consultation:
Ms. [Hashemi] initially attended this service on 12th February 2021. She has attended a total of 16 sessions till date. Dates of consultation are: 12/02/21, 11/03/21, 15/04/21, 04/06/21, 12/07/21, 13/08/21, 17/09/21, 01/11/21, 15/11/21, 29/11/21, 13/12/21, 04/02/22, 03/03/22, 25/03/22, 13/05/22, 03/06/22, 24/06/22 and 05/08/22. 
Ms. [Hashemi’s] next session is scheduled for 26/08/22.
Clinical Presentation and Mental State:
Ms. [Hashemi] presented as a polite woman dressed in casual clothing. She needed prompting in engage in conversation. Her speech was normal, however, she struggled to articulated herself clearly. She appeared tense and anxious when discussing the upcoming hearing. She reported an absence of visual and auditory hallucinations or delusional ideas. She appeared to be oriented in time and place, and had good insight with regards to her situation. Ms. [Hashemi] denied any presence of self-harm ideation.
Referral:
Ms. [Hashemi] was initially referred to me by his GP [Dr R] for assessment and management of her schizophrenia and managing her general mental health in the context of her history of Domestic Violence in her previous relationship and being separated from her children.
…
Symptoms and Diagnosis:
Ms.  [Hashemi’s] symptoms include feeling as though the event is happening again, recurrent nightmares, feeling detached and withdrawn from people, difficulty concentrating, difficulty with sleep, feeling on guard, avoiding activities that remind her of her trauma, inability to remember parts of the most hurtful events, less interest in daily activities, feeling as if she doesn’t have a future, sudden emotional or physical reaction when reminded of the most hurtful or traumatic event, feeling that people do not understand what happened to her, blaming herself for things that have happened, feeling guilty of having survived, hopelessness, feeling shamed of the hurtful things that have happened, spending time thinking why these things happened, feeling like going insane, feeling like she is the only one that suffered these events, feeling that others are hostile to her, feeling that she has no one to rely on and feeling that someone she trusted betrayed her.
These symptoms fulfil the DSM – V criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Previous Diagnosis or Treatment:
Ms. [Hashemi] has previously been diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Depression. She has previously been admitted to [O] Hospital mental health. Ms. [Hashemi] was prescribed Olanzpine 15mg and Zoloft 50mg upon discharge.
Current Treatment:
Ms. [Hashemi] attends regular psychological sessions under the care of myself. She has agreed actively participate in therapy strategies and comply with any strategies and plans agreed to in session.
Ms. [Hashemi] is complying with medication that has been prescribed by [Dr R] or any Psychiatrist she is seeing and monitor any changes. Currently she is on Olanzapine 10mg at night.
The psychological sessions under my care focus on the following areas: Management of Depressive symptoms using Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). CBT is a structured psychological treatment which recognises that cognitions and behaviours affect emotions. CBT is evidence based and has been shown to be the most effective way to reduce symptomatology for those experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder. CBT involves identifying thought and behaviour patterns that are either making you more likely to exacerbate symptoms, or stopping you from getting better when you’re experiencing symptoms. It works to change your thoughts and behaviour by teaching you to think rationally about common difficulties, helping you to shift negative or unhelpful thought patterns and reactions to a more realistic, positive and problem-solving approach.
Opinion:
Ms. [Hashemi] requires ongoing psychological intervention to manage her symptoms. She has a good prognosis if she continues regular therapy sessions and complies with her medication requirements. However, her progress is impacted by the current Family Law matters and separation from her children.
It is my opinion that Ms. [Hashemi] is highly motivated to improve her mental health. She is willing to engage in psychological interventions and is complaint with medication. She has good self-care and good insight into issues affecting her mental health. In my opinion she is not at risk for self-harm or harm to others. However, I believe being separated from her children has had a severe negative impact on her mental health.
39	The mother states at paragraphs 134 and 135 of her affidavit:
134.	In September 2021 I began receiving support from a mental health social worker, [Ms D], from [E Clinic]. I speak to [Ms D] regularly. [Ms D] is able to help refer me to any support services if she thinks I need extra support, and can help me attend appointments, although I have been attending my medical appointments by myself for some time. I know that [Ms D] is someone I can contact for help if I feel like my mental health is deteriorating.
135.	Now that I am in regular contact with support services, I feel like my mental health has improved and I have support to manage any future challenges with my mental health. I have found the Court process difficult and slow and often feel frustrated that my time with the children has not progressed as fast as I would like. However, I understand that gradual changes to the arrangements are likely to be best for the children so they can adjust to each change slowly.
40	In January 2021 the mother began spending time with the children each Wednesday and Saturday for one hour at S Park.  The mother recalls visits with the children on three separate days in February 2021.  She then began spending unsupervised time with the children at the Suburb T shopping centre for two hours each visit on Wednesdays and Saturdays.  By May 2021 the mother was seeing the children, usually unsupervised, at the shopping centre each Wednesday after school to 7.00pm and each Saturday 11.00am to 1.00pm.
41	The mother states at paragraphs 142 to 145 of her affidavit:
142.	On 5 August 2021 [Mr Latifa] and I entered into interim consent orders that the children spend time with me each Wednesday between 3pm and 5pm and each Saturday between 11am and 1pm. The Orders said that this time would take place in the presence of [Mr Latifa] but [Mr Latifa] rarely stayed during the visits.
143.	During the 2021 Covid lockdown we changed the location of visits to a park.
144.	In around October 2021 [Mr Latifa] then began letting the children spend time with me at my house unsupervised. [Mr Latifa] also allowed the children to stay with me longer on a Saturday, usually until around 5.00pm.
145.	Since February or March 2022 I began having telephone calls with the children. I speak to them every day I do not see them in person. I call them on [W]’s phone and she usually puts me on speaker phone. I usually speak to the children for about five minutes to check how their days were at school. I enjoy speaking to the children every day and hope this can continue.
42	The mother admits that during telephone conversations with the father in late May 2022 she said to the father that she would not provide the children with food if the father didn’t bring any food for their visits with the mother.  The mother then states paragraph 148:
148.	I regret this. Cooking for the children is something I enjoy and a way for me to express how much I love them. However, at this time I was feeling very frustrated and upset at the Court process. I understand that when the children are in my care it is my responsibility to look after them and provide for their needs. I have not asked [Mr Latifa] to provide food for the children again while they are in my care.
43	The mother states that she continues to spend time with the children every Wednesday from after school to 5.30pm and on Saturdays from 10.00am to 5.00pm.  At paragraph 152 of the mother’s affidavit she states:
152.	I understand that it has been hard for the children to get used to spending time with me again but my relationship with the children has improved dramatically since these proceedings started. [W], [X] and [Y] will now hug me and spend time close to me. [Z] is still very affectionate with me and enjoys visiting her old house.
44	At paragraph 155 of the mother’s affidavit she states:
155.	I understand that the children may not want to live with me for half the time and that this would be a big change for them so although this is what I want to happen, I am only asking the Court to make orders that I spend time with the children for four nights per fortnight. I understand that this time will need to gradually increase. My relationship with the children has significantly improved over the past year and the children are comfortable and familiar with my house. I hope that overnight time can be ordered so the children and I can continue to strengthen our relationship and have quality time together. It is very important to me that I can see the children every week. I hope that, if my time with the children goes well, [Mr Latifa] and I may be able to agree on the children spending additional time with me.
45	The mother stated that the three youngest children attend S School, which school is within walking distance of the mother’s home.  She stated that the eldest child is in Year 7 at U School in Suburb V.  That child catches the train to school which station is within walking distance of the mother’s house.
46	At paragraphs 161–163 of the mother’s affidavit she states:
161.	I understand that my mental health has been a concern in these proceedings, especially due to my hospitalisation in December 2020. Since this I have complied with my treating doctors’ recommendations and accessed mental health supports. My mental health has now been stable for a long period of time. I am committed to continuing to manage my mental health and take my prescribed medication. I would be willing to agree to an Order that I will continue to attend upon my mental health treaters and follow their recommendations if required by the Court to provide reassurance that my mental health will continue to be monitored.
162.	If I feel my mental health getting worse or I start hearing voices again I am confident that I will be able to seek help. I would speak to my GP, psychologist or [Ms D] if this happened. I am also confident that because I am in regular contact with my GP, my psychologist and [Ms D], that they will speak to me if they have any concerns about my mental health and help me access supports.
163.	I am aware that [Dr F] recommended that I improve my English so I can better communicate with the children in English. In around February 2022 I enrolled in an English course at [Suburb S] TAFE. I attend classes there every Monday and Thursday from 9:30am to 2:30pm. My English skills are still developing but I am committed to keep going to my classes, especially because I know this will help me be able to communicate more with the children.
47	At paragraph 166 of the mother’s affidavit she states:
166.	[Mr Latifa] and I both have family overseas in [Country K]. I am worried that [Mr Latifa] may take the children overseas in the future and live with them there, because [Mr Latifa] previously sent me back to [Country K]to live and separated me from [W], [X] and [Y]. I want the children’s names to be kept on the Family Law Watchlist to ensure this can’t happen.
The father’s affidavits
48	The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the father’s two affidavits.
49	The father states that the parties separated on 14 May 2018 when the mother returned to live in Country K with Z.
50	The father states in paragraphs 18 and 19 of his affidavit filed 8 August 2022:
18.	Before [Z] was born, [Ms Hashemi] and I would equally care for our children, and everything was going well. We would both feed our children, care for them and care for the home.
19.	I noticed that when [Ms Hashemi] was pregnant with [Z], she started to act strange. I now know that this was because her mental health was starting to decline.
51	The father states that he noticed that the mother was feeling depressed soon after Z was born.
52	The parties observed that the children were very unhappy in Country K and so the family returned to Australia in early February 2018.
53	Between about late September 2020 and late October 2020, the mother did not seek to spend time with the three eldest children.
54	Despite the interim parenting Orders of 25 October 2019, the mother did not facilitate the child Z spending each Sunday with the father.  As a result the father did not see Z for a significant period.  The father and the eldest children saw Z around the end of June 2020 at changeover.  The father did not spend time with Z between about mid-August 2020 and about mid-December 2020 at which latter time that child came into the father’s care.
55	After the mother’s hospitalisation for two weeks in December 2020, the mother began to spend time with the children in January and February 2021, supervised by the father.  Thereafter, the parties reached agreement that the father would supervise the mother’s visits with the children twice each week, on Wednesday for a couple of hours after school, and for a couple of hours on Saturday.  In about November or December 2021 the mother began to spend unsupervised time with the children on Wednesdays after school and on Saturdays from 10.00am to 5.00pm.  The mother called the children every day between 5.00pm and 6.00pm with their calls usually lasting about five minutes.
56	The father was told by S School that their counsellor could not help the children because his concerns for the children were not school-related.
57	In paragraphs 210–212 of the father’s affidavit filed 8 August 2022 he states:
210.	I support [Ms Hashemi] having an ongoing relationship with our children. I understand that she has a very important role in the lives of our children as she is their mother. I will always respect her because she is the mother of my children. I regret that early on in these proceedings I was not so happy about [Ms Hashemi] wanting to see our children after abandoning us in 2018. At the time, I was shocked and was so hurt. Time has passed since then and I no longer feel that same way or feel resentment towards [Ms Hashemi].
211.	I will always encourage my children to speak to their mother and see her. I will always encourage them to have a close relationship with their mother. This is why I go out of my way to make sure that she spends regular time with them.
212.	I do not support my children having unsupervised time if [Ms Hashemi] is unwell with her mental health. My children get very scared when she yells, screams, and talks to herself. If this happens, I will be happy to supervise her visits again because I want to keep my children safe.
58	The father states that on 19 November 2022 he brought the children to the mother’s home to spend time with her.  Just after dropping them off, the eldest child sent a text message to the father stating that the mother was refusing to cook the children food.
59	At about 4.00pm that day the father went to pick up the children and he heard the mother yelling and shouting profanities at the father and also spitting on the father from her balcony.  A short time later the children came downstairs.  Two of the children then went back to the mother’s unit to get their iPads however the mother refused to give them back to them.
60	On 26 November 2022 after the father dropped the children off at the mother’s home, the father received a message from the eldest child that the mother was refusing to give two of the children their iPads back.  Outside the mother’s home, the father heard the mother yelling at the children and calling the father a fucking idiot.  The father phoned the mother, and the mother told the father that she would not give the iPads back nor the children back and he would never see the children unless the father signed a paper that they stay three or four days with her.  The father gained access to the mother’s home and retrieved the children.
61	In about October 2022 the mother stopped seeing the children on Wednesday afternoons which was her choice.  Since 26 November 2022, the mother has not seen or spoken with the children.
Oral evidence of the mother
62	The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the mother’s oral evidence. 
63	The mother agreed that she has not contacted the father since 26 November 2022 about seeing the children. She has not sought to ring W since that time.  She stated what was the point of all this coming and going during the day (spending time with the children during the day) when she could not spend overnight time with the children.
64	A short time later the mother agreed that on 26 November 2022 she was hoping, through her behaviour, to pressure the father to agree to the children spending overnight time with her.
65	The mother was asked whether she considered yelling at the father in the presence of the children might be scary for them, to which she replied, “Why should they be scared?”  She then stated that if the children were scared what could she do if the Court did not order overnight time.  The mother stated that she could not have approached these incidents in November 2022 any better having thought about them.
66	The mother was asked whether she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, to which the mother answered that she didn’t know.  It was put to the mother that she was prescribed medication to which the mother stated that she takes a tablet.  She stated she did not recall the name of the tablet.  She stated that she thought the tablet was for a blood test.  The mother was asked whether she was prescribed medication called Olanzapine, to which the mother stated that she did not recall.
67	The mother stated she did not recall anything from her hospitalisation in December 2020.
68	The mother stated she has not engaged with any mental health services since November 2022.
69	The mother agreed that she did not speak much English.
70	The mother stated she would not sign documents for the children’s passports.  She stated that it was not a good idea for the children to travel overseas for a holiday and not even to see the mother’s relatives in Country K.
71	The mother stated that she was presently not in contact with her family in Country K.
72	The mother agreed that she did not want to see the children until she was able to spend three overnights each week with them.  In this context, the mother stated that she had previously had Z full-time.
73	It was put to the mother that she was only refusing to allow the children to travel overseas because she wanted to spend three nights each week with them, to which she agreed.
74	The mother stated that she ceased attending upon psychologist Ms B because no interpreter was available.  She did not take any steps to see another psychologist.
75	In relation to the mother’s hospitalisation in December 2020, she stated that the mental health team had told her that her treatment was medication and that the medication was for an illness.  She stated that they told her that the illness was a blood test and depression.  She clarified that the blood test was the sounds.
76	The mother told the Court that she was presently ingesting Olanzapine.  Her GP renewed the script for such medication.
77	The mother was asked whether there should be a gradual build-up of her time with the children progressing to overnight time, to which the mother stated that she had been spending time with the children during the daytime for some time now.
78	The mother stated she was not presently engaged with any English classes.
79	The mother stated she lives at Suburb S in a two-bedroom home unit.  She told the Court she has no hobbies or interests however as a practising Muslim she does pray.
Oral evidence of the father
80	The Court does not propose to set out the entirety of the father’s oral evidence.
81	The father stated that he does encourage a relationship between the children and the mother.
82	The father was asked what the mother needed to do before he could encourage a relationship between the children and the mother, to which he replied, inter alia, that the mother should give the children love.
83	The father stated that he has not done any post separation courses.
84	The father stated that it takes five minutes for him to drive from his home to the mother’s home.
85	The Court asked the father how overnight time between the children and the mother would now go, to which he replied that he doesn’t object to overnight time and he accepted the mother loves the children.  He stated that he hasn’t heard the mother hearing imaginary voices since her hospitalisation in 2020 and the commencement of her mental health treatment thereafter.
Single Expert Report of Dr F
86	Dr F’s Single Expert Report is dated 7 December 2021. He had assessments/interviews with the family and other persons between August and December 2021.
87	Dr F stated that reports as early as 2016 indicated the mother was experiencing mental health difficulties including experiencing symptoms of paranoia.  The mother confirmed that she first noted issues with her mental health around 2016 after the birth of Z although she described this as presenting as low mood.  The father’s initial report of the occurrence of auditory hallucinations was in early 2017.  The father took the mother to see a psychiatrist and she was placed on antidepressants in about March 2017.
88	Around September of 2017, the parents returned to Country K in an apparent attempt to reduce the stress on Ms Hashemi and increase her family and social supports. Ms  Hashemi reported she was experiencing Post Natal Depression, and this was the motivator for the move.
89	The mother declared she went to Country K with no money and had to work as a cleaner to save money to finance a return to Australia.
90	The mother declared that the Wednesday visits, following the interim parenting Orders of 5 August 2021, had been interrupted by the period of increased lockdown restrictions in Sydney due to COVID-19 meaning she had nowhere to go with the children during contact visits. 
91	At the time of interview, Ms Hashemi sought only for a graduation to unsupervised time, overnight stays, and room to progress to more substantial care. Mr Latifa maintained a position of unlimited daytime contact including unsupervised contact within the mother’s home.
92	The mother recalled three Court hearings before orders were made for her to have contact with her children. She noted initially she was granted contact of four hours per week to occur in a local shopping centre in October of 2019. She declared that the father would not bring the children for this initial contact. She noted that orders were expanded to include weekly phone contact but again the father did not facilitate this. She specified that one phone call had occurred only. Mr Latifa agreed that only one scheduled call occurred as the children refused to answer the following calls. Indeed, when describing the children around this time, Mr Latifa often reiterated that it was the children who did not wish to have contact with their mother, though this appeared to be based on their understanding that their mother had abandoned them. It would appear at best that Mr Latifa did nothing to protect the children from this belief, or at worst, has actively promoted that notion.
93	Ms  Hashemi declared she can currently say a few English words though demonstrated little to no understanding of English without the interpreter. She explained she had been attending English classes though they were paused due to COVID-19 restrictions and has therefore completed no English study in several months. She explained she had been watching news and television to try and develop her language skills. Overall, however, Ms Hashemi’s level of English represents a considerable challenge to her goals of attaining substantial care for her children, who returned from Country K due to in part, struggling with their absence of Language L. It became overwhelmingly apparent in subsequent observations that Ms Hashemi’s difficulty with communication with her children represents a substantial barrier which is only serving to maintain, if not increase the distance between them.
94	The clinician would agree that the comparison between this assessment and the previous family assessment would indicate a significant reduction in anxiety and uncertainty within the family. When considering the emotional wellbeing of children in separated family dynamics, conflict between the parents is often highlighted as the biggest indicator of child wellbeing. Despite the overarching difficulty and conflicting histories presented by each parent in this matter, both are commended for the shift towards at least a basic level of cooperation of late and are strongly encouraged to maintain and develop it. On the same note, the recommendations to be made by this clinician will similarly seek to maintain an amicable separation between the parents in order to facilitate this cooperation.
95	Ms  Hashemi explained that in Country K she completed five years of primary school before remaining at home to assist in home duties. She explained she would spend the time with her mother and sisters helping around the home and attending social gatherings
96	Both social workers, Ms AB and Ms AC, reported consistent observations over a prolonged period, of Ms Hashemi being an attuned and attentive parent whilst caring for Z within the women’s shelter.
97	Ms  Hashemi stated she is currently prescribed Zyprexa (Olanzapine) an atypical antipsychotic twice daily. She described consistent and sufficient sleep and that she is walking for exercise for around two hours per day. She denied hearing any voices since her scheduling last year and appeared to be confident when she said that she would return to her GP should these symptoms reoccur.
98	Ms Hashemi’s core parenting capacity is currently uncertain. The observable distance and described lack of attachment between herself and her children suggest a reduced capacity, at least at present, to attend to the emotional needs of the children as they are unlikely to turn to her for such needs. Additionally, her overall muted affect and hesitancy around the children suggest she may struggle to be attuned to unspoken needs of the younger children. This is suggested in her own and Mr Latifa’s description of her interactions with the children and consistent with this clinician’s observations. Ms  Hashemi demonstrated marked reservations around the children, perhaps too apprehensive to force engagement which in turn only heightens the children’s uncertainty toward her, which only serves to maintain the distance between them. However, this presentation stands starkly at odds with emphatic support from both social workers that Ms Hashemi demonstrated herself to be capable of providing above adequate care to Z whilst in a women’s refuge. They reported no issues with supervision, regular and appropriate feeding and showering of herself and Z, and a clear demonstration of love and affection at odds with Mr Latifa’s descriptions.
99	The mother’s extremely limited English will continue to restrict her ability to meet the children’s intellectual needs in an Australian context. Where the children already feel separate or as she described “far away” from their mother; as they continue to grow and mature in a predominantly English speaking environment and with minimal development of their ability to speak Language L, Ms Hashemi’s language barrier will further isolate her most notably from the younger two children. Then, her reported parenting education having involved learning basic skills such as preparing lunches and brushing teeth, leaves uncertainty regarding her core skills for activities of daily living. Significant ongoing care may require independent assessment to ensure her capability and ongoing support to bolster that capacity.
100	Mr Latifa described that at the beginning of the Court process “all I wanted was for the kids with me to be safe”. He then went on to say that now, “they are safe and happy, and I want them to be a part of her [Ms Hashemi’s] life too”. He declared that he tells Ms  Hashemi that she can call the children at any time, and that if she has wanted to have contact on any day for any reason, he would be happy to facilitate including outside of Court ordered contact.
101	Mr Latifa explained that prior to around 2017, Ms  Hashemi and his marriage had been good and that prior to this she had “always been a good wife”. This would line up with Ms Hashemi’s assertion that her mental health declined after Z’s birth in 2017. Indeed, Mr Latifa stated that he “knows” that Ms Hashemi is not well now because previously the pair “didn’t have a fight for 12 years”.
102	Mr Latifa declared that he tries to encourage the children regarding contact with their mother. He also affirmed that they are “not as bad” as 2019/2020, explained to mean they are less resistant or apprehensive.
103	Mr Latifa indicated that he was open to direction and advice about how to further promote connection between the children and their mother. Based on her own interview Ms Hashemi appeared more comfortable cooking for the children to promote connection, and Mr Latifa was reminded it would not be unreasonable for him to promote the notion of the children having a meal together in Ms Hashemi’s home.
104	On discussion of having certain contingencies for when the parents disagree such as including a third party such as family doctor to assist with disagreements or family dispute resolution, Mr Latifa declared he could manage a shared parental responsibility arrangement.
105	A Parenting After Separation course may be suitable to assist Mr Latifa with developing an understanding of each parent’s separate autonomy when it comes to the children’s care. 
106	Overall, Mr Latifa’s profile suggest that while he has a stable self-concept that feeds a profile of resilience, he is also relatively avoidant of strong emotional experiences which have resulted in historical passivity towards facilitating parent-child relationships and placing the burden of motivating such facilitation on confused and uncertain children. As a result, they have turned to an attachment with their seemingly more stable figure.
107	Throughout the observation, Ms Hashemi was observed to, very occasionally, make spontaneous engagement with the children by speaking to them in Language L. She was rarely met with more than brief responses. This appeared to be a function of both an impaired attachment and their language barrier. Ms Hashemi appeared to try more actively to engage with Mr Latifa, though this again is potentially due to language commonality. In between her attempts to communicate with her children, Ms Hashemi tended to remain still, quiet, and seemingly absent in her facial expressions. Regrettably, her presentation was like one experiencing a muted affect resultant of heavy anti-psychotic medication. This, combined with an inherently submissive personality, minimal confidence and a significant language barrier means Ms Hashemi is most certainly fighting an uphill battle to maintain engagement with otherwise uncertain children.
108	The children were interviewed.
109	W affirmed that she wished to stay living with her father. W declared that she felt the time the children had with their mother was currently sufficient. When asked if she would like sleepovers at her mother’s home, W quickly said that she would not. She struggled to identify a reason why not, and simply declared she was “not ready”.
110	W was asked if she had any words that she would like to share with the Judge. W again evidenced a polite exasperation at this, due to this being her third time in front of a family clinician. This clinician found her words to appear genuine, measured, considered, and most poignant, and suggests that they should be given significant weight. W said that she would like to say, “Why do we keep doing this? I love both of my parents. I am happy to see my mum two to three times a week, but this has been going on for too long”.
111	In recent times, the parents do appear to have been more appropriately modelling to the children, aspects of better communication and co-parenting capacity. In W, it would appear this had had the desired effect; she is willing and open to maintaining the current contact with her mother and is now openly expressing an innate affection for her mother. Reassuringly though, W continues to articulate an arguably healthy cautiousness towards her mother’s wellbeing and certainly appears a child capable of reaching out for help from her father, should she feel the need.
112	When asked about the current arrangements, X stated quite solemnly, “I think it’s good to get along with your mum after everything that happened”. When asked what she might wish for, she declared that she thought it would be good if she could perhaps stay longer with her mother on their contact days, offering that she “could stay seven hours” there. However, when asked, X also firmly declared that she did not want to do overnight stays in her mother’s home. She echoed W’s sentiments declaring, “I don’t feel safe”. When asked what might need to change to make her feel safer, she declared, “Mum would have to prove it – with no more talking to herself”. 
113	X was asked how she thought her father might respond if she were to ask him to stay over at her mother’s home for the night. X quickly responded, “he would say yes, straight away”. This appears to reinforce the perception that the father is more actively facilitating the contact between the mother and children and may at least believe himself to be responding to the needs and desires of the children.
114	When Y was asked if he wanted to have sleepovers at his mother’s home Y shook his head. He looked grumpy and physically withdrew his body further away from the clinician at this discussion. When asked how he felt about seeing his mother twice a week currently, he declared he would prefer the visits to be shorter.
115	Ms AC and Ms AB both confirmed that after Ms Hashemi was discharged from hospital, she improved significantly. They declared she returned to being engaged and cooperative, in line with her presentation of late 2019/early 2020.
116	Regarding their observations of Ms Hashemi’s parenting, both Ms AC and Ms AB emphatically expressed positive observations of Ms Hashemi’s capacity to provide more than adequate care for Z in the woman’s refuge. They noted that Z was happy, and happy to engage with workers as well as spend days at day care. They report the day-care also found that Z was happy to engage with other children and was doing well. They declared Ms Hashemi appeared appropriately attuned to Z’s needs, always fed and bathed Z without prompting. This would suggest to this clinician that the negative symptoms or absentness observed in Ms Hashemi at this interview are indeed likely attributable to her medications, that this presentation is likely not typical for her and thus could be managed, if not ameliorated behaviourally with appropriate support.
117	Noting W’s age, her estimated level of cognitive function and maturational development, it is this clinician’s opinion that the Court can weigh her views with confidence.
118	For the children’s attachment with their mother to develop and stabilise, she must remain compliant with her medication regime to minimise the likelihood of the children being exposed to any further episodes of psychosis, and if so, that these are much more limited in nature due to the medications and therefore not as threatening to the children. The drawback of this is, however, the apparent impact in the adverse side effects (specifically, muted mood, reduced psychomotor activity etc) which has reduced her capacity to actively engage with the children and contribute to easing their comfort. This is compounded by her passive personality and poor English skills. Therefore, the children require Ms Hashemi to develop her English proficiency to continue to develop their bond with her. It is also incumbent on Ms Hashemi to understand the interplay of these factors and be able to actively discuss them with her treating psychological and prescribing psychiatrist such that she can be maintained on the lowest but still optimal dosage possible.
119	The children are more securely attached to their father and have a precarious, if not fractured relationship with their mother. Their relationships with each other are paramount to ensuring their comfort in their mother’s presence, and indeed W’s leadership is likely their most protective factor as they re-build their attachment to Ms Hashemi. This makes this clinician even further inclined to recommend significant weight is given to W’s views; her sense of autonomy and control within this dynamic should be maintained for the benefit of all the children. Though that being said, a steady process of gradual increments of time spend with the mother should be continuing from this assessment forward.
120	The present assessment leads this clinician to suggest that where Mr Latifa has been hesitant to facilitate contact, it may have been out of a genuine concern and innate cautiousness regarding Ms Hashemi’s mental wellbeing. Mr Latifa would benefit from the completion of a Parenting After Separation course, and this should be completed as a matter of priority.
121	W has clearly called for stability and this clinician believes that despite the remarkable resilience of these children, each would be considerably challenged by any significant, rapid change to their current arrangements - particularly if such arrangements were imposed without their input. The children’s sense of safety and security is being rebuilt and it is perhaps counter-intuitive to abruptly separate them from their father. More so, given that this sense of safety with their mother is developing, it would not appear the children are ready to spend significant time living with their mother, but it is clear they each express a readiness for just more time with her. Additionally, this assessment does not conclude that Ms Hashemi is yet ready for such responsibility, and that further progress is needed for Ms Hashemi in her personal therapy (and empowerment), medication optimisation (read possible reduction to reduce adverse side effects), and most critically – her English language development.
122	When asked in the interview, he acknowledged that W was coming into her adolescence and is well into a time that she requires developmental support as she begins puberty. Mr Latifa espoused this to be one reason he is actively promoting Ms Hashemi’s involvement in their lives, so she can be there to provide that support which he did not appear to think himself prepared or equipped to do so.
123	While Ms Hashemi is strongly recommended to develop her English, so too should the children be encouraged to develop their Language L.
124	Even considering the allegations Ms Hashemi has made against Mr Latifa, there are otherwise no suggestions that he has been unable to provide adequately for all the children’s needs. In saying this, Mr Latifa must continue to promote a co-parenting relationship where he must not just “allow” the children time spent with their mother, but actively promote and reinforce the benefit of this to the children, while also remaining ready to collect them if they require it. Mr Latifa must continue to model a cooperative and cordial relationship with the mother for their ongoing emotional wellbeing, as the children will be watching and heavily influenced by his demonstrated example.
125	Based on the present assessment, it remains unclear if Ms Hashemi is able to reliably attend to the children’s basic practical needs over a prolonged period of time, but at the very least, her current presentation means she presently has limited capacity to be able to attend to their emotional needs. Ms Hashemi is encouraged to engage with a clinical psychologist with whom she can speak Language L, or at the very least with a psychologist and an interpreter, who is sufficiently experienced to be able to help her identify and better manage the side effects of her antipsychotic medication, while also trying to achieve an optimum minimum level of dosage; and as she tries to repair her emotional attachments with them. Should she return to her previous psychologist or find a new one, it is recommended that the Court grant them access to this report for the benefit of a comprehensive review of the children’s current (fragile) attachments to her. Then, ongoing support from a community mental health team should be able to monitor Ms Hashemi’s capacity for home duties, as well as organisation required to, for example, collect the children from school, or in the future, preparedness to have them overnight and prepare them for schooling the following day.
126	Presently, Ms Hashemi’s mental health appears to be reasonably, though not optimally managed at this point and the potential for psychological harm occurring to the children due to an experience of psychosis is low if her health remains at least this well managed. Given the involvement of Mr Latifa and that it may be unlikely the children will be spending substantial and significant periods of time with Ms Hashemi in the short-term, there appears little opportunity for neglect that might also constitute risk of psychological harm. However, in the event where the children are to spend substantial and significant time with Ms Hashemi, there may be potential for some neglect, unless some or all of the concerns, as detailed above, regarding her parenting capacity are better addressed.
127	While comprehensive assessment necessary to diagnose schizophrenia is well beyond the scope of the present assessment, it does appear reasonable to conclude that Ms Hashemi’s psychological profile as described by herself and all parties across the period of 2018 to later 2020, does appear consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The impact of such a condition when unmanaged has clearly had significant implications on her ability to provide adequate care for the children. While experiencing unrecognised psychosis, Ms Hashemi failed to collect her children from school on successive weeks, was observed by all children (independent of their father’s influence) to exhibit psychotic symptoms including shouting, inexplicable laughter, and breaking objects. The ramifications of this on her relationship with them remains evident to the present assessment. However, while this is managed, and with appropriate ongoing home and social support, there is good opportunity for Ms Hashemi to engage constructively and meaningfully as a mother with her children as is happening now, and for this to increment steadily over time. Ms Hashemi is currently medicated (though this could be better optimised), and this should remain an expectation of her ongoing contact with the children. Then, Ms Hashemi can be further supported by specialist family support by way of Functional Family Therapy (“FFT”) Services who can work in the home to assist Ms Hashemi with engaging with her children while they are in her care. Naturally this would be most successful if that practitioner could communicate in both Language L and English. A referral from the Court to DCJ in the form of a “best endeavours” request, may be needed to assist Ms Hashemi access FFT services.
128	All reports indicate the father failed to actively protect the children from internalising their mother’s return to Country K as her “abandoning” them.
129	It is recommended that all children be formally referred to their school counsellor/s.
Recommendations made relating to Care and Responsibility 
Option A: The children are graduated to more significant time with their mother including overnights.
130	Ms Hashemi was unclear on a specific intended care proposal, however she espoused that she would like more substantial care with the children including overnights. This clinician’s recommendation is that such an arrangement is feasible, though it should be implemented in a manner that is child(ren)-focused and allows them some agency in the rate of increase, whilst advocating a presumption that there will be an increase. There should also be capacity for such an arrangement to revert to less care in the event Ms Hashemi’s mental health deteriorates. As W described, the children need consistency. As such if the Court were to choose this option this clinician might suggest that Ms Hashemi’s adherence to her medication be mandated by community treatment order (CTO) or equivalent. Then, it would be recommended that she be supported by structured family support agencies to assist her functional/practical parenting capacity within the home, while she also actively works to improve her English ability. 
131	Should this option be chosen it is recommended it be progressed gradually, over as much time as the Court can allow. This may begin with the children maintaining their current contact schedule with one overnight stay on weekends per fortnight for the first six months, before increasing to another night per fortnight over the next six months, and so on. This may have to occur more rapidly if the Court declares that this arrangement should ultimately arrive at a 50/50 care arrangement. However, this clinician remains cautious that Ms Hashemi’s parenting capacity is sufficiently robust to be able to support this arrangement, and as such this is not the clinician’s preferred option, but an 11/3 or 10/4 of 14-night arrangement could be achieved over the next 12–24months.
Option B: Contact remains as is and parental responsibility is shared, with provisions.
132	At least the older two girls appear open to increased daytime hours in their mother’s care, but both are adamant they are not yet ready to have overnight stays with their mother. Given that this clinician recommends fair weight should be given to W’s voice particularly, there is certainly space for the Court to consider the current arrangement sufficient with a capacity to progress to an overnight and increment progressively thereafter.
133	Regardless of actual care arrangements determined by the Court, it is a clear recommendation from this clinician that parents share parental responsibility (“PR”), to ensure that Ms Hashemi can maintain active involvement in the decision making and thus parental role for her children. The risks to Ms Hashemi’s significance as a parent figure are enormous if the Court was to allocate sole PR to the father. To assist support this arrangement it is recommended that the parents be required to engage in family dispute resolution (“FDR”) should they come to any disagreements regarding the children’s care, and that a return to Court can only be permitted via a letter from that FDR practitioner confirming an insurmountable impasse had been reached.
134	While this option is perhaps the most likely to achieve stability; this clinician does not feel that at this time in Ms Hashemi’s treatment, she has been able to adequately demonstrate her parental capacity and potential. Indeed, historical reports of Ms Hashemi’s parental capacity suggest that there is potential for Ms Hashemi’s wellbeing and role as a parent to be developed such that she could enrich the children’s development more actively through education and experience in a deeper understanding of their cultural heritage, and most importantly through deeper mother/child relationships. With ongoing community-based assistance, and her active engagement with her mental health supports, this can be realised.
Oral evidence of the Single Expert Report writer
135	The Single Expert Report writer gave oral evidence.
136	The Single Expert Report writer expressed his concern that the mother had not seen her psychologist since October 2022 and that her reason for not seeing the psychologist was due to the lack of an interpreter.  In this context the Single Expert Report writer stated that he can access telephone interpreters on the spot.
137	The Single Expert Report writer expressed his concerned that the mother had not attempted spend any time of the children since late November 2022.
138	The Single Expert Report writer gave this evidence in relation to the mother ceasing to see her psychologist in October 2022:
MR HILL:	The mother, shortly thereafter, disengaged with her psychologist.  Can I get you to comment on her disengagement with her psychologist, and in the context of a family law proceedings, what does that mean?---
[DR F]:	Look, for someone with a chronic psychiatric or chronic mental health disorder like a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, I would find that deeply disturbing.  But in the absence of comment from that psychologist as to the circumstances of termination, I’m not sure I can assist the Court much other than to say anyone with a chronic mental health condition, such as a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the community mental health supports focus on a wraparound ongoing support program to ensure the capacity of that person to live independently in the community, knowing the high probability of relapse back to florid or psychotic states.  And, clearly, [Ms Hashemi] has evidenced that on a number of occasions, as per the mental health history documentation before the court.
139	The Single Expert Report writer stated that preceding the acute phase of schizophrenia is the prodromal phase.  In this context he stated of this latter phase:
[DR F]:	So it is the period before the acute phase.  And what it is characterised as is a constellation of negative symptoms. And I think this is particularly pertinent in this instance in the sense that the negative symptoms are characterised by a volition of loss of motivation, of loss of interest, of lack of concentration, of not wanting to leave the home, of being socially withdrawn and potentially evidencing personal neglect.  My concern when you mapped out the characteristics of 2022, and his Honour added in the changes to the contact regime, is a – question I now have is if we don’t have psychiatric oversight from February 2022, and we don’t have psychological oversight from October ‘22 – 2022, and I see from the documents that Community Health Team – sorry, Community Mental Health Team discharged her I believe back in 2021.  So unless I’m mistaken, the only support she has is her general practitioner.  So I don’t know if the Court has evidence of any form from that GP as to frequency and currency of contact with that person, but it may very well be the only professional that the mother is engaged in.  That said, if I’m looking at the behavioural profile, and, obviously, within the context of Family Court matter, invariably, I am confronted with minority parents – minority care parents desperately seeking any time possible with their children.  For an individual to actually not want a small portion of hours is very concerning.  For a socially isolated individual not wanting a small portion of hours with their children, I would multiply that exponentially as deeply concerning.  Because, ostensibly, what else does this individual have left.  
And so in this prodromal phase…At a probabilistic level, the more socially withdrawn an individual becomes, obviously, the more socially isolated they are, the less stimulated they are.  In the absence of stimulation, the brain will take over and fill that void.  Regrettably, some of that is fantastical or potentially psychotic.  So the brain will introduce its own stimulation because this person is not being stimulated enough themselves.  So that’s when the voices start to build up more.  So potentially in the – in the negative phase we see the loss of motivation, the loss of interest, the loss of engagement in external social activities, a change in mood state, generally an increase in anger, an increase in resentment, possibly then leading to increasing noncompliance with medications.  And then, as I said, the more positive symptoms, or we – we head from that prodromal phase into the acute phase, where the person is florid.
MR HILL:	If I back you up, are you saying that in this phase the person becomes noncompliant with medication, or is it a factor that increases the risk of noncompliance?   
[DR F]:	I prefer your latter…that all of those factors together keep building a greater likelihood for increasing noncompliance.  There’s nobody to check on her, there’s nobody to remind her, there’s nobody just to touch base with her.  So all of those factors are very important.  I mean, all humans suffer the normal vagaries of memories.  All humans can benefit with a gentle prompt and reminder from anybody about, “Hey, you forgot this”, and, “How are you going?”. R U OK? Day, for example.  All of those issues are about the importance of humans connecting anD reconnecting with humans.  We need that to actually ensure ongoing stable function.  
140	The Single Expert Report writer commented upon the mother’s cessation of regular consultations with her mental health treatment providers stating:
[DR F]:	Just I would ask the Court to take into consideration, obviously, the fact that that affidavit is August 2022.  The mother had not had any consultation with a psychiatrist since February of 2022.  The evidence being put forward is that there was a decision to decrease her antipsychotic medication in August.  From October 2022, the Court appears to have evidence that she has ceased contact with her psychologist and her mental health social worker.  Then made the decision to effectively her contact hours with her children in the period subsequent.  I think the Court needs to be open to the prospect that any reduction in antipsychotic medication is potentially bringing forward a resurgence of clinical or potentially subclinical symptoms associated with the underlying problem.  Whether that is consistent with the features of the events surrounding 26 November or not, I will leave open for the court to review.  But I think there’s a timeline of factors that the court needs to keep in active awareness.  
141	Having confirmed that the Court could confidently place good weight on the voice of the eldest child W, the Single Expert Report writer stated:
[DR F]:	So I think – I think the Court can place weight on that.  That said, I’m not in a position to advise the Court on the children’s reaction to their departure from their mother on the 26th of November last year, and how profound an impact that has had.  But that, coupled with what I understand to be the mother’s noncontact with the children for the next two months at least – more than two months, the children would integrate as part of their previous awareness of their mother’s abandonment of them, and the interviews I conducted with the children individually each identified their experiences of mother has – “My mother has left me.  Abandoned me”.  I note for the court that I left that open as to how much the father may or may not have contributed to that, but, that said, there was still a strong feeling from the children that their mother had left them, which, regrettably, appears to have been replicated against most recently.  So I can’t assist the court on the willingness now of the children to see their mum, and that – that bit’s going to be of enormous import to weighing care decisions for the future.  And, obviously, whatever care decision the court reaches for, it must be incredibly incremental at this point, because the children, following their fearful departure, as – as recorded through the affidavit of the father, they’re going to be very reluctant, at best, to return to Mum, be that in a park, much less to her apartment.
142	The following evidence was given by the Single Expert Report writer in relation to the incident on 26 November 2022:
HIS HONOUR:	But if you assume for the moment that the mother’s adverse conduct in front of the children and towards the father on 26 November 2022 was, indeed, borne out of her anger and frustration at not being able to achieve overnight time with the children, what is the relevance of that? If that’s the correct characterisation of the – of what led to the mother’s conduct that day?   
[DR F]:	I’m open to – to assuming that from the outset.  However, I wouldn’t assume it as an isolated incident.  I would only assume it within the context of a greater timeline, and hence why I mapped out for the Court the need to be aware of what has happened since her affidavit of 19 August.  And in that context, the medications have gone down, the contact with independent clinical supports by...report has ceased.  By her own choice, reportedly, she reduced contact with the very children that she was wanting by 50 per cent.  The notion that there was a critical incident on 26 November I will accept, but I don’t think it’s decontextualised to all those other factors.  And, equally, that’s been the very issue since – for the last three years since her return to Australia in 2019.  So for it to suddenly rear up and by dealt with isolated, I don’t think is – is a valid approach.  And I think, clinically, it may be more indicative of that individual’s decreasing ability to emotionally regulate.  To actually manage her own stresses and emotions and, obviously, in line with that, her own internal dialogue, of which she may or may not be aware, and that level of reactivity to it.  So there appeared to have been a  persisting – forgive me, a – a carrying on conflict with the children about their iPads and possession of the iPads and return of the iPads for time before 26 November, and that was part and parcel of that conflict as well.  So it seemed to be multilayered and multiperson.  So, again, the question of – the bigger question is what was happening inside her in terms of her failure to manage herself and regulate herself, especially at a time in front of the children. 
…
MR HILL:	And there was a threat made by the mother of walking away if she didn’t get the proposed orders.  Now, if the mother was to engage with correct psychological treatment, is it likely that – and if his Honour made incremental time for the children, is it likely that the mother would disengage with the children?  Is it possible to give an opinion on that?--- 
[DR F]:	I think the Court can only look to the history it has got at the moment and that is a parent that is using her engagement with the children bizarrely and potentially illogically as some sort of weapon from her perspective in her efforts to manage that conflict, but what it also highlights to myself as a clinician and to the Court is that the mother is disregarding the emotional impact of that decision on the children and focusing more so on her own needs which, in and of itself, is one of the hallmarks of impaired parenting capacity where that parent is unable to subjugate their needs and instead prioritise the needs of the children. So I’m still back to all of the current behavioural indicators that I’m getting are more signs of a decreasing or potentially deteriorating mental health profile rather than an improving one.
143	The Single Expert Report writer agreed that the eldest child W could act as a protective factor in relation to the children spending time with the mother, including possible overnight time, in respect to the mother possibly exhibiting psychotic behaviour such as unreal voices.  In this context, he stated that if the Court was heading towards orders for unsupervised time that the Court needs to be realistic to say, by and large, W would be the majority protective factor.
144	Counsel for the father sought the Single Expert Report writer’s comments in relation to the father’s parenting proposal that the children’s time with the mother occur as agreed between the parties and in accordance with the children’s wishes, and this evidence was given:
[DR F]:	I certainly do find that concerning, having conducted way too many of such assessments.  So the potential risk, obviously, is that one parent holds complete power, and the other parent is, effectively, completely disenfranchised and has zero power.  The prospect of that being nothing, as in zero contact, I think the Court has evidence of it as at this date, from November 26, 2022 through to today.  So in and of itself, that prospect, as presented, if it’s living out on a day to day basis, is not a good sign now.  So as a clinician, my advice to the Court would be that’s not a good option to be looking at.
145	The Single Expert Report writer stated that a suitable measure for the mother’s reintroduction to the children would be, at the outset, some supervised time at a park with the father in the distance and progressing to time with the mother at her apartment.  He gave this further evidence:
HIS HONOUR:	So in this case, Doctor, would an ideal situation be this in terms of a situation that would promote the children being reintroduced to the mother and, thereafter, spending meaningful time with her, that the mother returns to regular consultations with her psychiatrist, psychologist, she sees the social worker regularly, and I think in your report you mentioned the mother continuing to learn English?   
[DR F]:	That’s critical, your Honour.  Absolutely critical.
146	In this context, the Single Expert Report writer also commented that it would also be of some assistance if the children began to learn some Language L.
147	The Single Expert Report writer stated his understanding that the eldest child W reasonably understands spoken Language L although she has got a limited expressive Language L.  He stated his understanding that the other children have a lesser understanding of Language L.
148	The Single Expert Report writer stated that the mother’s prospective engagement with the social world and wider world was important and which would involve social interaction for the mother.  He stated there was a need for the mother to marry both clinical support and vocational and community interaction as well; the mother needed ongoing clinical support and ongoing structured social support.  In this context he referred to the mother seeking assistance for NDIS funding so that she could actually access support services at a structural level to promote her social engagement.  He suggested that the mother’s schizophrenia diagnosis potentially fell within NDIS funding.  He expressed his concern in relation to the mother’s apparent social isolation.
149	The mother was given an opportunity to ask questions of the Single Expert Report writer and this evidence was given:
HIS HONOUR:		Sorry.  Do you want to ask some more questions?  
[MS HASHEMI]:	No.  But I do not want gradual.  I don’t want to start from the beginning. 
[DR F]:	No?---All I can say is I hear that with great sadness because to me it means that four children pay the price for that decision.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	Why…the children – why it’s bad for the children?  How?
[DR F]:	They have not seen you since November of last year, and for every day that goes on it makes it that much harder for them to reconnect with you.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	I don’t want to see them.  I don’t want to talk to them until and unless it becomes three nights per week.  What is the point of this…It just mix everything up. What is the point of seeing them during day and leaving at night?
[DR F]:	I will leave that for you to talk to the judge about.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	Since I was happy for sometimes I used to see the children at the shopping centre.  I got a place.  I got ready, but everything was just ruined.  Everything is ruined now and I don’t want to start again slowly.
[DR F]:	But what if your psychologist or your mental health social worker, [Ms D], or your psychiatrist, the doctor, said that would be the best approach from the children’s perspective.  Would that change your mind?  
[MS HASHEMI]:	You mean slowly?   
[DR F]:		Yes.
[MS HASHEMI]:	No.
[DR F]:		I leave that before the Court.  
HIS HONOUR:   	I mean, ma’am, if you think the children could emotionally cope with going from daytime time during, in particular, last year, no overnight time, then no time since 26 November last year to date, if you think the children could cope with suddenly spending three nights a week with you overnight, well, ask the doctor whether he agrees.  
[MS HASHEMI]:   	No, not really, but it’s not good not to see them.
…
[DR F]:		Then why is it you choose not to see them?  
[MS HASHEMI]:	Because I want it to be three nights every week.
[DR F]:	Little children do not understand that.  Little children just have an absent mother.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	I don’t like to start again slowly or gradually.  I want it to be three nights every week.
[DR F]:	I hear that, but I think his Honour and I have both said my focus is on the children and the children will adjust better if any change is undertaken slowly.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	It has already been four years of slow progress.  If it had worked it would not have come to this point.
[DR F]:	I understand that, but at this point it’s not suggesting it is working.  At this point it is suggesting things are getting worse.  So that means the impact on the children is getting bigger, but that’s a negative impact.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	Why is that bad for the children to spend three nights every week with their mother? 
[DR F]:	Because from their experience with their mother when her mental health has been bad, they are scared.  So they need to be prepared for that carefully for the mother to demonstrate that her mental health is good.  The difficulty now is that the mother is not talking and not seeing any of her mental health professionals.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	I don’t want to see the children slowly.
[DR F]:		She needs to understand that that decision hurts her children.  
[MS HASHEMI]:	It’s not hurtful.  It’s not bad.  
…
[DR F]:	All I can say is with that answer to me as a doctor it tells me how important it is for the mother to go and see [Ms B] and [Ms D] and the psychiatrist again, because all of those people need her – need to help her to think about that view. 
150	The Court accepts the evidence of the Single Expert Report writer subject to any view of the Court to the contrary whether express or implied, as discussed below under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Act).
Relevant legal principles 
151	Section 60B of the Act sets out the objects of Part VII of the Act relating to children that inform the making of parenting orders.
152	In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration:  section 60CA of the Act.
153	Section 60CC of the Act provides that in determining what is in the child’s best interests, the court must consider the matters set out in subsections (2) and (3).
154	Under section 60CC(2A) of the Act, the court, in applying the meaningful relationship primary consideration and the need to protect primary consideration under section 60CC(2) of the Act, is to give greater weight to the need to protect primary consideration.
155	When making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child: section 61DA of the Act. When the court is making an interim order, the presumption applies unless the court considers that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the presumption to be applied when making that order: section 61DA(3). 
156	If the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the child applies, and is not rebutted, the court must firstly consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable. 
157	If equal time is found not to be in the child’s best interests, or impracticable, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, the court must consider making an order that the child spends substantial and significant time (as defined in section 65DAA (3)) with the parents, unless contrary to the child’s best interests as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC, or impracticable.
158	If neither equal time nor substantial and significant time is considered to be in the best interests of the child, or impracticable, then the court may make such orders in the discretion of the court that it thinks proper, being orders that are in the best interests of the child, as a result of consideration of one or more of the matters in section 60CC: sections 60CA, 60CC, 65D.
The best interests of the children
Section 60CC considerations
(2)(a) (the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents:  a primary consideration)
159	In Saif & Saif [2020] FamCA 119, Foster J stated:
95.	The reality is, in the context of this interim hearing, that the Court is obliged to have regard to the maintenance and promotion of the children’s relationships with both parents. A relationship may be less than optimal but nonetheless meaningful: (Godfrey & Sanders [2007] FamCA 102 at [33]-[36]; Sigley & Evor (2011) 44 Fam LR 439 at [182]).  
96.	In Mazorski v Albright [2007] FamCA 520, Brown J considered ordinary definitions of the term “meaningful” and observed:
[26]	What these definitions convey is that “meaningful”, when used in the context of “meaningful relationship”, is synonymous with “significant” which, in turn, is generally used as a synonym for “important” or “of consequence”. I proceed on the basis that when considering the primary considerations and the application of the object and principles, a meaningful relationship or a meaningful involvement is one which is important, significant and valuable to the child. It is a qualitative adjective, not a strictly quantitive one. Quantitive concepts may be addressed as part of the process of considering the consequences of the application of the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility and the requirement for time with children to be, where possible and in their best interests, substantial and significant. 
97.	In McCall & Clark [2009] FamCAFC 92 at [121] the Full Court accepted as appropriate this interpretation by Brown J of “meaningful relationship”.
160	Until separation in May 2018 the mother, throughout the children’s lives, had been providing substantial care for all of them, and the children had a meaningful relationship with the mother.
161	In about May 2018, being separation date, the mother returned to Country K with Z.  The other three children have remained in the father’s primary care since this time. The mother arrived back in Australia in about February 2019 with Z. The mother later began to spend time with the other three children. Z came into the father’s primary care when the mother was hospitalised with adverse mental health in December 2020.  After December 2020, the mother began to spend daytime time with the children as previously discussed in these Reasons.  Following an incident in late November 2022, the children have not spent time with the mother.  
162	The Court would assess, as best it can, that by late November 2022 the children probably had a meaningful relationship with the mother albeit a developing one, with the Court observing, inter alia, that it is likely that the three eldest children had, prior to the mother’s hospitalisation in December 2020, been exposed to the mother’s adverse mental health (including auditory hallucinations).
163	The children will benefit from having a meaningful relationship with the mother provided it is safe for them to do so.
164	Should the Court make the following orders to the following effect there is a significant prospect that the children’s meaningful relationship with the mother can be further developed positively:
(1)	 The children shall live with the father;
(2)	The children some spend daytime time with the mother each Saturday, for two consecutive Saturdays, with the mother at a public venue, supervised by the father, and then;
(3)	The children spend some increased daytime time with the mother for at least two consecutive Saturdays at a public venue(s), supervised by the father, and then;
(4)	Upon the mother providing to the father details of having re-engaged with her former treating psychologist, psychiatrist and mental health social worker (or equivalents), and engaged in a certified English-speaking course, the children spend unsupervised overnight time with the mother at a frequency of one Saturday night each week for eight weeks, and then;
(5)	The children spend unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to 10.00am Sunday (two overnights) over a period of eight weeks, and then;
(6)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (three overnights) over a period of 12 weeks, and then,
(7)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Thursday (or 3.00pm Thursday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (four overnights).
165	The Court has a real concern that if the Court makes the father’s proposed order 4 set out in his Further Amended Response filed 11 January 2023, relating to the children spending “time with their mother as agreed between the parties and based on the wishes of the children” that the father may act excessively cautiously and decline to permit the children to spend regular time with the mother and/or decline to permit them to spend any overnight time with her, resulting in the children’s relationship with the mother not developing positively and in a timely fashion.  The evidence of the family report writer was consistent with this concern.
166	As to the mother’s proposal for the children spending three nights each week with her, the Court refers to its discussions below under the heading “Parenting responsibility and equal time”. Were the Court to accede to this proposal of the mother, there is a real risk that the enhancement of the children’s meaningful relationship with the mother will be impeded.
167	The children have a meaningful relationship with the father and will benefit from a continuance of that relationship. 
168	The evidence of the Single Expert Report writer is consistent with the above views.
169	The Court gives significant weight to this meaningful relationship primary consideration. 
(2)(b) The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
170	The Court refers to the mother’s allegations of family violence perpetrated against her by the father during the relationship as recounted, inter alia, by the mother to the Single Expert Report writer, to the police, and in her trial affidavit.  The Court is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the father did perpetrate such alleged family violence against the mother as alleged by her.  Inter alia, the father denies having perpetrated such alleged family violence, and the alleged family violence incidents occurred at a time when the mother was probably experiencing adverse mental health.
171	The Court is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother assaulted the father on 26 November 2022 as alleged by the father.  And the Court is not satisfied that the mother deliberately scratched Z on 26 November 2022.  Otherwise, the Court accepts the evidence of the father pertaining to the mother’s adverse behaviour in the presence of the children and towards the father on 19 and 26 November 2022.  The Court finds that the mother’s adverse behaviour at these times probably arose significantly by reason of her anger and frustration at being unable to spend overnight time with the children.
172	The Court finds that from about three months prior to late November 2022 the mother, in particular by reason of her dissatisfaction with being unable to spend overnight time with the children, refused to personally and regularly provide food for the children during their daytime visits with her.  It is likely that this food issue was effectively communicated by the mother to the father at the outset.  The father, accordingly, usually gave to the children packets of food to take with them for the visits with the mother.  The Court accepts the mother’s evidence that during this period, when the children were visiting her, she caused the children to eat lunch at her home albeit with food usually supplied by the father.  The Court is of the view that this conduct of the mother relating to the father usually having to provide the children’s food for the visits with the mother was not child focused and had the potential for the children to suffer neglect during such visits through lack of food.  
173	The mother experienced adverse mental health after Z’s birth in 2016 (probably postnatal depression) and prior to her hospitalisation in December 2020 she began to experience psychotic episodes (in particular auditory hallucinations) related to her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia which had been made in December 2020.  Since December 2020 the mother has probably not experienced symptoms related to schizophrenia because she has been ingesting Olanzapine as prescribed for her by medical practitioners.  The mother has engaged with her GP every three to four weeks, and the mother told the Court that she continues to see her GP every four weeks; the Court infers that it is likely that her GP presently prescribes her Olanzapine. The mother engaged with psychiatrist Dr C in September 2021 and thereafter engaged with that doctor up until February 2022 only (a total of three consultations).  The mother engaged with psychologist Ms B in February 2021 and thereafter for a further 15 sessions until early August 2022, however she ceased consulting with that psychologist in October 2022.  The mother, in September 2021, began receiving support from a mental health social worker, Ms D, with whom she spoke regularly up until at least late August 2022; the mother informed the Court that her last communication with Ms D was in October 2022.
174	On discharge from hospital in December 2020, the mother had been prescribed Olanzapine 15 mg each day.  As at the date of Dr C’s report for the mother dated 22 September 2021, the mother was ingesting this same dosage.  However, at some time after 22 September 2021 and prior to 19 August 2022 (the date of Ms B’s report) the mother’s prescribed dosage was reduced to 10 mg each day.  The oral evidence of Dr F, clinical and forensic psychologist, expressed significant concern in relation to the mother, including that she had ceased to have regular consultations with her above treating mental health professional practitioners and that it was her GP, rather than her above treating psychiatrist, who was prescribing the mother’s mental health medication and which was not optimal.  Dr F also expressed significant concern that the mother appeared to be socially isolated and that “her treasure”, the children, had not spent time with the mother since 26 November 2022, and that the mother had not sought to spend time with the children since that date.  Dr F opined that the above circumstances relating to the mother suggested that she may be at risk of experiencing adverse symptoms relating to her paranoid schizophrenia in remission.
175	In the view of the Court, any unsupervised time to be spent by the children with the mother should be conditioned upon the mother re-engaging with her treating mental health professional practitioners and social worker, and engaging in a certified English-speaking course. This view is consistent with the evidence of Dr F.
176	The Court places significant weight upon the view of Dr F that the presence of the child W, now almost 13 years, would be “a” protective factor in relation to the children spending time with the mother, including overnight time, taking into account her positive presentation to Dr F.
177	The Court gives significant weight to this need to protect primary consideration. 
Section 60CC(3) additional considerations
(3)(a) Any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child maturity or level of understanding) that the Court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views
178	The child W, who will turn 13 years of age in 2023, had told Dr F (in November 2021) that she wished to remain living with the father; that she was not ready to begin sleepovers at the mother’s home; that she loves both parents; and that she was happy to see the mother two to three times a week.  The Court places significant weight upon the above views of W whilst recognising that since this child was interviewed by Dr F in November 2021, she thereafter spent significant day-time time with the mother, in particular at the mother’s home. 
179	The child X, now aged 11 years, had told Dr F (in November 2021) that it would be good if she could perhaps stay longer with the mother on their contact days, offering that she could stay seven hours there.  However she had told Dr F that she did not want to do overnight stays in the mother’s home, having told Dr F that, “Mum would have to prove that – with no more talking to herself.”  Whilst recognising that since this child was interviewed by Dr F in November 2021, she thereafter also spent significant daytime time with the mother, the Court would place some weight upon her views.
180	The Court would not place any weight upon the views of Y and Z by reason of their ages.
(3) (b) The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents; and other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child)
181	The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration. 
(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
182	Both parents would appear to have taken, or sought to have taken, such opportunities, however since 26 November 2022, the mother has not sought to spend time or communicate with the children, and the father has not taken sufficiently positive steps to cause the children to resume spending time with the mother.
(3)(ca) The extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child
183	The parents would appear to have maintained the children when the children were in their respective care, subject to the Court’s discussion above, under the need to protect primary consideration, in relation to the food issue in the latter half of 2022 in respect to the mother.  The mother does not pay formal child support.
(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 his or her 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
184	The children have not spent time or communicated with the mother since 26 November 2022.  It is important that Orders are fashioned by the Court with a view to the children recommencing the spending of time with the mother, in a safe manner, so that their developing meaningful relationship with the mother can be promoted in a safe and timely fashion.  
185	There should be no detrimental effect upon the children’s meaningful relationship with the father should the children spend time with the mother as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration.
(3)(e) The practical difficulty and expense of a child spending time with and communicating with the 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
186	Not applicable. The parties live quite close to each other in the Suburb S area.
(3)(f) The capacity of each of the child’s parents; and any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs
187	The Father has such capacities subject to the Court’s comments above in relation to the father not having taken sufficiently positive steps to cause the children to resume spending time with the mother since 26 November 2022, and subject to its comments below in respect to the father, for significant periods post separation and probably up to the present time, in respect to the issue of the children spending time with the mother, relying excessively on the views of the children and/or others, including the police. 
188	The mother will probably experience difficulties in meeting the children’s intellectual needs whilst she is unable to speak adequate English.  Whilst the oldest child probably has some limited understanding of the Language L, that is not the case with the three youngest children. The mother, historically, since coming to Australia, has undertaken an English-speaking course however she needs to re-engage with an English speaking course in a timely fashion.  It would also be helpful for the children themselves to learn the Language L language. These views are consistent with the evidence of Dr F. 
189	The mother probably has some capacity to provide for the emotional needs of the children, however the Court observes, in relation to the two incidents in November 2022, that the mother’s adverse behaviour in front of the children was not child focused and she continues to lack insight in relation to the negative effects upon the children of such behaviour. 
190	The mother also appears to lack insight into the possible adverse emotional effects upon the children in immediately spending significant overnight weekly time with them, noting that the children have not spent overnight time with her for a long time.  The mother will need to make a conscious effort, when the children are spending time with her, to meet these emotional needs of the children, and this will be supported by the mother re-engaging with her mental health professionals, the children beginning to spend time with the mother on a graduating basis, the mother completing a parenting course relating to parents communicating with children the ages of these children such as Tuning into Kids and Tuning into Teens, and re-engaging with an English-speaking course.
(3)(g) The maturity, sex, lifestyle and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and of either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Court thinks are relevant
191	The children appear to be progressing and developing well, with the Court observing the comments of Dr F that the child Y would benefit from a formal assessment from the speech pathologist and an evaluation of his current learning support at school.
192	The Court observes that the mother completed five years of primary school in Country K.  She has never been formally employed.  She completed some parenting education through online classes.  She had completed a Triple P parenting course online.  The mother appears presently to be somewhat socially isolated, living on her own with no friends or family in Sydney, and leaving home only for shopping and walks; the Court refers to the concerns of Dr F in this context and his suggestions to enable the mother to meaningfully engage socially in the community. 
193	The father completed six years of schooling in Country K up until the age of about 11 or 12.  Thereafter he has had employment, mostly manual work, at various times both in Country K and in Australia.  Presently he cares for the children.  Dr F had stated that a Parenting After Separation course may be suitable to assist the father, inter alia, with developing an understanding of each parent’s separate autonomy when it comes to the children’s care.
(3)(h) If the child is an Aboriginal child or a Torres Strait Islander child: the child’s right to enjoy his or her Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture); and the likely impact any proposed parenting order under this Part will have on that right
194	Not applicable.
(3)(i) The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents
195	The Court refers to its discussions above under the meaningful relationship and need to protect primary considerations, as well as its discussions under sections 60CC(3)(f) and (g). In relation to the father, the father, for significant periods post separation and probably up to the present time, in respect to the issue of the children spending time with the mother, has relied excessively on the views of the children and others, including the police.  Otherwise, the parents appear to have demonstrated appropriate attitudes.
(3)(j) Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.
196	The Court refers to its discussions above under the need to protect primary consideration.
(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, taking into account the following: the nature of the order; the circumstances in which the order was made; any findings made by the Court in, or in proceedings for, the order; any other relevant matter.
197	Not applicable.
(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. 
198	Orders relating to the children spending time with the mother as discussed above under the meaningful relationship primary consideration would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children. Further in this context, the Court refers to its discussion below in relation to equal time.
(3)(m) Any other fact or circumstance that the Court thinks is relevant.
199	Not applicable.
Parental responsibility and equal time
200	The father seeks an order for sole parental responsibility which is opposed by the mother. 
201	It will not be in the best interests of the children that the father have sole parental responsibility for them, except in relation to travel.  Rather, it will be in the best interests of the children that the Court order that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for the children to ensure, inter alia, that the mother can maintain active involvement in any major decision making for the children and thus maintain a parental role for the children. The Court agrees with the comments of Dr F that the risks to the mother’s significance as a parent figure are great if the Court was to allocate sole parental responsibility to the father.
202	There would appear to be no major decision looming for these children who are attending public schools.  The Court is satisfied that these parties could probably reach agreement in a timely fashion in relation to future major decisions affecting the children, apart from travel.
203	It will be in the best interests of the children that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children in relation to travel, both domestic and international.  On the evidence before the Court, it is unlikely that the mother would agree with the father, in a timely fashion, relating to any proposal by the father to travel with the children either domestically or internationally.  On the evidence before the Court, the Court is comfortably satisfied that if the father was to travel with the children domestically or internationally, he would likely ensure that the children are returned to Sydney in a timely fashion. The evidence before the Court indicates that the children may well benefit from such travel, including overseas travel to visit their relatives in Country K. 
204	The mother seeks an Order that the children spend three nights each week with her; such a proposal is very close to an equal time arrangement.  An Order for equal time or even an Order that the children spend three nights each week with the mother would not be an Order in the best interests of the children.  The mother has limitations with her parenting capacity for the children, as discussed above, including limitations relating to her providing for the children’s intellectual needs by reason of her limited English speaking skills, and limitations relating to her ability to adequately meet the children’s emotional needs by reason of, inter alia, her difficulties remaining child focused when the children are in her care.  In relation to the mother’s proposed Orders for three overnights each week, or indeed in relation to an equal time Order, a significant risk would arise that the children would not cope emotionally with such a dramatic change in their living arrangements between the parents; the children have not spent overnight time with the mother for a long time, and they are probably still dealing with emotional issues relating to their perceptions of historical abandonment by the mother and insecurities in relation to possibly being confronted by adverse mental health in the mother. There would also exist the real risk that the parties could not co-parent in a cooperative fashion without conflict. These risks coming to pass may well lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to the children.
Summary
205	Evaluating the above discussed considerations under section 60CC of the Act, and other matters discussed above, the Court is of the view that it will be in the best interests of the children to make the following final parenting Orders:
1.	All previous parenting orders in respect to the children W born in 2010, X born in 2011, Y born in 2014, and Z born in 2016, (“the children”) shall be discharged.
2.	The mother and father shall have equal shared parental responsibility for the children on all aspects except for travel.
3.	The father shall have sole parental responsibility for the children for the aspect of travel including both domestic and international travel. For the purposes of the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth), any requirement of the mother to consent to obtaining a passport or travel document for the children, is dispensed with.
4.	Pursuant to section 65Y of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the father shall be permitted to remove the children from the Commonwealth of Australia at his discretion for the purposes of international travel.   
5.	The children shall live with the father.
6.	The mother shall forthwith attend to the following:
(a)	Re-engage with Ms B, or equivalent psychologist, and follow all reasonable directions and recommendations of such psychologist;
(b)	Re-engage with Dr C, or equivalent psychiatrist, and follow all reasonable directions and recommendations of such psychiatrist;
(c)	Re-engage with Ms D from E Clinic, or equivalent mental health social worker;
(d)	Engage in a certified English-speaking course;
(e)	Engage with a professional in-home family support service;
(f)	Apply for National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding for herself. 
7.	The mother shall forthwith provide her treating professionals listed at Orders 6(a)–(c) with a copy of these Orders and the Single Expert Report of Dr F dated 7 December 2021.
8.	The children shall spend time with the mother on a graduating basis as follows:
(a)	For two consecutive Saturdays for no less than two hours on each occasion (for a period nominated by the father), at a public venue such as a park (nominated by the father) supervised by the father (with the father to stay at a distance where he can see the children but not hear what is being said) and then;
(b)	For at least two consecutive Saturdays for no less than four hours on each occasion, at a public venue (or venues) such as a park supervised by the father (with the father not to interfere with the mother’s time with the children unless the father is of a reasonable view that the children are at imminent risk) and then;
(c)	Upon the mother providing to the father details of her compliance with Orders 6(a)–(d), unsupervised overnight time at a frequency of one Saturday night each week over a period of eight weeks, and then;
(d)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to 10.00am Sunday (two overnights) over a period of eight weeks, and then,
(e)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Friday (or 3.00pm Friday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (three overnights) over a period of 12 weeks, and then,
(f)	Unsupervised overnight time each fortnight from after school Thursday (or 3.00pm Thursday during school holidays) to before school Monday (or 10.00am Mondays during school holidays) (four overnights).
9.	In relation to Order 8(c) above, the mother shall be deemed to have provided to the father details of her compliance with Orders 6(a)–(c) if she provides a letter to the father from each of the psychologist, psychiatrist, and mental health social worker, to the effect that she has re-engaged (or engaged with their equivalent) with such practitioner and that such practitioner is supportive of the mother’s time with the children progressing to overnight time. The mother shall be deemed to have provided to the father details of her compliance with Order 6(d) if she provides a letter to the father from a certified English speaking provider to the effect that she has engaged in their certified English-speaking course.
10.	The mother shall provide the father with six monthly updates (by way of letter) of her engagements with her psychiatrist, psychologist and her mental health social worker. 
11.	The father shall forthwith do all things necessary and sign all documents required to enrol the children into a Language L speaking and comprehension class and ensure that the children attend said classes punctually and consistently. 
12.	The mother and the father shall forthwith take all necessary steps to enrol in and complete the Tuning into Kids (for the three youngest children) and Tuning into Teens (for the eldest child) parenting courses so as to facilitate the provision of emotionally attuned parenting by each of them. Such courses can be completed through G Counsellors or other accredited organisation.
13.	The children be removed from the Airport Watch List.
14.	WITHOUT ADMISSION the mother and the father be restrained from the following: 
(a)	Exposing the children to violence including physical or verbal threats or intimidation, whether such threats or intimidation or violence be directed at the children, the mother, the father or any other member of either party’s household;
(b)	Physically disciplining the children;
(c)	Denigrating the other or members of the other party’s family in the presence or hearing of the children and each party shall do all acts and things reasonably necessary to prevent any other person doing so;
(d)	Discussing these proceedings or any issues arising out of these proceedings with the children or permitting any third party to do so;     
(e)	Making critical or derogatory remarks on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter in relation to the other parent or referring in any way to the proceedings;
(f)	Being under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the children or whilst the children are in his or her care and;
(g)	Knowingly bringing the children into contact with any person under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol in excess;
(h)	Failing to adequately feed the children when the children are in their care.
15.	In the event that any of the children shall suffer any injury, be hospitalised or suffer any significant illness the parent in whose care such child or children are in at the time shall notify the other parent immediately except in the case of an emergency where they shall do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and five (205) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Newbrun.	

Associate: 

Dated:	23 February 2023