As the ICL, Christina Lam & Associates took an evidence-driven, child-centred approach. The strategy focused on three key pillars:
First, we ensured the child’s voice was heard. Through direct engagement with the child and careful review of the family report, we presented the Court with a clear picture of the child’s wishes, maturity, and emotional state — including her expressed distress at compelled contact with her father.
Second, we conducted a thorough risk assessment. We analysed subpoenaed medical records, Department of Communities and Justice reports, police records, and psychological assessments to build a comprehensive picture of the risk factors — including the father’s mental health management, history of aggressive conduct, and incidents of child abuse documented by third parties.
Third, we proposed balanced, child-focused orders. Rather than seeking a complete severance of the father-child relationship, we advocated for orders that protected the child while leaving the door open for her to re-engage with her father on her own terms. This included provisions for the father to send age-appropriate cards, letters, and gifts, and for the child to spend time with him in accordance with her own wishes.
The Court accepted the ICL’s submissions and made final orders that prioritised the child’s safety and emotional wellbeing. The mother was granted sole parental responsibility. The child was ordered to live with the mother, with time and communication with the father to occur in accordance with the child’s own wishes — not by compulsion.
The father was restrained from approaching the child’s home or school, and both parents were restrained from denigrating each other in the child’s presence. The Court also granted the mother sole authority over passport applications and overseas travel.
On the property side, the Court ordered a 70/30 split in favour of the mother, recognising her financial contributions to the property pool and applying the Kennon principle — an adjustment reflecting the impact of family violence on her contributions to the marriage.
The Court noted its hope that these orders would allow the child to re-establish a meaningful relationship with her father in her own time.
The Court gives weight to a child's views based on their age and maturity. In this case, the child was 12 years old and had consistently expressed her wishes across multiple settings. The Court determined that compelling contact against her wishes posed an unacceptable risk of psychological harm.