Demir & Ozden  [2025] FedCFamC2F 80

This matter involved a female child, X, who was 13 years of age at the time of the hearing in November 2024.  X lived in Melbourne with her father and stepmother whilst the mother lived in Queensland.

At trial the mother was self-represented and initially sought primary residence but amended that to a shared care arrangement, notwithstanding the residences of the parents.  The mother did not propose to move to Queensland nor did she suggest that the father might move to Melbourne rather, it seemed to be her case that X should spend six months in each state and attend different schools for half of the year.  The father sought sole parental responsibility, primary residence and that there be no time between X and the mother.  The ICL supported the father’s case.

X had been in the father’s care since she was around 8 months old after the mother had been prevented from leaving the country where the family resided pursuant to a watchlist order.  The mother then left without X.  In 2014 Final Orders were made, on an undefended basis, for X to live with the father.  Thereafter the mother had no contact with X until at least 2020 when she learned that the father had returned to live in Australia in 2019, the mother having done so in 2013.

The mother commenced these proceedings in March 2023 when X was around 12 years of age and had spent no time with the mother for around 11 years.  Indeed, X had only ever known her stepmother as a mother figure but was aware that she was not X’s biological mother.  The mother’s position was that X had been abducted by the father and thereafter alienated from her.

The mother had been in receipt of a s102NA grant of legal aid but after the first two solicitors withdrawing from the matter and the mother refusing to continue with the third, Legal Aid did not provide further representation.  For the duration of the trial the mother was self-represented but could not cross examine the father.  That task was left to the ICL.

The mother was not a good witness.  She often gave contradictory evidence and demonstrated no insight into X’s needs.  The family report writer opined that X would be at risk of emotional harm if she had any contact or spent any time with her mother.

Her Honour considered that the most material issue to be decided was the risk to X of being forced to see her mother against her will and of being exposed to the mother’s erratic behaviour.

Her Honour ultimately decided that the risk to X was too great, even for contact by way or letters and/or cards and could not be ameliorated.  The Final Orders provided for no contact at all between X and the mother.