When the Abuse Narrative Became the Risk: Mother’s Allegations Failed, Psychological Harm Found, and Residence Changed to the Father

In Sullivan & Warren [2026] FedCFamC1F 550, the Court changed the child’s residence from the mother to the father after years of allegations that the father had physically and sexually abused the child. The mother ultimately abandoned those allegations in written submissions, accepting that there could be no finding that the father had physically or sexually abused the child and no finding that he posed an unacceptable risk of harm. 550

But that did not end the case. The real issue became whether the mother’s long-running abuse narrative, repeated reports to police and child safety, disengagement from therapists, unilateral suspension of court-ordered time, and planting of ideas in the child’s mind amounted to psychological abuse and an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. 550

The Court found that the mother had psychologically abused the child and posed an unacceptable risk of emotional harm. The only workable protective solution was to change residence to the father, impose a 12-week moratorium on the mother’s time and communication, then allow staged reintroduction of supervised and later unsupervised time. 550

🧩 Facts and Issues

Facts:

The child, X, was born in 2018. The parents separated when she was very young. From 2019 onwards, the mother repeatedly alleged that the father had physically and sexually abused the child. This included an allegation when the child was about one year old that the father had vaginally and anally penetrated the child with his fingers. The child was forensically examined, but the medical records did not support abuse. 550

The child had four police interviews under s 93A of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). Nothing substantive came from those interviews. The child’s allegations were often bare, repetitive, lacking context and detail, and sometimes plainly beyond her capacity to independently know or remember. 550

Over the years, the mother repeatedly stopped the father’s court-ordered time. The Court found she stopped time on her own election and contrary to orders, often after new allegations or after therapeutic progress was being made between the child and father. 550

The mother also disengaged from therapists when their work did not support her narrative. She stopped engaging with Ms E after the child indicated she was happy to see the father, and later stopped engaging with Ms C after Ms C assessed that the child was safe with the father and told the mother to “re-story” the child away from the father-is-unsafe narrative. 550 550

At the final hearing, the father and ICL argued that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of emotional harm because she had allowed or encouraged the child to believe she had been abused when the evidence did not support that belief. They submitted that the child needed to live with the father to have any safe opportunity of a relationship with both parents. 550

Issues:

1. Could the Court find that the father had physically or sexually abused the child?
2. Did the father pose an unacceptable risk of harm?
3. Did the mother coach the child, plant ideas, or create an unsafe abuse narrative?
4. Did the mother psychologically abuse the child?
5. Could the risk posed by the mother be mitigated if the child remained living with her?
6. Was a change of residence necessary?
7. Was a moratorium on the mother’s time justified?
8. Could the father manage the transition and support the child safely?

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

The Court applied Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The paramount consideration was the child’s best interests under s 60CA. The Court considered the objects in s 60B, including ensuring that children’s best interests are met by ensuring their safety. 550

The key best-interests factors were those in s 60CC, including:

• what arrangements would promote the child’s safety;
• any history of family violence, abuse or neglect;
• the child’s views;
• the child’s developmental, psychological and emotional needs;
• each parent’s capacity to meet those needs;
• the benefit of the child having a relationship with both parents and other significant people, where safe. 550

The Court also referred to s 60CG, which requires the Court to ensure that parenting orders do not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence and allows safeguards to be included where necessary. 550

The standard of proof for past facts was governed by s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The Court had to consider the gravity of the allegations when deciding whether facts were proved on the balance of probabilities. 550

📌 Precedents Relied On

• Isles & Nelissen — proof of past facts is governed by the civil standard, but the assessment of unacceptable risk is a separate predictive exercise informed by those facts. 550
• Fitzwater & Fitzwater — risk exists on a continuum; at some point the chance of future harm becomes so potent that it cannot be tolerated. 550
• Bant & Clayton — risk must be assessed by looking at the whole of the evidence, not by atomising individual facts. 550
• Bielen & Kozma and Blinko & Blinko — when unacceptable risk is identified, the Court must consider whether safeguards can mitigate that risk to an acceptable level. 550
• Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte — the child’s views are important but do not control the outcome; best interests remain paramount. 550
• U v U — the Court is not confined to the parties’ proposed orders; it must make orders in the child’s best interests based on the evidence. 550

🧠 Analysis

Issue

Should the child continue living with the mother, despite the collapse of the mother’s allegations that the father had abused the child, or was a change of residence necessary to protect the child from psychological harm caused by the mother’s abuse narrative?

Rule

The Court had to first assess whether the allegations of physical or sexual abuse by the father were proved. Serious allegations required careful assessment under s 140 of the Evidence Act. If those allegations were not proved, the Court then had to assess future risk separately: whether either parent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child.

In assessing unacceptable risk, the Court had to look at the totality of the evidence. The question was not merely whether the mother had maliciously coached the child. The broader question was whether her conduct created a psychologically harmful environment in which the child wrongly believed, repeated, or felt compelled to say that the father had abused her.

Application

1. The mother ultimately abandoned the abuse allegations

After years of alleging physical and sexual abuse, the mother’s own counsel submitted that the evidence could not support a finding that the father had sexually or physically abused the child, nor that he posed an unacceptable future risk. 550

That concession was crucial. The Court accepted the concession that no findings of abuse were open, but rejected the mother’s further contention that there was insufficient evidence to find she had coached, planted ideas, or psychologically harmed the child. 550

The case therefore shifted from:

Did the father abuse the child?

to:

What damage has been done to the child by years of unfounded abuse allegations?

2. The child’s allegations lacked detail, context and reliability

The child had made allegations across four broad themes: choking, digital rape, painting naked, and the father trying to kill her or threatening to kill the mother. 550

But those allegations repeatedly lacked detail and context. The Court found the child could not independently remember being choked “as a baby”. The Family Report Writer considered it impossible for X to remember such an event from babyhood and observed that X’s statements suggested she had been provided information which she pieced together. 550

The digital rape allegations also failed. The 2019 genital examination did not support abuse, and the medical note recorded no clinical features of abuse. The Court accepted that if the mother had properly regarded that examination, it would have been difficult for her to maintain the rape narrative. 550

The police interviews also did not support findings of abuse. In the first interview, police concluded the child appeared to be making up stories, did not particularise anything, and did not make disclosures. 550

In the fourth interview, the child blurted out allegations but then repeatedly said she could not remember, was not sure, or could not provide details. 550

The Court’s conclusion was clear: no findings of abuse by the father were open on the evidence. 550

3. The mother’s admissions damaged her case

In cross-examination, the mother made major concessions. She accepted that she had never seen the father abuse the child, that some of the child’s fears were not justified, that there was no medical evidence of choking, that many of the child’s repeated allegations had no further details, and that many everyday matters she had treated as suspicious were not abuse. 550

She also accepted that allegations about stalking, electronic tracking and threats to kill the mother could not be maintained in the way she had previously advanced them. 550

These admissions were central because they showed that the mother’s long-running narrative had been maintained despite weak or absent evidentiary support.

4. The Court found the mother was adept at planting ideas

The Court did not need to find that the mother explicitly instructed the child to lie. It found something broader and more damaging: the mother had created an environment where the child understood the father as unsafe, absorbed the mother’s narrative, and repeated it to others. 550

The mother admitted that:

• she was prepared to defy court orders because the child said no;
• there was a pattern of police involvement when the father’s time increased;
• the child’s complaints resembled hers;
• the child said nothing new across multiple police interviews but the mother kept taking her back;
• the child received positive reinforcement after telling stories about the father;
• there was a danger the child was saying things that led to positive rewards. 550

The Court found that, whether intentionally or not, the mother had:

• modelled disregard for court orders;
• messaged to the child that there was a reason to stop father-time;
• exposed the child to repeated investigations;
• created a narrative that the father was unsafe;
• conditioned the child to learn that stories about the father would be positively rewarded. 550

That finding was devastating.

5. The 16 May 2025 phone call showed the mother actively escalating the child’s distress

The Court placed significant weight on an audio recording of a phone call between the child and mother during the child’s first overnight with the father for years. The mother had secretly recorded the call and only produced the audio when called upon in cross-examination. 550

The mother’s first question to the child was whether she wanted to come home. The Court found the mother initiated the “come home” idea, placed the burden on the child to negotiate with the father, and told the child the father would get “really cross”. 550

The father was calm and firm. The mother, however, pressed the child to keep telling the father she wanted to come home and reinforced the idea that the child was scared. 550

The Court described the mother’s words and conduct as appalling. It found the mother had initiated the idea of coming home, failed to soothe the child, failed to encourage the child to stay, and placed the burden on the child to manage the adult issue. 550

This was direct evidence of the mother planting ideas in the child’s perception.

6. The December 2025 changeover showed the same pattern

A second important example was the 6 December 2025 changeover at McDonald’s. The mother secretly recorded the changeover and had dashcam footage, but did not disclose it until called upon. The footage and audio showed nothing untoward by the father. 550

The child was not distressed when saying “Bye Dad”. But once the mother returned to her car, she began using language about a “hot car”, “32 degrees”, being scared, and being upset. The Court found the mother planted a narrative that was later repeated by the child to police. 550

The mother later accepted in cross-examination that nothing happened at the changeover to warrant troubling police. Yet she stopped father-time again and communicated with the father as if he needed to apologise and repair the child’s sense of safety. 550

This reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the mother could not be trusted to facilitate the child’s relationship with the father.

7. The child directly attributed key information to the mother

The child told the Family Report Writer that her mother had told her she would never see her family again if she lived with the father. The child also said she knew the father had choked the mother because “Mummy told me”. 550

The Court found the child could not independently know about events before her birth or from when she was an infant. It concluded the mother was more likely than not the source of this information. 550

The Family Report Writer was struck by the disparity between the child’s enjoyment of time with the father and her negative views of him, and by the fact that frightening information about the father was directly attributed to the mother. 550

That evidence strongly supported the finding that the mother was the source of the harmful narrative.

8. The “meany dad” book reinforced the unsafe-father narrative

The mother wrote a story for the child about a little girl and her “Meany Dad”. The story repeatedly told the child that the little girl hated being at Meany Dad’s house, that the monster was good friends with Meany Dad, and that the monster wanted to hurt her. 550

The Court found that, whether intentionally or not, the mother reinforced the ideas that:

• daddy is a meany;
• the child is unsafe at his place;
• the monster is there;
• the child is only safe with the mother. 550

This was another clear example of emotional harm through narrative construction.

9. The child believed “if mum says it, it must be true”

In the December 2025 police interview, the child said that if her mother told police something, then it must be real because her mother never lies. 550

That was critical.

The Court recognised that children should be able to trust their parents. But here, the mother had repeatedly involved the child in storytelling that was not true and had taken no steps to correct the child’s false narrative. 550

That is why the harm was so serious. The child was not merely repeating allegations. She had absorbed the mother’s worldview as truth.

10. The Court found psychological abuse and unacceptable risk

The Court accepted the Report Writer’s opinion that if the father had not behaved inappropriately and the child had been influenced to believe he had, that amounted to emotional abuse and a serious breach of the child’s right to trust, love and feel safe with her father. 550

The Court then accepted the father’s submission that it did not need to make a positive finding of malicious coaching. It was enough that the totality of the evidence rendered the child’s allegations unreliable and showed that the mother’s conduct in repeatedly producing and acting on them posed a risk of psychological harm. 550

The Court expressly found that the mother’s conduct constituted psychological harm to the child and that the ongoing risk of psychological harm from the mother was unacceptable. 550

That is the heart of the judgment.

11. The child’s views were heard but could not control the outcome

The child had repeatedly expressed negative views about the father. But the Court found there is a difference between what a child wants and what a child needs. 550

The Court concluded that the child clearly wanted to live with the mother in an exclusive dyadic relationship. But what she needed was to understand her father was safe, have a safe relationship with both parents, and avoid going through life wrongly believing her father had sexually and physically abused her. 550

The Court accepted that the child’s views had been heard loudly and clearly, but they did not determine the outcome. 550

12. The mother could not meet the child’s psychological and developmental needs

The Court found the mother had psychologically abused the child and lacked capacity to meet critical developmental, psychological and emotional needs. 550

The Report Writer identified serious likely consequences if the child wrongly believed she had been abused, including:

• lack of trust in men;
• lack of trust in relationships;
• impaired sexual development;
• difficulty establishing trust;
• anxiety;
• fear in the father’s care;
• negative beliefs about herself. 550

The Court also found that the mother failed to meet the child’s educational needs. The child had very poor school attendance, and the mother yielded to the child’s refusal to attend rather than imposing appropriate parental authority. 550

This reinforced the finding that remaining with the mother was not in the child’s best interests.

13. The father was capable of managing the transition

The father was not a tested full-time residential parent, but the Court found he had strategies and support in place. He had engaged with Ms C, learned co-regulation strategies, understood the need to reassure the child, and had shown reflective capacity. 550

The Court was satisfied that he could manage the child’s return to school with appropriate boundaries. The father understood that the child needed structure, routine and parental authority, unlike the mother’s permissive approach. 550

The Court also found that, on audio recordings where the father did not know he was being taped, he was calm and reasonable. 550

That mattered because the change of residence would be difficult. The Court needed confidence that the father could manage the transition.

14. The mother’s proposed orders were effectively no-time orders

The mother said the child should remain living with her and only see the father in therapeutic settings or when a professional recommended it. The Court rejected that as an impermissible divesting of judicial responsibility and, in practical terms, a no-time regime. 550

The Court later found the mother’s proposed orders would likely result in the child having a relationship only with the mother and continuing to believe she was a victim of abuse. 550

Therapeutic scaffolding had already been tried for years and failed because the mother disengaged when therapy began moving in a direction inconsistent with her narrative. 550

So the Court concluded that simply leaving the child with the mother and ordering more therapy would not mitigate the risk.

15. The child needed to be freed from the mother’s psychological shackles

The Court’s language was strong. It found that leaving the child with the mother would permit the child to continue wrongly believing she had been the victim of horrendous sexual and physical violence. The Court described that as abhorrent and likely to set the child up for future harm. 550

The Court found the child’s best interests required her to be freed from the “psychological shackles” of the mother. The mother-child relationship was not psychologically safe. 550

Although the change would be distressing and difficult, the Court assessed the short-term risks of transition as less harmful than the long-term risk of the child remaining in the mother’s narrative. 550

16. The 12-week moratorium was necessary for a reset

All parties accepted that if residence changed, there should be a moratorium on the mother’s time, but they differed on length. The Court ordered 12 weeks. 550

The purpose was to give the father and child time to reset without the mother’s influence, allow routines to form, and give therapeutic work a chance to begin. The Court considered shorter periods too short and found 12 weeks could be explained to the child as roughly a school term. 550

The Court also imposed restraints during the moratorium so the mother could not contact the father directly, attend the child’s school, extra-curricular activities or treatment providers, or be somewhere the child could see her. 550

Those restraints were necessary because the Court accepted the father and child needed insulation from the mother’s likely pressure, emotional force and narrative. 550

Conclusion

The Court made final orders for the child to live with the father. The father was given sole decision-making responsibility for major long-term issues, including health, education, religion and living arrangements. 550

The child was to spend no time and have no communication with the mother for 12 weeks. After that, the child would spend supervised time with the mother for three months, then progress through staged unsupervised arrangements and eventually alternate weekends and holiday time. 550

The Court found that the father had not sexually or physically abused the child and did not pose an unacceptable risk. The mother, however, had psychologically abused the child and posed an unacceptable risk of harm by allowing, reinforcing and planting the false abuse narrative. 550 550

The change of residence was difficult but necessary. The alternative — leaving the child with the mother’s harmful narrative — was unacceptable. 550

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

This case is a major warning about unfounded abuse narratives in parenting proceedings.

The Court will take allegations of physical and sexual abuse seriously. But where the allegations collapse, and where a parent continues to expose the child to investigations, police interviews, therapists, school disclosures and repeated narratives of abuse without evidentiary foundation, the focus can shift dramatically.

The sharp FLAST lesson is:

The allegation itself can become the harm.

A parent does not need to be found to have maliciously coached a child before the Court can find unacceptable risk. It may be enough that the parent created, reinforced or failed to correct a false narrative that caused the child to believe the other parent was unsafe.

The practical litigation lesson is:

If abuse allegations are made, they must be supported by evidence, tested responsibly and revisited honestly when they collapse. Persisting with a disproven or unsupported narrative can become psychological abuse.

This case also shows that:

• a child’s expressed views matter, but do not control the outcome;
• therapeutic support will not work if one parent disengages when professionals reject their narrative;
• repeated unilateral suspension of court-ordered time can become powerful evidence of risk;
• the Court may prefer the short-term pain of a residence change over the long-term harm of a child growing up believing a false abuse story.

The child’s right was not merely to be heard. It was to be protected from a false narrative and given the chance to grow into her best self.