Can courts limit mothers’ time with their children in parenting disputes?

Parenting Disputes and Mental Health: Lessons from Shinohara & Shinohara

The recent case of Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126 highlights the challenges the Family Court faces when balancing a mother’s right to spend time with her children against the need to protect those children from potential harm. At the heart of the dispute were serious concerns about the mother’s mental health and the risks this posed to the children’s wellbeing.

The family violence intervention order proceedings

The parents married in 2018 and separated in February 2023. Following separation, the father obtained a family violence intervention order excluding the mother from the home. From that time, the children lived with the father.

What is supervised time and how is it imposed?

Following the making of the family violence intervention order, the mother spent time with the children for four hours each week supervised by the maternal grandfather and had electronic communication with the children on three occasions during each week. From June 2023, time was supervised by a professional agency.

The mother appealed on the basis that this was too restrictive, and thus her capacity to safely care for the children became the central issue before the Court.

When a mother’s mental health impacts her ability to care for her children

The Court received a large volume of evidence about the mother’s mental state. As the judges noted:

“One of the major issues in this litigation was the mother’s mental health and the risk of harm she posed to the children, especially to their emotional and psychological wellbeing by reason of the mother’s mental health history and personality vulnerabilities.” [13]

The mother’s history included episodes where she formed unusual or delusional beliefs, such as hearing noises from electrical cables that resembled Morse code or believing a neighbour was engaging in inexplicable behaviour near her home. Evidence also showed patterns of pathological jealousy, leading to volatile incidents as far back as 2017.

What sort of evidence is called in a parenting case?

The court also heard evidence from several experts.

This included the mother’s treating clinical psychologist, a single consultant psychologist and a clinical and forensic psychologist, all of whom the court found to be highly qualified, experienced and credentialled professionals. The consensus among them was that the mother clearly experienced significant mental health episodes for which she had not been appropriately treated until after the commencement of the litigation.

Overall, the court found that the mother possessed vulnerabilities that emerged in her childhood rendering her susceptible to adverse consequences from various stressors, and that she is most likely correctly diagnosed as having a personality disorder and poor mental health behaviour.

Behavioural impacts on children from parental behaviour: stimming, bedwetting

The Court was particularly concerned about how the children’s behaviour reflected the mother’s influence. The older child developed “stimming” behaviours – self-soothing actions associated with stress – while the younger child experienced emotional dysregulation and bedwetting.

The trial judge accepted that:

“The current mental health circumstances with the older child stimming and the younger child being emotionally dysregulated is attributable at least in part to their experiences when the mother was their primary carer.” [53]

Experts also highlighted the risk of harm if the children were exposed to the mother’s untreated mental health struggles. As one of the experts explained, children could be harmed by being drawn into their parent’s inaccurate beliefs, exposed to frightening behaviour, or subjected to overprotection that created a view of the world as dangerous.

Each of these submissions was confirmed by the independent child lawyer, providing an additional voice to the arguments.

Can the Family Court stop or limit a mother having time with their child?

While the mother argued she was making progress in therapy, the Court was not persuaded that her condition was sufficiently stabilised to allow for extensive, unsupervised care. The justices noted:

“[The mother] poses a risk to the children unless and until her susceptibility to stress by reason of her vulnerabilities is fully managed by ongoing regular treatment.” [53]

The Court also found that the mother struggled to accept responsibility for the impact of her behaviour. Her statement that “the greatest act of violence in this whole proceeding” was the father obtaining an intervention order demonstrated, in the primary judge’s words, “a wholesale refusal … to acknowledge that her behaviour is relevant and that the father acted protectively towards the children.”  [52]

Is a parent’s lack of insight into themselves relevant in a parenting dispute?

This demonstrated to the court a lack of understanding and of willingness by the mother to subject her behaviour to close examination in relation to its impact on the children, instead maintaining her own version of events that exonerated her of any wrongdoing.

In contrast, the father was found to provide the children with stability and routine:

“The father provides stability, regularity of routine and predictability of behaviour. The same cannot be said of the mother… The children need stability. In the father’s care they have that.”  [61]

Increase in the mother’s time with the children tied to her ongoing participation in therapy

Thus, none of the grounds presented in the parenting appeal were found to have any merit and the primary judge’s final parenting orders stood.

These orders tied any increase in the mother’s time with the children to her ongoing participation in therapy. She was required to attend fortnightly sessions with a clinical psychologist and provide regular reports of her progress. Until she could demonstrate sustained improvement, her time remained limited and carefully structured.

This shows how ultimately, it becomes an issue of risk assessment for the Court, and that in cases such as this where there is such a wealth of evidence adduced against the mother which shows that her behaviour is severely and negatively affecting the children, the Court will make orders restricting time.

Key Takeaways

This case demonstrates the Court’s child-focused approach in parenting matters. While the mother’s wish for more time was genuine, the Court prioritised the children’s need for safety, stability and emotional security. It underscores that where mental health concerns exist, a parent must show consistent engagement with treatment and genuine insight into how their difficulties affect their children.

How we can help

At Rowan Skinner & Associates Lawyers, we are accredited specialists in Family law and we understand how stressful and complicated parenting disputes can be, especially when family relationships are involved.

If you are struggling with your current situation, call our team at (03) 9995 9155 for a non-obligation discussion. We serve clients across Melbourne, including Northcote, Alphington, Carlton, Fitzroy, North Fitzroy, Kew, Heidelberg, South Melbourne, and South Yarra.

Case: Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126