What happens when a child refuses to see one parent—despite court orders and professional support?
In Camilleri & Wills [2023], the Family Court was faced with a difficult situation: a teenage child who was completely estranged from the mother, despite numerous efforts to restore contact.
This case explores how the Court responds when reconciliation fails, and how the child’s voice and mental health ultimately shape the outcome.
Background
- The child, born in 2008, was 14 at the time of trial.
- The parents separated in 2010.
- Over time, the child became completely estranged from the mother and refused contact.
- Orders had previously been made to promote a relationship with the mother, including supervised time and therapy.
- However, these efforts were unsuccessful. The child continued to express strong resistance.
The Mother’s Position
The mother alleged:
- The father had alienated the child from her
- The child had been exposed to negative views and misinformation about her
- The father discouraged contact and failed to support reconciliation
She sought:
- Equal shared parental responsibility
- Regular time with the child, including overnight visits
The Father’s Position
The father:
- Denied active alienation
- Said the child’s views were independent and based on the child’s own experience
- Argued that forcing contact would cause distress and psychological harm
He supported the child’s preference not to have contact with the mother, and asked the court to grant him sole parental responsibility.
The Child’s Voice
The child was assessed by an expert and an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). Key points:
- The child clearly stated they did not want to see the mother
- Attempts at reunification caused anxiety and distress
- The child’s views were found to be strongly held and not directly manipulated
The ICL supported the father’s application, saying that ongoing litigation and forced contact were not in the child’s best interests.
What the Court Decided
1. Sole Parental Responsibility to the Father
The court gave the father sole parental responsibility, noting:
- There was no meaningful communication between the parents
- The child lived full-time with the father and was settled
- The mother had not demonstrated insight into the child’s experience
2. No Time or Communication with the Mother
The Court made a rare but important decision:
- The child was not required to spend time with, or communicate with, the mother
- There was no order for future supervised time or communication reintroduction
Why?
Because the Court accepted that further attempts would risk psychological harm and disruption.
Key Reasons for the Judgment
- Emotional Safety of the Child: The expert evidence confirmed the child was emotionally harmed by forced contact.
- The Child’s Maturity: At 14, the child’s views were considered strongly formed and not the result of coercion.
- Repeated Failed Attempts: Several interventions (therapy, supervised visits, court orders) had failed.
- Risk of Harm: The risk to the child’s mental health outweighed any benefit of further contact at that time.
Court’s Message in Plain English
Sometimes, the best way to protect a child is to stop trying to force a relationship that isn’t working—especially when the child is older, emotionally mature, and clearly distressed by continued efforts.
The Court stressed that its orders were not a punishment of the mother, but a protection of the child’s wellbeing.What This Case Teaches Us
1. A Child’s Voice Can Be Decisive
At around age 14, the Court gives significant weight to a child’s views—especially if supported by experts.
2. Forced Reunification Can Cause Harm
When attempts to rebuild a parent-child relationship fail, courts may decide it’s better to stop trying—at least for now.
3. High Conflict = Sole Parental Responsibility
When communication is toxic and ongoing court proceedings add stress, the Court may simplify matters by giving one parent full decision-making power.
4. The Focus Is Always the Child
Even if a parent feels wronged, the Court’s focus remains on what’s emotionally safest for the child—not on restoring equality between parents.
Final Thoughts
Camilleri & Wills [2023] is a clear reminder that the Family Court will step back from trying to enforce contact when it becomes clear it’s doing more harm than good.
While every case is different, this judgment reinforces a growing trend: courts are prioritising the child’s lived experience, not the ideal of equal parental involvement at all costs.