Gabbey & Cadriel [2024] FedCFamC1A 60 — When Relationship Destruction Becomes the Real Risk

Citation: Gabbey & Cadriel [2024] FedCFamC1A 60 Court: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), Appellate Jurisdiction (Austin, Jarrett & Riethmuller JJ) Year: 2024 Themes: Emotional harm · False or unsupported allegations · Change of residence · Children resisting time

Case summary

This parenting appeal concerned children whose care was changed from the mother to the father. At trial, the judge rejected the mother's evidence of sexual assaults by the father. The judge found that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of emotional and/or psychological harm to the children. The concern was not simply that the parents were in conflict. It was the effect on the children of being raised inside a narrative that their father was dangerous, when the evidence did not support it.

The trial orders gave the father sole parental responsibility and had the children live with him. The mother's contact was heavily restricted to limited indirect contact, such as cards, letters or gifts on special occasions.

On appeal, the Full Court left the central parenting outcome in place. It rejected the challenges to the findings about emotional and psychological risk. However, the appeal was allowed in part, because some additional restraints had not been properly explained, including restrictions connected to schools and health professionals. Those orders were set aside.

6 key points

1. Emotional harm is real harm. The Court can protect children from emotional and psychological harm, not just physical harm.
2. A false or hostile narrative can be the risk. If a parent keeps telling children that a safe parent is dangerous, without a proper basis, that narrative can itself harm the children.
3. Allegations are tested against the evidence. The trial judge rejected the sexual-assault allegations, and that finding shaped the whole outcome.
4. Serious structural orders are possible. In an appropriate case, the Court may change where children live and grant sole parental responsibility to protect them from relationship destruction.
5. Strong orders need strong reasons. The appeal partly succeeded because some extra restraints were made without adequate reasons. Every restriction must be explained and connected to the risk actually found.
6. Evidence, not labels. The case does not turn on calling something "alienation." It turns on proof of conduct, pattern, harm, and why less restrictive options would not work.

Why this case matters for parents

This case may be relevant where children are refusing time after allegations that were not made out. It may also help where one parent insists the other is unsafe despite the evidence, where softer orders have failed, or where the argument is about protecting the children from ongoing emotional harm rather than punishing the other parent.

Use with care

Case law gives principles, not automatic outcomes. The other side may argue that your facts are less extreme, that the expert evidence is weaker, or that less restrictive orders are still available. Check the full judgment and paragraph references before relying on this case in court documents.

Read the full judgment on AustLII

Kilo 4 Delta — Family Court Case Law Explained. General legal information and case-law education only. Not legal advice. Parenting cases depend on their own facts, evidence and the best interests of the children. Seek legal advice about your situation.