Case Summary
Billings & Clowes (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2F 1367
An 11-year-old who had not spent face to face time with his father since October 2024 was ordered to live with him, with a recovery order made to give effect to the change.
“I am satisfied that the orders for X to live with the father are necessary, proportionate to the risks identified and, of the available alternatives, most likely to promote his safety, welfare and development. They are therefore in his best interests.”
at [310]
Summary
The parties commenced cohabitation in 2008, married in 2011 and separated on a final basis in early 2023 after a relationship of some 15 years. Their child, X, was born in 2015 and is 11 years old. Immediately after separation X spent time with both parties on an informal agreed basis, with the father regularly collecting him from school and taking him to soccer training and matches. By the time of the final hearing X had not spent face to face time with his father since October 2024 and the relationship between them was severely diminished. The mother filed an affidavit setting out her allegations but did not participate in the trial after 11 August 2026, so she was not cross-examined and the specifics of her allegations were never put to the father.
The mother’s allegations of family violence were not established. Historical cocaine use by the father was established, but subsequent testing was negative for illicit substances and the residual substance use risk was found to be capable of management. The Court found that the mother repeatedly interpreted professional boundaries and adverse decisions as evidence of bias and collusion, while the father had displayed child focused behaviours, complied with orders to resume time with X, and demonstrated insight into the risks of a transition and the capacity to support X’s relationship with his mother and the maternal family. X was not interviewed or observed for the family report.
The Court weighed the significant short-term risk of grief, attachment disruption and emotional harm arising from a change of residence against the greater long-term risk of the permanent loss of the father and child relationship and the developmental harm that would follow. It was explicit that the change of residence was not ordered to punish the mother or to reward the father, but because the allegations said to justify permanent severance had not been established, the mother was not presently able to support restoration of the relationship, and repeated attempts to restore supervised time while X remained in her care had failed. A recovery order was made under s 67Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ex parte as against the mother, the Court accepting that it carried a greater immediate emotional risk but was the only sufficiently reliable means of ensuring the change occurred promptly and safely.