Court Pressure, School Conflict, Father-Time Conflict and the Emotional Collapse of a Child Caught Between Parents

In Dorji & Marije [2026] FedCFamC1F 446 and Dorji & Marije (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1F 582, the Court was dealing with an escalating parenting dispute involving two children: X, aged 11–12, and Y, aged 9–10. The most serious feature of the case was X’s attempted overdose, suicidal ideation and self-harm in late 2025. 446

The first decision, delivered on 3 July 2026, recorded the immediate factual allegations and reports available before the updated single expert report. The second decision, delivered on 28 August 2026, incorporated the later expert evidence of Mr G, who described X’s suicide attempt as genuine and said the seriousness of her presentation could not be overstated. 582

The available indication is X’s crisis appears to have arisen in the context of pressure about Court proceedings, school choice, increased time with the father, fear of the father’s reaction, and feeling trapped between competing parental narratives.

Was There Any Indication What Triggered X’s Attempted Suicide?

1. The reported immediate sequence in October 2025

The clearest immediate sequence appears in the first judgment’s summary of Ms W’s report. The mother alleged that X had become resistant to spending time with the father during 2024, particularly around extracurricular activities and events. In October 2025, X cut her wrists superficially and then, the following day, took ten Naprogesic tablets. 446

The report also recorded that X had told a friend she intended to attempt overdose while staying with the father. The mother of that friend contacted the mother, who arranged for a welfare check during paternal time. 446

X then reportedly told the mother that after she took the tablets, the father chastised and yelled at her, including saying, “how do you think this makes me look?” After that, X refused to attend time with the father. 446

That sequence suggests an immediate trigger or aggravating context: X’s mental health crisis was linked to distress around paternal time, the father’s alleged reaction, and the sense that the father was focused on how the incident affected him or the litigation rather than on whether X was emotionally safe.

2. Child Protection’s record sharpened the alleged trigger

Child Protection’s record sharpened the issue. On 30 October 2025, Child Protection received a notification about cumulative harm arising from the ongoing parenting proceedings and alleged pressure on X about expressing her views and wishes in the family law proceedings. 446

The notification recorded allegations that the father had become angry with the children, told them what to say in the proceedings, and questioned them extensively about their views and wishes regarding care arrangements. It also recorded that X had experienced suicidal intent and attempted overdose, and that there was concern about the father’s reaction if he became aware of the overdose. 446

That is important because it places the attempted overdose inside a very specific alleged context:

Court pressure + pressure about expressed wishes + fear of father’s reaction + conflict about parenting arrangements.

3. X’s own reported words to Child Protection

X’s own reported words are the strongest indicator of what she experienced as the trigger environment.

Child Protection recorded that X said there was conflict with the father because of pressure he was exerting on her in relation to the family law proceedings. X said her relationship with the father had deteriorated from February 2024 after she told him she did not want an additional night per week in his care. She said that when she said no, the father became upset and said she had been lying to him her whole life. 446

X also said she was confused about school choice and wished she did not have to make that decision. She wished her parents would decide for her. 446

Most significantly, X told Child Protection that she was stressed about the father learning of her self-harm because she believed he would become upset. She reportedly said that when they got in the car, the father yelled at her, asked why she would do this “right before the court stuff”, called her a brat, and did not ask whether she was okay. X said: “He just cares about court.” 446

That is the most direct indication of the alleged trigger:

X felt the father responded to her self-harm through the lens of the Court case, not through concern for her wellbeing.

4. X’s school and time issues were central

School choice and time with the father were not side issues. They were central pressure points.

The first judgment recorded that X told Ms W she was aware her parents were in dispute about secondary school. She preferred that her parents decide rather than require her to state a preference. She appeared relieved when told she would not be changing school during Grade 6. 446

X said her father talked about the parental dispute “a lot”, and that his opinions about the dispute caused her to feel pressured and stressed. She said she stopped attending her father’s home because he yelled at her for how she was feeling “around that time”. 446

She also said she loved her father, but wanted him to realise that “school and Court doesn’t matter, and my mental health matters”. She was apprehensive about contact because she thought he would argue and “turn things into a scene”. 446

This is the practical summary:

The apparent trigger was not one isolated event. It was the accumulation of Court pressure, schooling pressure, time pressure, fear of anger, and X feeling emotionally unsafe when trying to express her own views.

🧩 Facts and Issues

Facts:

The parents separated in 2017. Final parenting orders were made by consent in February 2020 for the children to live with the mother and spend substantial time with the father. In 2022, the children commenced spending five nights per fortnight with the father and equal school holiday time. 446

In August 2025, the father commenced proceedings seeking reconsideration of those orders, including school choice, increased time and parenting courses. In November 2025, the mother filed an application seeking suspension of the father’s time and a s 67ZBE report. 446

By January 2026, interim orders had discharged the previous final parenting order until further order, given the mother sole decision-making authority, and reserved the father’s time with the children. 446

The father then sought to reinstate the earlier final orders or, alternatively, commence supervised time. The Court declined to do so on 3 July 2026, noting that the evidence was untested, that it could not resolve the factual disputes at interim stage, and that the father’s time was best determined at the imminent final hearing. 446

By the later hearing in July 2026, the Court had the benefit of Mr G’s updated report and oral evidence. Mr G’s core opinion was that, despite the parents’ competing narratives, the central concern remained the psychological impact of chronic and unresolved parental conflict on X. 582

Issues:

1. What triggered or contributed to X’s attempted suicide in late 2025?
2. Was the trigger a previous Court order, or the adult conflict surrounding Court, school and time issues?
3. Should X be forced to spend time with the father?
4. Should Y be treated differently from X?
5. What role should the paternal grandparents have?
6. What interim parenting structure best promoted the children’s psychological safety?
7. Why did the Court prefer a therapeutic pathway rather than immediate reinstatement of father-child time for X?

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

The Court was required to determine interim parenting arrangements under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), with the children’s best interests as the paramount consideration.

The relevant statutory considerations included:

• the need to promote the safety of the children, including safety from emotional and psychological harm;
• any history of family violence, abuse or neglect;
• any views expressed by the children;
• the children’s developmental, psychological and emotional needs;
• each parent’s capacity to provide for those needs;
• the benefit to the children of relationships with parents and significant people, where safe. 446

In the first decision, the Court emphasised that the evidence was untested and that it could not make findings at interim stage about the contested allegations. 446

In the later decision, the parties again agreed to proceed on an interim basis without cross-examination of each other. The Court therefore had limited scope to make final findings on contested facts, although it could rely heavily on Mr G’s expert evidence. 582

📌 Precedents Relied On

The first decision referred to Abano & Backus (No 2) regarding variation of interlocutory orders and the need for changed circumstances to be established by evidence. 446

It also referred to Isles & Nelissen, which clarified that in unacceptable risk cases, the Court must first consider the allegations and whether they are established on the balance of probabilities, and then consider whether there is an unacceptable future risk to the children. 446

The later decision relied heavily on the expert evidence of Mr G, whose longitudinal perspective was important because he had prepared reports about this family in 2018, 2020 and 2026. 582

🧠 Analysis

Issue

Was there any indication what triggered X’s attempted suicide in late 2025, and how should that evidence inform interim parenting orders concerning X’s relationship with the father?

Rule

The Court must not assume causation from sequence alone. A child’s suicide attempt occurring during parenting litigation does not automatically prove that one parent, one Court order, or one event caused it.

The Court must examine:

1. the child’s own reported statements;
2. contemporaneous records from school, Child Protection, therapists and police;
3. expert evidence about the child’s psychological presentation;
4. the parental conflict context;
5. whether proposed parenting arrangements are likely to reduce or increase risk;
6. whether contact can safely occur immediately, therapeutically, or not at all for the time being.

Where evidence is untested at interim stage, the Court may avoid final findings and instead make protective arrangements based on risk.

Application

1. The immediate trigger was reported as Court, school and time pressure — not merely the existence of parenting orders

The first judgment gives the clearest factual picture of the immediate alleged trigger. X had reportedly become resistant to time with the father, had cut herself, then taken tablets, and had told a friend she intended to overdose while staying with the father. 446

The alleged post-overdose reaction was critical. X reportedly told the mother that the father chastised and yelled at her, asking “how do you think this makes me look?” 446

That does not prove causation as a final finding. But it strongly indicates what X experienced as emotionally significant: the father’s alleged reaction made the crisis feel connected to the Court case and to how her distress affected him.

2. Child Protection recorded cumulative harm from proceedings and pressure on X

Child Protection’s 30 October 2025 notification described concerns for cumulative harm resulting from ongoing parenting proceedings and alleged pressure on X about expressing her views and wishes. It recorded allegations that the father had become angry with the children, told them what to say in proceedings, and questioned them extensively about their views and wishes. 446

This is central to the trigger question.

The recorded concern was not simply:

“X is upset because there is litigation.”

It was more specific:

X was allegedly being pressured about what to say, what to want, where to go to school, and how much time to spend with the father.

That is a much stronger causal mechanism than a generic complaint about Court orders.

3. X’s own statements show fear of father’s anger and fear of being blamed

X reportedly told Child Protection that her relationship with the father deteriorated after she said she did not want an additional night in his care. She said the father became upset and accused her of having lied to him her whole life. 446

She also said that when her self-harm became known, the father yelled, asked why she would do this before Court, called her a brat, and did not ask if she was okay. 446

Those reported words are powerful because they explain X’s internal experience:

She did not feel emotionally held. She felt blamed, pressured, and viewed through the litigation lens.

That was the apparent emotional trigger environment.

4. The school dispute intensified X’s burden

X wanted her parents to decide school matters rather than require her to choose. She told Ms W she felt pressured and stressed by her father talking about parental disputes. 446

In the later judgment, Mr G similarly recorded that X felt caught in the school dispute and burdened by responsibility for it. He considered the issue of school itself less important than X’s experience of being in the middle of an ongoing parental dispute about schooling. 582

This shows that school choice was not just an administrative issue. It had become a psychological burden.

The Court accepted that certainty was important and ultimately permitted the mother, who had interim sole decision-making responsibility, to enrol X at TT School. 582

5. X’s distress was not framed as hatred of the father

The first judgment recorded that X said she loved her father and wanted him to understand that her mental health mattered more than Court and school conflict. She was unsure whether staying away would help him realise how his behaviour affected her or make him angrier. 446

The later judgment confirms that X did not reject the possibility of a future relationship with the father. She wanted him to understand her perspective and thought communication might be possible in a therapeutic setting with another adult present. 582

That matters because the case was not about X permanently rejecting the father. It was about making the relationship emotionally safe enough to repair.

6. Mr G’s later evidence converted the trigger material into a psychological formulation

The later judgment is where the Court moved beyond incident-by-incident allegations and adopted Mr G’s broader analysis.

Mr G said the parents’ unresolved conflict, splitting and projection had been deposited into X. She was left carrying incompatible emotional realities and parental expectations. That conflict became intolerable, producing profound distress, internal division and psychological torment. 582

He said X’s apparent options were self-harm or refusing time with the father, but neither addressed the underlying problem. 582

That is the central causation finding available on the material:

The overdose was not reduced to one event. It was understood as the acute expression of an intolerable loyalty conflict.

7. The later judgment expressly linked the suicide attempt to triangulation and divided loyalties

Mr G later described the suicide attempt as intersecting with triangulation, emotional burden, psychological dissonance, conflicting loyalties and divided attachments. He regarded it as a genuine suicide attempt. 582

That is the consolidated answer to causation:

The trigger was the collapse of X’s capacity to tolerate being emotionally split between the adults, with acute flashpoints around Court, schooling, time, and the father’s alleged reactions.

The Court did not need to find that one parent alone caused the attempt in order to make protective interim orders.

8. The father’s response did not persuade the Court to immediately restore time

The father denied the mother’s allegations and argued that the situation was more ordinary: he had been setting boundaries with X about tablets, a boyfriend, teasing her sister, and apologising to police. 446

However, the Court in the first judgment was not prepared to reinstate the father’s time before the family report and final hearing. It found the factual disputes could not be reconciled at the interim stage. 446

In the later judgment, the Court remained concerned about the father’s lack of specific insight. Although he had acknowledged some concern that his communication may have caused X to feel criticised or upset, the Court found his acceptance of responsibility vague and non-specific. 582

That made immediate forced time unsafe.

9. The mother was also not treated as blameless

The mother’s position was that the father’s behaviour had directly contributed to X’s mental health deterioration and suicide attempt. 582

But the Court did not simply accept the mother’s narrative. It found that both parents showed limited self-reflection and that the problem lay in the parental relationship and X’s embroilment in it. 582

The Court later observed that the mother, like the father, placed blame on the other parent and showed limited self-reflection. 582

That is why the orders required parent therapy, not only father-child therapy.

10. Forced contact was rejected because the risk was serious and immediate

Mr G and Ms J agreed that forcing X to spend time with the father would likely produce a negative outcome. Mr G emphasised that X’s genuine intent to kill herself had to be taken extremely seriously. 582

Mr G suggested a moratorium or respite period, therapeutic work with the parents, and later careful father-X therapy. He said it would be more harmful to force X to see the father than to respect her wishes at that stage. 582

The Court therefore restrained the father from approaching or initiating communication with X except by written agreement or therapeutic direction. 582

11. Y’s position was different and required a different order

Y did not present like X. She missed the father and paternal grandparents, did not understand why contact had stopped, and described both parents positively. 582

Mr G considered Y should spend time with the father independently of X’s difficulties. The Court therefore ordered Y to spend time with the father, while X did not. 582

This was a key feature of the Court’s child-focused reasoning:

Same family, different children, different risk profile, different orders.

12. The paternal grandparents were preserved, but not as a backdoor to father contact

Both children had warm and significant relationships with the paternal grandparents. Mr G observed warmth, affection, familiarity and emotional significance. 582

The Court ordered time between both children and the paternal grandparents. But the grandparents were restrained from bringing the children into contact with the father during their time, and from discussing the children spending time with the father. 582

That order preserved family connection while protecting X from indirect pressure about the father.

Conclusion

There was an indication of what triggered X’s attempted suicide in late 2025, but it was not a single Court order or a single isolated event.

The first judgment identifies the reported immediate trigger sequence: self-harm, overdose, fear of the father’s reaction, alleged yelling/chastising after the overdose, pressure about Court, pressure about views, school conflict, and X feeling that her mental health was secondary to the litigation. 446

X’s own reported words to Child Protection sharpened the issue: she said she felt pressured by the father about the proceedings, feared his anger, felt blamed, and believed he cared about Court rather than whether she was okay. 446

The later judgment then supplied the expert formulation: X’s suicide attempt intersected with triangulation, emotional burden, psychological dissonance, conflicting loyalties and divided attachments. 582

The Court’s final interim response was therefore therapeutic, differentiated and protective:

• X was not forced into contact with the father;
• Y recommenced time with the father;
• both children spent time with paternal grandparents;
• safeguards prevented indirect father contact with X;
• parents were ordered into therapy with Mr G;
• father-X therapy would commence later, no earlier than 16 November 2026;
• the goal was repair, not compulsory time. 582

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

This case is a powerful example of why Courts must examine the mechanism of harm, not just the existence of allegations.

The apparent trigger was not “the Court order”. The apparent trigger was the child’s experience of being caught in a pressure system involving Court, school, time, parental disappointment, fear of anger, and divided loyalties.

The sharp FLAST lesson is:

In a child suicide-risk case, the Court looks for what the child experienced — not what the adults label the dispute.

The evidence that mattered was:

• X’s own reported words;
• Child Protection’s cumulative harm record;
• the school/time/Court pressure;
• therapist evidence;
• the expert’s longitudinal formulation;
• the distinction between X and Y;
• the parents’ lack of insight;
• and whether any proposed order would reduce or repeat the harm.

The practical litigation lesson is:

Do not plead causation as a slogan. Plead the pathway: what happened, what the child said, what professionals recorded, how the child experienced the adult conflict, and why the proposed orders reduce the psychological burden.