FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife seeks leave to issue four subpoenas to individuals to attend and give evidence – Where the wife seeks leave at the time final hearing is listed to commence – Where relevance of the subpoenas is not established – Where there is potential risk to the completion of the trial if leave is granted – Where the Court is not satisfied that leave should be granted – Leave refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Non-compliance with directions – Where the matter has been relisted to show cause as to why the applicant’s Initiating Application should not be dismissed and the matter proceed on only the respondent’s evidence – Where the applicant sought the vacation of orders and sought a suite of orders, including an extension for the parties file their affidavits – Where the respondent has complied with directions and filed trial evidence – Orders for the extension of filing trial material for the applicant only and that if the applicant fails to comply, his Application will be dismissed and the matter will proceed on the evidence of the respondent and that of any single expert and evidence adduced by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Whether parenting and property proceedings ought be bifurcated – Orders for freehold and leasehold valuation of real properties – Orders for updated family report.

FAMILY LAW – INTERLOCTUORY – Costs – Where the wife sought an anti-suit injunction against her daughters who had filed a Summons in the Supreme Court of New South Wales – Where orders were made granting the anti-suit injunction – Where the wife sought orders against her daughter’s solicitor for costs of the anti-suit injunction application –Where the applicant contended that no instructions could have been given that would have removed the impropriety or unreasonableness on the part of the solicitor in commencing the proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales – Where the solicitor contends there had been no waiver of privilege – Consideration of the Court’s power to order a solicitor to pay costs – Where the Court’s order is remedial, not punitive – Where the Court is not satisfied that there are circumstances that justify the making of a costs order – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for the appointment of receiver and manager to various companies – Where the 5th and 6th respondents proposed an alternately named receiver and manager – Where the registered mortgagee over some of the properties owned by the companies appeared as an interested party and did not oppose the orders being made –Where the husband opposed the making of any of the orders – Where the wife opposed the necessity for her company to be valued and raised issues as to cost – Where the Court is not to proceed in ignorance of the legal ownership of company assets and upon an assumption that a value of a company is constituted by reference to only one asset of the company and a secured liability – Orders made for the appointment of a receiver and manager and that the wife in the first instance meet the costs of the report for the valuation of her business.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim distribution – Where a $170,000 interim costs order is sought for litigation funding – Where the respondent seeks the former matrimonial home be sold immediately – Where extensive property valuations may be required and there is a dispute on how the costs will be met – Where it is determined no ‘justifying circumstances’ exist to make an interim costs order – Where the former matrimonial home is to be sold and the balance of the sale proceeds equally distributed between the parties – Where the cost of any necessary property valuations is to be paid equally – Where the applicant must particularise the final property orders sought within 7 days.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Where child’s biological father has not participated in these proceedings – Leave granted to the Second Applicant stepfather to make an application pursuant to the Adoption Act 2009 (Qld).

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING –– Where the mother sought to relocate the child’s residence on a final basis – Where the father would not move residence if the Court made orders that it was in the best interests of the child to relocate – Where both parties sought joint decision-making responsibility – Where the parties have a good co-parenting relationship – Where no allegation of risk or family violence – Where the parties agreed on a suite of ancillary orders to be made by consent – Where the mother suffers from adverse mental health conditions – Where it was contended that the mother’s mental health condition has worsened post-separation – Where the relationship between the father and the child is able to be beneficially maintained and supported if the child relocates – Where it is in the child’s best interests for the child to relocate such that the mother’s parenting capacity will be strengthened by additional supports – Orders made for the child to relocate.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – UNDEFENDED HEARING – Where the mother has failed to file material in accordance with Court orders – Where the mother has not properly particularised the final orders she seeks.

PARENTING – Where the mother currently resides in the United States of America under a pending application for asylum – Where the father resides in Australia with the children and is a permanent resident – Final Orders made for the children to remain living with the father in Australia and have regular telephone time with the mother, until such time she is able to travel to Australia.

FAMILY LAW – ADOPTION – Leave to commence proceedings – Where the Applicant seeks parenting orders and leave to commence adoption proceedings in the County Court of Victoria to adopt a child – Where the First Respondent biological mother consents to the parenting orders as sought and to the Court granting leave to the Applicant pursuant to s 60G(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – Where the Second Respondent biological father did not participate in the proceedings – Orders as sought by the Applicant and biological mother made.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the parties require the court to settle a joint letter of instruction to be provided to the single expert – Where the parties each provide proposed letters of instruction for the court to consider – Where the joint instructions to be provided to the single expert are settled by the court and made an exhibit to the reasons for judgment – Where the settled instructions address the key issues only.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Where the parents separated in early 2022 and the children have since lived with the maternal grandparents – Where the father pleaded guilty to assaulting the mother – Where the children witnessed acts of family violence between the parents – Where the father relocated to New Zealand in late 2022 – Where the time spent by the children with the father has been professionally supervised – Where the maternal grandparents joined the proceedings in August 2023 – Where at final hearing the residence of the children was a contest between the maternal grandparents and the father – Where the mother has been beset by an excessive use of alcohol – Where the mother acknowledged her deteriorated parenting capacity necessitates the supervision of any time the children spend with her for the foreseeable future – Where the mother, the maternal grandparents and the Independent Children’s Lawyer agree the children should live with the maternal grandparents – Where the children told the family consultant they wish to retain their residence with the maternal grandparents – Where the father’s beliefs the children will not be properly supported by the maternal grandparents are not probative – Where the maternal grandparents have the capacity to meet the children’s physical, emotional and intellectual needs – Ordered the children’s residence should remain with the maternal grandparents – Where the parties agreed conferral of parental responsibility for the children would follow the residence order – Ordered the children spend time with the father during school holidays – Ordered the children spend time with the mother once per week and on special occasions to be supervised by the maternal grandparents.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Financial agreement – Where the applicant seeks to pursue property division under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the respondent contends an agreement between the parties is a binding financial agreement under s 90C of the Act – Agreement entered into during the marriage – Agreement provided for the immediate sale of a property and division of the proceeds – Agreement does not refer to the breakdown of the marriage or maintenance – Where the agreement is not a financial agreement within the meaning of s 90C.

FAMILY LAW – INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION – Where the parents and children were habitually resident in the United Kingdom – Where the mother retained the children in Australia following a Christmas holiday – Where jurisdictional requirements under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth) were satisfied – Where the mother opposed return on the basis of grave risk of harm and intolerable situation – Where she alleged coercive control, family violence, financial abuse and risks arising from the father’s health – Where the mother is electing not to return to the United Kingdom – Where the grave risk exception is not established – Orders made for the return of the children to the United Kingdom

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim orders made on last day of final hearing – Where the mother contends that the father has sexually assaulted the child and is an unacceptable risk – Where the father denies allegations of sexual assault – Where the father contends that the mother has coached the child in disclosing allegations – Where there are inconsistencies in what the mother has alleged to police, government agencies and the Court as to the disclosures of the child – Where the Court is satisfied the father had not sexually assaulted the child – Where the Court is satisfied that the interim orders are in the best interests of the child – Orders made by consent for the father to spend unsupervised time with the child on a graduating basis – Proceedings stood over part heard.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of a single expert – Where the parties agree that the evidence of a single expert would assist in the resolution of an issue of significant controversy – Where orders have been made previously providing for the appointment of a single expert and the process for doing so – Where the parties remain unable to agree on who should be the single expert – Where there remains substantial disagreement as to the letter of instruction to be provided to the single expert – Orders made selecting the single expert – Where further submissions are required before determining the letter of instruction to be provided to the single expert.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Marriage of 48 years where neither party brought significant initial assets into the pool – Where the husband made greater financial contributions during employment – Where the wife made the majority of homemaker and parenting contributions and assisted in the business – Where the Court found the husband subjected the wife to family violence over the course of their marriage that adversely impacted the wife’s contributions – Where the husband withdrew significant cash sums pre-separation for his sole benefit – Where the husband failed to comply with orders for sale and disputed multiple valuations – Where the collective addbacks were considered under section 75(2)(o) – Where the wife shall receive 57 per cent of the pool and the husband 43 per cent.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where counsel for the husband made an oral application for the Judge to recuse herself on the basis of apprehended bias – Where the application was based on refusal of adjournment, comments made to counsel, remoteness of interpreter arrangements and refusal to allow spontaneous cross-examination of an interpreter – Where the application was dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – FINANCIAL – Interim orders – Where the wife sought an interim property order in the sum of $400,000 for the payment of legal fees – Where the wife also sought enforcement of orders made 16 January 2024 ordering the husband to pay the wife the sum of $100,000 – Where the husband opposed the orders sought by the wife contending that a payment to the wife of the magnitude sought would defeat his ultimate claim and could not be considered at a final hearing – Where the Court is required to act conservatively and be satisfied that the order is capable of being reversed or not defeat the husband’s final claim – Where the Court is satisfied that a lesser amount of $200,000 is a just and equitable order.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING AND PROPERTY – Defended hearing – Final orders – Parenting – Where the children live with the mother and have spent limited daytime with the father – Where the parents live in different States – Where since interim orders were made in April 2024 neither party has applied for interim orders requiring the children to spend time with the father – Where the mother told the court child expert she considers the children are responsible for the time they spend with the father – Where the father’s deep mistrust of the mother’s willingness to support the children’s relationships with him is not objectively explicable by the evidence – Where the children all express the desire to spend more time with the father – Where the father’s insistence the children live with him implies the prioritisation of his desire over the children’s needs – Orders made – Children to remain living with the mother and that she have sole decision-making authority – Children to spend three weekends of each school term and half school holidays with the father – Property – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests – Where the mother and her sibling are registered legal owners of a property purchased by the maternal grandparents – Where the mother asserts the property is the subject of a resulting trust – Where the mother was impelled to admit the presumption of advancement ousted the presumption of a resulting trust – Where loans entered into by the parties to pay for legal fees are ignored as liabilities – Contribution-based entitlement assessed as 65/35 with a 12 per cent adjustment in favour of the mother – Orders made – Where the parties’ agree for the mother to retain the former matrimonial home and other real properties, provided she pay the father a cash sum – Where the parties otherwise agree to retain their personal property and superannuation entitlements.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim parenting orders – Application to reconsider recently made final parenting orders – Where the parties agree that there has been a significant change in circumstances such that it is in the children’s best interests for the final parenting orders to be reconsidered – Where each parent proposes competing orders to address alleged risk of harm to the children when in the other parent’s care – Where the children are not presently living with or spending time with the mother pursuant to the final orders – Where the s 65DAAA application is granted – Where orders are made on an interim basis for the children to live with the father and spend day time only with the mother – Where the mother is restrained from contacting the children’s medical practitioners and therapists – Orders made progressing the matter to the preparation of a Child Impact Report.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by respondent for adjournment of hearing as to whether an agreement is enforceable as a binding financial agreement – Where the respondent’s lawyers were granted leave to withdraw – Order under the s 102NA cross-examination scheme – Failure to attend previous hearings – Failure to comply with directions – Prejudice to applicant if proceedings delayed – Effect of adjournment on other litigants awaiting court dates – Application refused.

FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Where father wishes to live with children in United Kingdom – where father has not fostered, encouraged or facilitated the relationship between the children and the mother – application dismissed. 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INJUNCTIONS – Ex parte application – Where the wife sought orders on an ex parte basis in relation to financial matters – Where there are various entities that are parties to the proceedings in which the husband at one time had an interest in or is in control of – Where the wife contends that there is a real risk the husband may dissipate or deal with assets to defeat the wife’s claims if given advance notice – Where the Court is satisfied that it is necessary to make ex parte orders – Ex parte orders made – Orders made for the wife to direct service upon the respondents and for the matter to come back to Court expeditiously.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim order - Ex tempore – Where a trial is adjourned part-heard due to illness – Where there are cross allegations of family violence – Where findings of fact are yet to be made – Where the mother is not currently spending any time with the children – Where the mother has previously withheld the children and a recovery order issued – Where risk that changes to the current arrangements would subject the children to further trauma – Where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Costs order of a specific amount – Circumstances where order for costs in a fixed amount ought to be made.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Whether conduct of a litigant justifies an order for indemnity costs.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where it is implicit from the wife’s application that she seeks to reopen the proceedings – Where the final hearing has concluded – Where judgment has been reserved and has not been delivered – Where the wife seeks to admit further evidence and seeks a range of ancillary orders – Where the wife is attempting to reagitate matters dealt with at the final hearing – Where the Court finds that further examples of matters raised by the wife at the final hearing do not advance the issues in dispute in any material way – Where further delay and burden does not favour the interests of the child, the parties, or justice – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interlocutory – Where the parties were both born in Country B and are permanent residents of Australia – Where there are two children of the parties’ marriage – Where the children were unilaterally moved to Country B and have since both returned to Australia – Where despite both parties being in Australia, the children have not spent any time with each other or the other parent – Where the parties each seek various interim parenting orders – Where both parties assert unacceptable risk – Where both parties sought what was described as “reunification family therapy” – Where the Court is satisfied that the father’s proposed orders are orders in the children’s best interests.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the father seeks overnight time with the child – Where it is not in dispute that the father is a heavy user of medicinal cannabis – Where the mother contends that the father is an unacceptable risk by reason of his medicinal cannabis use – Orders for the father to spend time with the child but no overnight time ordered.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the Applicant wife passed away after commencing proceedings – the parties’ adult daughter was substituted as the Applicant – Where the First Respondent husband’s wife is the Second Respondent – Property interests outside of Australia – Overseas political unrest prevented valuation evidence to be produced – Where the Applicant contends several overseas properties were more likely than not paid for by the husband rather than the Second Respondent and that the husband at the very least holds an interest in the overseas and it is more likely than not that he is the true beneficial owner of them – Where the Applicant bore the onus to establish the husband’s interest in those properties and she has failed to do so – Applications for declarations against the Second Respondent dismissed – Evidence of overseas transactions and their effect on the value of company shareholdings held personally by the husband and the estate is so deficient that caution must be exercised in attributing any definitive valuation – The corporate interests constituted as a separate pool.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the Applicant wife passed away after commencing proceedings – the parties’ adult daughter was substituted as the Applicant – Where the First Respondent husband’s wife is the Second Respondent – Property interests outside of Australia – Overseas political unrest prevented valuation evidence to be produced – Where the Applicant contends several overseas properties were more likely than not paid for by the husband rather than the Second Respondent and that the husband at the very least holds an interest in the overseas and it is more likely than not that he is the true beneficial owner of them – Where the Applicant bore the onus to establish the husband’s interest in those properties and she has failed to do so – Applications for declarations against the Second Respondent dismissed – Evidence of overseas transactions and their effect on the value of company shareholdings held personally by the husband and the estate is so deficient that caution must be exercised in attributing any definitive valuation – The corporate interests constituted as a separate pool.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING - Where the three children of the marriage habitually live in the primary care of the mother – Where the father seeks primary care alleging unacceptable risk for the children in the care of the parties – Where there is no factual basis to the parties claim – Where it is found that the father unilaterally overholds the children contrary to Court orders – Where a number of Recovery Orders issued in favour of the mother – Where family reporter recommends cessation of children’s relationship with the father – Orders for substantially reduced time for the children with the father.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Where the respondent in the substantive property proceedings sought for a permanent stay of the proceedings on the basis that the applicant is allegedly in contempt of a final parenting order between the parties – Where the respondent conceded that as the property proceedings are a different cause of action to the parenting proceedings he cannot succeed in his application – Where the application is dismissed – Where the matter is listed for a defended hearing.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournments – Where an application is made to vacate trial dates – Where s 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) applies – Where an adjournment is opposed by the mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the mother is not currently spending any time with the children – Where the Family Report writer opines it is imperative that a final decision about the parenting arrangement be reached as soon as possible – Where trial dates are adjusted to allow father’s counsel further time to prepare – Where the application is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – PARENTING – Where the mother admits to contravening interim parenting orders on each of the three counts stipulated in the father’s Contravention Application – Where the mother asserts that she had a reasonable excuse for contravention – Where the mother asserts that her failure to comply with orders was necessary to protect the safety of herself and the children – Where the mother has empowered the children to decide whether they wish to spend time with the father – Where the mother has involved the children in aspects of the parental dispute and exposed the children to her negative views of the father – Where the children were refusing to spend time with the father prior to the mother’s contraventions – Orders made that contraventions proven – Where the Court finds that the mother did not have a reasonable excuse for contravening the interim parenting orders – Orders made adjourning the matter to allow the parties to adduce evidence and make additional submissions in respect of penalty and costs.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the husband seeks time with the children on a fortnightly basis for five nights per fortnight extending to six nights per fortnight in 2026 and for half of all school holidays – Where wife opposes the husband’s application and proposes that the children remain living with her and spend time with the husband each alternate weekend and on special occasions – Orders that parents share sole parental responsibility and joint decision making for the children save for the wife having sole parental responsibility for the medical and therapeutic issues regarding the children – Orders that the children spend time with the husband for four nights per fortnight and from Term 1 in 2026 for five nights per fortnight – Orders that children spend time with the husband during school holidays and special occasions.

PROPERTY – Where the husband argues for a 60 per cent distribution of a contentious property pool based on a 5 per cent adjustment on each of contributions and factors pursuant to s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in his favour – Where the wife opposes the husband’s application and proposes that the net property pool of the parties be divided as to 70 per cent to her and 30 per cent to the husband – Where the wife makes a Kennon claim – Where the husband fails to adduce corroborative evidence without explanation in relation to the sale of his business – Orders that there be a distribution of the net property pool inclusive of superannuation as to 65 per cent to the wife and 35 per cent to the husband – Justice and Equity.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the Mother alleges serious family violence by the Father – Where the evidence does not establish family violence – Where it is found that the Mother has prevented the children from having a relationship with their Father – Orders made for the children to live with the Father – Orders made for the Father to have sole parental responsibility – Orders made for a six-month moratorium period where the Mother is not to see or contact the children – Where the Mother will thereafter spend time with the children.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Requirements of s 102NA(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ordered to apply.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife applies for costs in relation to the trial – Where husband appealed primary orders - Where consent orders made deferring the costs application to after disposition of the appeal – Where appeal upheld on one discrete issue and discretion re-exercised – Where the husband contends the costs application was dismissed by dint of the appeal – Where no order dismissing the costs application has been made – Where the justiciable controversy has not been quelled - Where the husband, in the alternate, seeks an extended timeline for filing documents because he is now self-representing and may be going on holidays – Where the wife’s timeline provides ample time for the parties to file material.

FAMILY LAW – Interim costs – husband to pay the wife $300,000 for her legal costs.

Injunctions - where husband seeks to use matrimonial property to fund a $5 million investment – husband restrained by injunction.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim order – Ex tempore – Where despite there being final parenting orders for the father to spend time with the child, the mother fails to facilitate this time – Where the father seeks to enforce the order that he spend time with the child – Where an application is made for expediated trial dates – Where it has already been determined that s 65DAAA applies – Where it is in the child’s best interests to spend time with the father pending a final outcome – Where it is determined that a recovery order will issue if the mother does not facilitate time in the future – Where the mother is restrained from removing the child from the Commonwealth of Australia – Where the child will continue to attend upon counselling and the mother is restrained from attending and/or recording the sessions – Where trial dates are set.

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Harmful Proceedings Order – Where the litigation history has been extensive – Where the respondent husband has filed numerous Applications in a Proceeding in 2025 – Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant wife would suffer harm if the respondent husband instituted further proceedings against her – Harmful Proceedings order made on Court’s own initiative.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the husband made an oral application for an adjournment – Where the adjournment was opposed by the wife – Where the husband received notice on multiple occasions as to the consequences of his failure to file documents in compliance with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) and directions and failing to participate or appear in the proceedings – Where the Court has no confidence that in the event the husband obtained the indulgence of an adjournment he would comply with any order to file documents and adhere to his obligations under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Considerations of management principles to the potential prejudice on a litigant – Adjournment application refused.

PROPERTY – Where the parties engaged in a 48-year marriage relationship by way of joint endeavour conducting agricultural operations and a related trading enterprise – Finding as to equality of contribution and with no adjustment to the contribution finding – Where the Court is satisfied that the orders are just and equitable.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim parenting orders - Where interim parenting orders were made with the consent of the parties on 5 February 2025 – Where the mother has breached orders - Where the mother sought to revisit the interim orders – Where the mother did not adduce evidence to demonstrate any factor which would justify revisit the existing interlocutory orders – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – Children – child live with mother – child spend unsupervised time with father.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – application for costs following delivery of judgment in parenting matter – where one party largely unsuccessful – no order for costs.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Interim hearing – Partial property settlement – Where the husband seeks an interim partial property settlement for his living expenses – Where the wife opposes the application – Where the parties are in dispute as to the property pool – Where the wife seeks 100 per cent of the funds held in controlled monies account – consideration of the interim order is capable of reversal – Where it is not appropriate or in the interests of justice to make an interim property order.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the matter has been set down for trial – Where one party is subject to criminal proceedings – Where alleged criminal act is central to family proceedings – Where delay causes prejudice to parties – Whether trial should be adjourned – Trial date vacated.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – COSTS – Final orders previously made – Combination of written and verbal offers – Offers very close to final result on a percentage basis – Offers not easily compared to final result on a dollar basis – Serious questions remained until close to final hearing – Not clear that refusal of offers was unreasonable until close to final hearing – Costs awarded – Costs limited to final hearing – Costs above scale but below indemnity.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Recovery Order – Where final parenting orders were made providing for the youngest child to live with the mother on condition the mother relocated her residence closer to the father – Where the father contends the mother has not complied with the relocation conditions – Where the mother provided the father with redacted and incomplete residential tenancy agreements – Where the mother alleged her fear of family violence by the father and refused to divulge her new address to him – Where the mother offered to secretly reveal her address to the Court – Where all evidence must be weighed and assessed having regard to the capacities of the parties to adduce and contradict it – Where the mother has failed to comply with final orders – Where the standing orders require the youngest child to live with the father – Recovery Order issued.