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 in balancing a mother’s right to spend time with her children against the need to protect them 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. After 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?
After the court issued the family violence intervention order, the mother spent four hours per week with the children under supervision by the maternal grandfather. She also had electronic communication with the children three times each week. From June 2023, a professional agency supervised the visits.
The mother appealed, arguing that the restrictions were too strict. As a result, her ability 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 reviewed a large volume of evidence about the mother’s mental state. 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 of unusual or delusional beliefs, such as hearing Morse-code-like noises from electrical cables or believing a neighbour behaved strangely near her home. Evidence also revealed patterns of pathological jealousy, leading to volatile incidents dating back to 2017.
What sort of evidence is called in a parenting case?
The court heard evidence from several experts. This included the mother’s treating clinical psychologist, a consultant psychologist, and a clinical and forensic psychologist. The court found all of them to be highly qualified and experienced professionals.
The experts agreed that the mother experienced significant mental health episodes. She had not received appropriate treatment until after litigation began.
Overall, the court found that the mother had vulnerabilities stemming from her childhood. These made her susceptible to adverse effects from stressors. The court concluded that she likely has a personality disorder and ongoing mental health challenges.
Behavioural impacts on children from parental behaviour: stimming, bedwetting
The Court focused on how the children’s behaviour reflected the mother’s influence. The older child developed “stimming” behaviours – self-soothing actions linked to stress – while the younger child experienced emotional dysregulation and bedwetting.
The trial judge noted:
“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 warned of harm if the children were exposed to the mother’s untreated mental health struggles. Children could be drawn into inaccurate beliefs, witness frightening behaviour, or experience overprotection that fostered a view of the world as dangerous.
The independent child lawyer confirmed these concerns, adding further weight to the submissions.
Can the Family Court stop or limit a mother having time with their child?
While the mother argued she was progressing in therapy, the Court did not believe her condition had stabilised enough to allow extensive, unsupervised care. The justices explained:
“[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 the mother struggled to accept responsibility for 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?
The court saw that the mother lacked understanding and willingness to examine her behaviour’s impact on the children. She maintained her own version of events that exonerated her of wrongdoing.
In contrast, the father provided 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
The Court rejected all grounds in the parenting appeal. The primary judge’s parenting orders remained.
The orders tied any increase in the mother’s time to her ongoing therapy. She must attend fortnightly sessions with a clinical psychologist and provide regular progress reports. Until she demonstrates sustained improvement, her time with the children remains limited and carefully structured.
This case shows that, in matters with substantial evidence of harm, the Court prioritises risk assessment and can impose restrictions to protect children.
Key Takeaways
The case illustrates the Court’s child-focused approach in parenting matters. Even though the mother genuinely wanted more time, the Court prioritised the children’s safety, stability, and emotional security. When mental health concerns exist, a parent must demonstrate consistent engagement with treatment and insight into how their difficulties affect the children.
How we can help
At Rowan Skinner & Associates Lawyers, we are accredited specialists in Family law. We understand how stressful and complex parenting disputes can be, especially when family relationships are involved.
If you face similar issues, 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
Rowan Skinner is a highly skilled family lawyer with over 35 years of experience across various legal roles and jurisdictions. Rowan specialises in resolving family law disputes such as divorce, financial settlements, child custody and domestic violence cases. Through his diverse and extensive experience, Rowan has a deep understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in family law. Rowan is a skilled negotiator and litigator who follows a compassionate and client-focused approach which prioritises helping you navigate what can be an emotional and challenging time.