The final hearing in this matter was then before Schonell J on 2 and 3 February, in Frost & Frost (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 102, involving both property settlement and parenting. The respondent was represented in the substantive proceedings.
The parenting aspect involved a female child, X, born in 2021, and four years of age at the time of the hearing. Since separation there had been only supervised time between X and the father. Initially this was supervised by the mother, in a public place, and then a contact centre. The parties separated when X was less than two years of age. By the time of the hearing X had spent no time with the father since September 2023.
The mother sought Orders and was supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer in this regard, for sole decision-making responsibility, for X to live with her and spend no time with the father.
The father sought supervised time for a minimum of two hours per fortnight.
His Honour stated, at paragraph 47:
Given the ambit of the orders sought, the primary issues in the parenting case include the following:
(1) Whether the mother and/or the child have been exposed to or subjected to family violence by the father.
(2) Whether the child is at an unacceptable risk of harm.
(3) Does an order for supervision render the risk of harm acceptable.
(4) Whether there is a benefit to the child in spending supervised time with the father.
(5) Should an order be made for the father to receive information in relation to the child
A Child Impact Report had been prepared and was in evidence, unchallenged as neither party required the Court Child Expert for cross-examination.
The father had a 10-year-old child from a previous relationship, not subject of these proceedings, who had spent no time with the father since 22 December 2022, pursuant to final orders1. Schonell J made reference to those Orders and Reasons for Judgment, noting that some of the issues bore similarities with the current matter, such as allegations of sexual assault, coercive and controlling behaviour. There were also allegations of sexual abuse of and an unacceptable risk to the child.
There was an ADVO against the father for the mother’s protection and charges of breaching that Order along with other ancillary charges such as resisting arrest, assaulting police and drug offences.
The mother’s affidavit evidence as to the sexual assaults perpetrated upon her by the father were harrowing and the Court Child Expert expressed that they were professionally confronting to assess2
The father had outstanding serious criminal charges including multiple counts of rape over a nine-year period, breaching bail, common assault and using abusive language. Further, he had not complied with his obligation to provide disclosure in respect of these matters.
His Honour found the father to be argumentative and deliberately nonresponsive in his evidence. Overall, His Honour preferred the evidence of the mother and accepted that the incidents of family violence did occur in accordance with the mother’s evidence. It then followed that His Honour found that the father posed a risk to the mother and to his children3
Further, His Honour was not convinced that the father’s conduct or attitude towards women was likely to change,4 making him a poor role model for X.
Whilst Schonell J went through all of the s60CC factors, having found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child Orders were made for there to be no time spent between X and the father.
Presumably as a result of the recent, ill-fated proceedings in respect of the single expert, the parties were able to agree on every other aspect of the Balance Sheet, save for the former family home.
Whilst the single expert gave evidence that the current value of the home would be higher than the two-year-old valuation there was no evidence as to its current value and in those circumstances His Honour determined that the only just and equitable course was to sell the property.
In assessing contributions, Schonell J took into consideration the family violence perpetrated by the father upon the mother and its impact on her financial contributions. In addition, His Honour fund that the mother provided the overwhelming contributions in respect of the care of X.
The parties’ contribution based entitlements were assessed at 50/50% with a 10% adjustment to the mother pursuant to s79(5).
Frost & Frost (No 2) — Where a father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to a child, the Court will order no time even where supervised time is sought, and family violence will be taken into account as a factor in both contributions and the s79(5) adjustment. The parties’ failed attempt to discharge the single expert ultimately worked against them — having been unable to agree on a replacement valuation, the Court had no choice but to order the sale of the property.