How are the children's best interests and parenting arrangements determined when a father repeatedly fails to comply with drug testing and non-contact orders?

Parenting Risk Management Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): How Does Persistent Non-Compliance With Drug Testing and Contact Restraints Shape Final Parenting Orders and Parental Responsibility?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Halligan & Weldon [2024] FedCFamC2F 164, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Presiding Judge: Judge Jenkins
Cause of Action: Family Law parenting orders (final hearing)
Judgment Date: 14 February 2024
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Parenting orders
Keyword 3: Illicit drug risk
Keyword 4: Non-compliance with court orders
Keyword 5: Contact restraints and third-party risk
Keyword 6: Children’s wishes and best interests

Background

Two school-aged children lived primarily with the mother. After separation, the children’s time with the father expanded over several years toward an arrangement approaching shared care. The turning point was not a single dramatic event, but a pattern: the Court had made orders to manage risk, including hair follicle testing and restraints on exposing the children to a third party associated with drug use and mental health instability. The case became a real-world test of a common family law problem: how does a court protect children from risk where the children love the parent, enjoy time with them, and there is no proven incident of direct harm, yet the parent repeatedly refuses to do what the Court needs to verify safety?

This case matters because it shows the Court’s method of converting concern into orders that actually work: not perfect solutions, but workable guardrails built from evidence, credibility findings, and a realistic view of compliance.

Core Disputes and Claims

What the Court was actually required to determine was not whether the children loved the father, or whether shared care sounds fair in the abstract. The Court had to determine whether the risks associated with the father’s illicit drug use and his continued association with a high-risk third party could be sufficiently mitigated by orders, given the father’s demonstrated pattern of breaching orders he did not accept.

The mother sought final orders continuing the primary care arrangement, with the children living with her and spending limited time with the father, supported by restraints to manage risk.

The father sought orders that effectively moved the case back toward shared care, seeking a week-about arrangement and greater decision-making authority, despite his history of non-compliance with drug testing and contact restraints.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The parties began their relationship in 2008 and separated in late 2017. In the early post-separation period, the children lived with the mother and spent regular time with the father. After mediation, the parents agreed to a structured schedule that looked, on paper, like a cooperative co-parenting plan: alternate weekends, midweek time, holidays, and special occasions.

Over time, court orders expanded the father’s time further. This gradual expansion mattered because it established a baseline: the children were accustomed to the father’s involvement, and the litigation was not being driven by a long-standing disengagement or a sudden wish to cut a parent out. Instead, the dispute escalated when safety management mechanisms were triggered.

A key moment arrived when the Court ordered hair follicle testing for both parents. The mother completed testing and later disclosed that she had used illicit substances after her test, meaning the test did not capture that use. The father’s test, by contrast, returned a positive result, and he did not comply with further testing orders after that.

At the same time, the mother became concerned about a third party in the father’s life who had a history involving illicit drug use and serious mental health issues. The Court had made restraints designed to ensure that the children would not be exposed to that person. The mother alleged repeated breaches of those restraints. The father minimised the concern and, critically, his conduct suggested that he did not accept that the Court’s restraints were legitimate.

What began as a disagreement about parenting time became a dispute about how to manage risk when one parent says, in effect, “Trust me,” but refuses the practical steps that would allow the Court to assess safety.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments (Father)

Prior involvement and history of substantial time
The father relied on the history of expanded time and the children’s affectionate relationship with him to argue that shared care remained appropriate.
Position on illicit substances
He characterised his drug use as recreational and infrequent, described as happening “once in a blue moon,” and suggested that there was no evidence of harm to the children.
Resistance to testing and control narrative
He advanced a theme that drug testing and constraints were an extension of the mother’s “controlling” behaviour, including stating that he refused further testing due to cost and principle, later offering multiple explanations for non-compliance.
Alcohol minimisation
He described himself as a social drinker, occasionally overindulging, but asserted he does not drink to excess when caring for the children. He resisted the proposition that bringing alcohol to time with the children was inappropriate in the context of litigation.
Third-party risk minimisation
He suggested the third party could assist with day-to-day care, and proposed that the children could be around that person if that person was not actively unwell or affected by substances.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments (Mother)

Risk framework: alcohol, illicit drugs, and third-party exposure
The mother presented her case as a child safety case rather than a morality case. Her central proposition was that the father’s drug use, lack of insight, and persistent refusal to comply with testing created an unacceptable risk.
Pattern of non-compliance
She pointed to repeated failures to comply with random urine tests and a later failure to comply with a further hair follicle test, even when she offered to pay.
Breaches of contact restraints
She gave evidence of repeated occasions on which the children were exposed to the restrained third party. The issue was not simply presence, but the uncertainty of that person’s condition and the father’s willingness to defy restraints.
Continued facilitation of time where possible
She relied on evidence showing she facilitated time even under difficult circumstances, to support that she would promote a relationship where safety could be protected.

Core Dispute Points

Risk without a proven incident: Is the risk unacceptable even if no harm has been proved to have occurred?
Verification and credibility: What should the Court infer from persistent refusal to test?
Orders as guardrails: Can risk be mitigated by orders, and if so, which orders are realistic given compliance history?
Decision-making and communication: Is shared parental responsibility workable where communication is persistently poor?
Children’s wishes: How much weight should be given to one child’s stated preference for week-about care?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are not merely narrative documents. They are strategic instruments that decide what a judge is able to find, what a judge is unable to find, and which risks are treated as evidence-based rather than speculative.

In this case, the affidavits demonstrated two contrasting approaches.

The father’s affidavits sought to frame the dispute as an issue of fairness and control. The repeating theme was that the mother’s concerns were exaggerated, motivated by a desire to dominate parenting, and disconnected from harm. His statements leaned on broad assertions of capability and care, but struggled under the weight of one practical problem: when a Court orders testing to resolve uncertainty, refusing the test does not preserve neutrality. It preserves uncertainty, and uncertainty in child safety questions tends to weigh against the party who can resolve it but will not.

The mother’s affidavit strategy was to build a risk narrative from conduct patterns: positive testing, failure to comply with later tests, and breaches of restraints designed to prevent exposure to a high-risk person. That narrative was not perfect. The Court identified an omission in the mother’s disclosure about her own drug use at a relevant time, treating it as a deliberate attempt to mislead. This matters for practitioners: credibility is not a luxury add-on; it is a structural beam. A judge can still accept a party’s risk concerns while criticising their candour, but that criticism can influence how narrowly or broadly orders are made.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions Regarding Affidavits

The Court’s procedural handling of affidavits also reveals a fairness principle often misunderstood by self-represented litigants: failing to file trial material can constrain what you can prove, but it does not automatically erase you from the case if you appear. The Court allowed reliance on earlier affidavits, balancing procedural discipline with fairness, especially where the other party would not be prejudiced. This is a quiet but important lesson in self-agency: preparation is power, but even when you fall short, how you show up and engage can still shape what the Court permits you to do.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final hearing, the Court made a series of orders aimed at managing risk and stabilising the children’s arrangements, including:

Orders expanding the father’s time over time, reflecting an earlier trajectory toward shared care.
Orders requiring both parents to undergo hair follicle testing.
Orders requiring the father to undertake random urine drug screens.
Restraints preventing the father from bringing the children into contact with a particular third party.
Interim arrangements shifting to supervised time by agreement when compliance did not occur.
Orders for further hair follicle testing later in the proceedings, complied with by the mother but not by the father.

The pattern is revealing: the Court attempted incremental safety verification and behavioural management. The ultimate final orders were the product of what worked and what did not.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing took place by Microsoft Teams. The father was self-represented and had not filed a trial affidavit, and he sought an adjournment, which was refused. This procedural moment is not a side plot. It is often the moment where cases are won or lost, because family law trials are not only about facts, but about how those facts are presented, and whether they meet the Court’s thresholds for findings.

The Court permitted the father to rely on older affidavits he had previously filed. That decision ensured the matter was determined on more than mere procedural default. It also meant the father’s credibility and choices could be tested in cross-examination.

Cross-examination exposed the core friction: the father repeatedly framed restraints and testing as unjustified interference. When pressed about bringing alcohol to visits, his position was direct and dismissive. When questioned about testing, he offered shifting reasons: cost, time, work, and the assertion that testing was pointless. In parenting cases, a shifting explanation is often treated as evidence of a deeper truth: not that the parent is incapable of change, but that the parent is not yet ready to accept accountability in the way the Court requires.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidentiary confrontation was not a single document. It was the interaction of three realities:

A positive hair follicle test for the father and ongoing refusal to provide later testing that could demonstrate safety.
Evidence accepted by the Court that the father repeatedly exposed the children to a restrained third party, contrary to orders.
The father’s own statements and conduct demonstrating low insight and a willingness to breach orders he disagreed with.

The Court’s reasoning focused on risk in the real world, not in theory. Even if the Court had been willing to accept that the father’s drug use was recreational, the refusal to test prevented the Court from determining whether it remained recreational, whether it was escalating, or whether it was occurring around the children.

Judicial Reasoning With Determinative Quotation

The Court held that the children would be at an unacceptable risk of harm in the father’s care due to his use of illicit substances, including the risk of exposure to other persons affected by drugs, and the unknown state of a third party’s mental health.

This statement was determinative because it converted uncertainty into a finding: the issue was not proof of an incident, but the probability-weighted risk of harm based on evidence of use, non-compliance, association patterns, and breach behaviour. Once the Court reached an “unacceptable risk” finding, the available order outcomes narrowed sharply.

The Court determined it could have no faith the father would abide by restraints relating to substance use and contact with high-risk persons, given his history of breaching orders he did not accept.

This mattered because parenting orders are only as protective as the likelihood they will be complied with. Risk mitigation is not just about writing restraints; it is about whether restraints will operate in practice.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made final orders that:

Sole parental responsibility was allocated to the mother.
The children live with the mother.
The children spend time with the father for six hours each alternate week, with default time set if agreement fails.
Additional structured time occurs during school holidays and on special occasions, with specific holiday mechanisms to allow the mother to take the children on holiday.
Mutual restraints apply regarding illicit substances and excessive alcohol use before and during time with the children.
The father is restrained regarding the third party: the children are not to be exposed to that person if affected by illicit substances, and are not to be left unattended in that person’s care.
Both parents may attend school and extracurricular events.
If the father produces a negative hair follicle test, the parties must attend mediation to discuss possible extension of time, including overnights.
Other applications were dismissed, except a contravention application noted as outstanding.

The structure shows the Court’s balancing act: preserving relationship time, but not rewarding risk denial. The Court kept open a pathway for the father to build back time through objective proof and structured negotiation.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis: Jurisprudential Value and Unusual Aspects

This decision is a practical demonstration of three jurisprudential themes that recur in parenting cases but are rarely made so clear:

Unacceptable risk findings do not require a proven incident of harm. They can be grounded in patterns of behaviour, non-compliance, and realistic probabilities on the balance of probabilities standard.
Compliance is not merely procedural. It is substantive evidence of parenting capacity and insight.
The Court may refuse further testing orders, not because testing is irrelevant, but because repeated defiance shows that another order will not solve the problem. Instead, the Court can pivot: it can build an incentive mechanism where the parent can voluntarily obtain evidence and trigger review steps such as mediation.

Judgment Points: 8 Victory Points Explained Through Evidence and Law

Victory Point 1: Communication Failure Defeated Shared Parental Responsibility

Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions
Evidence: the parties’ near-complete inability to communicate effectively, blocking phone contact, unproductive messaging, and recurrent conflict.
Statutory framework: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61DA presumption of equal shared parental responsibility; and the consult-and-genuine-effort requirement in s 65DAC if equal shared parental responsibility is ordered.

The Court determined that equal shared parental responsibility was not in the children’s best interests, not because one parent “deserved” more authority, but because shared decision-making requires functional consultation. Where consultation is structurally absent, the Court’s duty is to make orders that can operate without constant negotiation.

Victory Point 2: The Court Treated Non-Compliance as Evidence, Not a Side Issue

Evidence: persistent failure to comply with drug testing orders; refusal even when offered payment; shifting explanations.
Statutory framework: the best interests pathway under Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA and 60CC, and the Court’s power to make proper parenting orders under s 65D.

A parent’s refusal to comply with orders designed to resolve risk uncertainty becomes evidence of insight, reliability, and capacity to prioritise the child’s safety above adult conflict. This is why non-compliance was not treated as a technical breach; it was treated as a parenting fact.

Victory Point 3: “Unacceptable Risk” Was Anchored in the Probability of Exposure, Not Past Injury

Evidence: positive test; ongoing association with persons linked to drug use; breach findings about exposure to a restrained third party; candid admissions about recreational use and willingness to accept drugs if offered.
Statutory framework: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC primary consideration of protection from harm outweighing meaningful relationship where conflict arises; Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 balance of probabilities standard.

The Court held that the children would be at an unacceptable risk of harm due to illicit substances, including being affected by use, recovering from use, or exposure to others affected by drugs.

This statement is decisive because it clarifies that “harm” includes foreseeable exposure and environmental risk, not only direct injury.

Victory Point 4: Breaching Contact Restraints Triggered a Realistic Compliance Assessment

Evidence: accepted evidence that the father repeatedly brought the children into contact with the restrained third party; the father minimised the issue and even suggested that person could assist with care.
Statutory framework: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D discretionary power to craft protective orders; s 60CC protection from harm.

The Court determined it could have no faith that restraints would be followed where the father believed they were not justified.

For practitioners, this is an evidentiary shortcut with high impact: once a Court finds a parent breaches orders selectively, the Court will design orders that do not depend on voluntary compliance, or will reduce risk exposure by reducing time or structuring time.

Victory Point 5: The Court Rejected Supervision as a Long-Term Solution Despite Risk Findings

Evidence: supervision to date was provided by the mother; conflict exposure risk; lack of alternative supervisors; cost and practicality concerns.
Statutory framework: best interests discretion under ss 60CA and 65D, and the weighing of protective benefit against relational and practical harm.

The Court determined the magnitude of risk did not justify supervision given the negative impact of supervision itself, including conflict exposure and the burden on the mother.

This is a nuanced point. The Court did not say “risk is low.” The Court said “risk is real, but the remedy must be workable and not create a different form of harm.”

Victory Point 6: Structured Daytime Time Was Chosen to Reduce Negotiation and Contain Risk

Evidence: the need for certainty; the need to reduce ongoing communication; history of conflict.
Statutory framework: the Court’s discretion to craft “proper” orders under s 65D.

Fixed time is a compliance strategy. It reduces the number of decisions the parents must negotiate, lowering the chance of conflict and the opportunity for one parent to exert control. It also provides a clear enforcement baseline if future disputes arise.

Victory Point 7: Mutual Restraints Were Used to Remove Hypocrisy and Stabilise Behaviour

Evidence: both parents had used illicit substances at times; both had been involved in denigration; evidence of the father bringing alcohol to time.
Statutory framework: s 65D power to impose behavioural conditions; best interests emphasis in ss 60CA and 60CC.

Mutual restraints serve two functions: they set a minimum safety standard and reduce a party’s ability to claim moral high ground. They shift focus away from blame and onto behaviour control that protects children.

Victory Point 8: The Court Built a Self-Agency Pathway: Prove Safety, Then Negotiate More Time

Evidence: repeated defiance of testing orders; the father’s stated willingness at trial to test; the Court’s conclusion that further testing orders would not be effective.
Statutory framework: discretionary power under s 65D; best interests framework under s 60CA.

The Court determined it would not make further drug testing orders because the father had ample opportunity and chose not to comply, but provided that if he obtained a negative hair follicle test the parties must attend mediation to discuss extending time, including overnights.

This is a self-agency architecture. The Court did not close the door. It shifted the responsibility: if the father wants more time, he must do the work and produce objective proof. The Court turned “control” into “choice”: the pathway is available, but it must be earned through demonstrable change.

Legal Basis: Statutory Provisions the Court Relied On

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA: best interests paramount.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC: primary and additional considerations; protection from harm outweighs meaningful relationship where conflict arises.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 61DA: presumption of equal shared parental responsibility; rebuttal where not in best interests.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65D: Court may make such parenting orders as it thinks proper.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 65DAC: consultation obligations if equal shared parental responsibility ordered.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140: balance of probabilities standard.

Evidence Chain: How the Court Built “Conclusion = Evidence + Statute”

The children’s positive relationship with both parents, and history of substantial time, established the meaningful relationship factor as strong.
The father’s positive test and continuing refusal to provide later testing preserved risk uncertainty.
The accepted breaches of contact restraints demonstrated willingness to disregard protective orders.
The father’s minimisation and low insight supported a finding that restraints alone would not be reliably followed.
The Court assessed the magnitude of risk and rejected long-term supervision as impractical and potentially harmful due to conflict exposure.
The Court crafted structured, limited, predictable time and mutual restraints, balancing relationship maintenance with child safety.
The Court created an incentive-based pathway for future expansion through independent proof and mediation.

Judicial Original Quotation: Core Dicta With Immediate Analysis

The Court held that if there is conflict between the benefit of a meaningful relationship and the need to protect children from harm, greater weight must be given to protection from harm.

This is not merely a recital of the statute. It is the judgment’s spine. It explains why the Court did not allow relational value alone to drive orders.

The Court determined that it was not satisfied it would be in the children’s best interests for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility, given their inability to communicate.

This statement shows the Court’s focus on operational reality: responsibility is not a prize, it is an administrative structure. If it cannot operate, it does not serve children.

The Court held that the father’s demonstrated tendency to breach orders he did not believe were justified meant the Court could not have confidence restraints would be complied with.

This is a credibility-to-orders bridge. It explains why the Court limited time and structured conditions: not because the Court assumed the worst, but because the Court designed orders for the world as it is.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The father’s case failed not because he lacked love, or because the children did not benefit from him. It failed because the Court required three things he did not supply.

Objective proof to resolve risk uncertainty
In child safety questions, “I am fine” is not evidence when testing is available and ordered. The refusal to test converted the dispute from one about isolated events into one about ongoing uncertainty.
Insight and accountability
The father’s responses suggested he saw compliance as humiliation rather than protection. Courts look for the opposite: a parent who understands that, where children are concerned, the Court must verify safety, not hope for it.
Compliance reliability
Breaching contact restraints undermined the father’s ability to persuade the Court that future restraints would work. Once a Court concludes it cannot trust compliance, the Court will contain risk by containing exposure.

Implications

Your power in family law is not just what you say; it is what you can prove. If a risk issue is raised, self-agency means gathering objective evidence early so your case does not become trapped in uncertainty.
Courts reward insight more than perfection. If you have made mistakes, the pathway forward is not denial. It is ownership, a plan, and consistent follow-through that the Court can verify.
Orders are not moral judgments. They are safety engineering. If you want more time, focus on what would make the Court confident the children are safe, not on what feels fair to adults.
Reliability beats arguments. A parent who calmly complies, communicates, and demonstrates safe routines often advances faster than a parent who argues loudly but resists verification.
The strongest long-term strategy is to become the parent whose behaviour does not require constant policing. When you build a pattern of safety, the law tends to make room for your relationship with your children.

Q&A Session

Q1: Why did the Court not order week-about shared care if the children enjoyed time with the father?

Because the Court determined that protection from harm required greater weight where risk could not be sufficiently mitigated, given the father’s ongoing refusal to test and the accepted breaches of protective restraints. The Court also determined that shared parental responsibility was not workable due to communication failure, making shared care impractical.

Q2: If there was no proven harm to the children, how could the Court still find “unacceptable risk”?

Because family law risk assessments can be made on the balance of probabilities based on conduct patterns, credibility, non-compliance, and the likelihood of exposure. The Court is not required to wait for harm to occur before making protective orders.

Q3: What could the father do to improve his position in the future?

He could obtain a negative hair follicle test to provide objective evidence, comply consistently with restraints, avoid exposing the children to high-risk persons, demonstrate insight and stability, and engage in mediation in the structured pathway the Court provided.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Parenting orders with risk management issues involving illicit substances, alcohol misuse concerns, and third-party exposure risk
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

Core Test: Existence of De Facto Relationship Under Section 4AA (Family Law Act 1975 (Cth))

A de facto relationship is determined by examining the relationship as a whole, including, but not limited to, the following nine matters. The weight given to each matter depends on the circumstances.

Duration of the relationship
Consider the overall length of the relationship and whether it suggests a genuine domestic partnership rather than a short or casual association.
Nature and extent of common residence
Assess whether the parties lived together, the stability of cohabitation, and whether living arrangements were continuous or intermittent in a way consistent with a shared domestic life.
Whether a sexual relationship exists
Consider whether there was a sexual relationship, its continuity, and whether its presence or absence is consistent with a de facto relationship in context.
Degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support
Examine whether one party relied on the other financially, whether finances were pooled, whether there were shared expenses, and whether there were support arrangements indicating interdependence.
Ownership, use and acquisition of property
Consider whether property was jointly owned, how property was used, and whether acquisitions were made for the benefit of a shared household or shared future.
Degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
Assess whether the parties planned and acted as though they had a shared life, including future plans, shared responsibilities, and whether the relationship had the hallmarks of domestic partnership.
Care and support of children
Consider whether the parties cared for and supported children together, including children of the relationship or children treated as part of the household.
Reputation and public aspects of the relationship
Assess whether friends, family, and the community regarded the parties as a couple, including social presentation and how the relationship was described publicly.
Registration of the relationship under a prescribed law of a State or Territory
Consider whether the relationship was registered and, if so, the implications of that formal recognition.

Practical note for self-agency: Even where a relationship has ended, clarity and documentation about living arrangements, finances, and public presentation can reduce dispute risk. However, whether a de facto relationship exists tends to be determined by the composite picture, rather than any single factor.

Property Settlement: The Four-Step Process

Identification and Valuation
Identify all assets, liabilities, and superannuation interests. Ensure valuations are evidence-based and current, because inaccurate asset pools tend to distort the entire outcome.
Assessment of Contributions
Consider financial contributions at commencement, during the relationship, and after separation. Consider non-financial contributions such as renovations and business support. Consider contributions to the welfare of the family such as homemaking and parenting. Contributions are assessed qualitatively and contextually.
Adjustment for Future Needs Using Section 75(2) Factors
Consider age, health, earning capacity, care responsibilities, income and resources, and the practical capacity to support oneself. Adjustments tend to be context-driven rather than formulaic.
Just and Equitable
Conduct a final fairness check: the proposed division must be just and equitable in all circumstances.

Practical note for self-agency: Early financial clarity, accurate disclosure, and credible evidence generally reduce both costs and risk. Outcomes tend to be more predictable when the evidence is clean.

Parenting Matters: Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Primary Considerations
1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.
2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, including being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect, or family violence. Where these considerations conflict, protection from harm is given greater weight.

Additional Considerations
These include, among others, the child’s views (weighted by maturity and context), the nature of relationships with parents and other significant persons, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, the likely effect of changes in circumstances, practical difficulty and expense of spending time, and any history relevant to parenting capacity.

Self-agency reflection: In parenting matters, the Court is often deciding between “good and good,” not “good and bad.” Where risk is alleged, the parent who takes practical steps to reduce uncertainty, demonstrate stability, and comply with safeguards tends to be better positioned.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Parenting disputes primarily operate through the statutory framework of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). However, there are important “counter-attack” pathways and complementary principles that can matter when statutory avenues feel blocked or when a party needs procedural leverage.

Procedural Fairness

Even within parenting proceedings, procedural fairness remains essential. A party should have a genuine opportunity to present their case, respond to adverse material, and be heard on critical issues. Where a party is self-represented, the Court may still enforce procedural standards, but will often take care to ensure the party is not shut out in a manner inconsistent with fairness.

Self-agency strategy: If you are self-represented, the most effective fairness tool is preparation. File material on time, organise evidence, and frame issues clearly. Where you have failed to comply, promptly explain, propose a practical remedy, and demonstrate steps taken to avoid recurrence.

Ancillary Claims and Practical Reframing

While parenting disputes are not typically re-litigated as separate causes of action, parties sometimes attempt to use contravention applications, enforcement mechanisms, or variations to restore time or challenge interference. These avenues tend to be more effective when they are supported by credible evidence and when the applicant can show they have complied with their own obligations.

Self-agency strategy: Before launching a contravention application, consider whether you have complied with all relevant orders yourself. Courts tend to scrutinise “selective obedience,” and credibility damage can undermine the relief sought.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

Best interests paramount threshold under s 60CA
Parenting outcomes are driven by the child’s best interests, not adult entitlement.
Risk management threshold
Where evidence supports an unacceptable risk finding, the Court will prioritise protection from harm, particularly where risk cannot be reliably mitigated.
Compliance and credibility threshold
A party seeking expanded time tends to be expected to demonstrate stability, insight, and reliability, especially where risk has been raised.

Exceptional Channels (Crucial)

Expansion of time pathway
Even where time is limited due to risk, expansion may be possible if risk can be objectively addressed. For example, the voluntary production of negative testing results, sustained compliance, and engagement in mediation can create a practical basis to revisit arrangements.
Children’s wishes
Children’s views can matter significantly, but weight depends on maturity, consistency, and whether the views appear influenced by fairness concepts or external pressure. A child’s preference for shared care does not automatically override safety concerns.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a pathway because the current orders are restrictive. Compare your circumstances against what the Court said it needed: objective evidence, reliable compliance, and realistic safeguards. These factors often determine whether future expansion is possible.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This case can be cited in submissions involving risk management in parenting matters where:

A parent’s refusal to comply with drug testing orders is relevant to risk assessment and credibility.
The Court must determine whether risks can be sufficiently mitigated by orders, given a history of non-compliance.
The Court must balance meaningful relationship considerations against protection from harm.
The Court must decide whether shared parental responsibility is workable due to communication failures.

Citation Method

As Positive Support
Where your matter involves a parent seeking increased time while refusing objective testing or breaching protective restraints, citing this authority can support an argument that the Court may find unacceptable risk and structure limited time with safeguards, including incentive mechanisms for future expansion.

As a Distinguishing Reference
If the opposing party cites this case, you may distinguish it by emphasising your matter’s differences, such as demonstrated compliance, consistent negative testing, credible engagement with treatment, availability of reliable supervisors, or evidence that risk has been substantially reduced over time.

Anonymisation Rule
In public discussion, use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent, or mother and father, and avoid identifying details. This is essential in family law publishing.

Conclusion

This judgment shows a practical truth that empowers litigants and protects children: in parenting cases, the Court does not reward confidence; it rewards demonstrated safety. The parent who wants change must create proof, not just arguments. The most effective litigation strategy is not louder conflict, but disciplined self-agency: comply, verify, stabilise, and then negotiate from strength.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Halligan & Weldon [2024] FedCFamC2F 164), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.