Case Summary
Wannell & Luxford [2026] FedCFamC2F 930
Graduated progression of the elder child's time with the father ordered; younger child to remain at his existing school
“Safety” is not defined in the Act. I conceptualise “safety” as a holistic and prospective concept, embracing not only a protection from risk of harm to the physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, cultural or developmental wellbeing of a child and his or her carer, but also embracing that foundation which allows for the continuing wellbeing of a child and carer ... including a need for either child or carer to be protected from the implications of a parent who is impaired in their capacity to facilitate a relationship between a child and the other parent.
Best J at [87]
Summary
Two boys, 14 and 12 at trial, had lived week-about with both parents since separation in 2017, their parents co-parenting effectively. In March 2024 the elder boy, Y, stopped spending time with his father and had not resumed more than two years later. The rupture followed a period in which Y was failing to meet expectations at school and a Facebook profile in his name was discovered by his father. Y then alleged a bicycle accident his father had laughed at and ignored, frequent exposure to pornography on his father's phone, insulin needles left about the house, and that his father had created the Facebook profile to frame him. Police attended and found no issue of concern.
Best J found that Y had lied to police, that the father had not created the profile, and that Y's complaints gave him a convenient basis to resist the discipline the father was asserting. The mother's conduct drew sustained criticism: conveying unestablished allegations of 'daily exposure to pornography' and a re-emergence of family violence to the school, instructing Y to delete their messages, helping him return his father's gifts, delaying therapy, refusing joint sessions, changing his surname at school and unilaterally enrolling him elsewhere. The single expert's accepted opinion was that Y was aligned with his mother rather than alienated from his father, and would need her strong encouragement to reconnect.
The judgment's lasting value is its treatment of 'safety' in the amended s 60CC(2)(a), a term the Act does not define. On the live issues, the Court ordered a graduated progression of time culminating in an overnight period, beyond the limited daytime contact the ICL and mother favoured, short of the alternate weekends the father sought, with any extension beyond that a matter for Y, and gave the father liberty to slow the regime on therapeutic advice. The younger child was to remain at his current school.