A short time later, on 22 October 2025, another s65DAAA matter was determined, this time by a Division 2 Judge.

In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478 Her Honour, Judge Suthers, determined an application brought by the Father for essentially a reverse of primary residence.  There were existing final parenting Orders made in 2023 providing for the child to live with the Mother and spend time with the Father.  The Mother subsequently withheld the child from the Father alleging that he perpetrated sexual abuse upon the child and posed an unacceptable risk.  That unilateral suspension of time continued for a period of around 10 months.

In her decision, at paragraph 147, Her Honour opined:

“I am satisfied that a significant genesis for the callous lack of child-focus in the Mother’s behaviour during these months was informed by either jealousy or paranoia about the Father daring to be seen in public with a female.  An innocuous gymnasium session with a female friend provoked what could only be described as a text message rant from the Mother which demanded to know the female’s name and then described her as a fat ass “friiend” (sic) and then asserted the person was his new girlfriend with the rant continuing on from there.^[75]  The messages display that while the Father was trying to arrange to spend time with X, the Mother simply ignored the requests, intent on haranguing the Father.”

Her Honour made, what may be considered as quite radical, Orders for the child to live with the Father, for the Father to have sole parental responsibility, for there to be no contact between the child and the Mother for a period of around 8 weeks and thereafter an introduction of time, initially supervised.

The period in which either party may file an Appeal has not yet passed.  We will keep an eye on whether or not an appeal is filed.