False allegations of sexual abuse- Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478

What happens when a parent falsely accuses the other of sexually abusing their child? This case is a powerful example of how such allegations, when unsubstantiated, can backfire significantly in the Family Court. More importantly, it shows that the court's focus is always on the child, and the harm caused to the child can come from either parent.

Not only may this have an impact on the Court orders given, but it may also have a significant psychological impact on the child. The Federal Circuit and Family Court case of Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478 case, is a notable example of these impacts. In this case, the mother alleged that the father posed an unacceptable sexual risk of harm to their son. The Court engaged in significantly thorough, evidence-based analysis when determining whether the father posed this risk.

Case Facts

• Parties separated in 2021, one child born in 2019
• 2023: Final parenting orders made; child to live primarily with mother
• 2024: Mother stopped the child's contact with the father, alleging sexual abuse
• Police and Child Protection (DCJ) investigated twice; no evidence found
• Court found the mother, not the father, posed the risk to the child
• Child ordered to live with father; father granted sole parental responsibility

How Did Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478 Case Begin?

The parties separated in 2021 after a relationship that produced one child, referred to throughout the proceedings as X, born in 2019. Following separation, final parenting orders were made in 2023 under which the child lived primarily with the mother and spent time with the father.

In 2024, the mother unilaterally stopped the child's time with the father. She alleged that the father had sexually abused X, and made a formal report to police. This triggered a fresh round of litigation, with the father seeking to restore contact and ultimately challenging the existing parenting arrangements altogether.

The Legal Framework - What Is the Court Considering?

When making parenting orders, the court's overriding focus is the best interests of the child under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Section 60CC sets out the factors the court must weigh, including:

• The child's safety and protection from physical, emotional, and psychological harm
• Each parent's ability to meet the child's developmental needs
• The benefit of the child maintaining a relationship with both parents, where safe to do so

Importantly, the court assesses whether a parent's conduct in making or pursuing allegations has itself caused harm to the child.

The Mother’s Submissions

The mother stated that the child relied on her for support and care, claiming they had trouble separating from her. She put her child into play therapy which the Court Child Expert (CCE) believed was a protective mechanism. A CCE is an independent expert, typically a psychologist, appointed by the court to assess the child and family. She also took out an ADVO on the father (Apprehended Domestic Violence Order - a court order prohibiting behaviour that causes fear or harm), but in all cases where she said he had breached it, the police pressed no charges. She also claimed that the child made a disclosure to her and their grandparents that was of a sexual kind.

Overall, there were many inconsistencies in her evidence. For example, there was no persuasive evidence to suggest that she was fearful as a result of an argument she had with the father.

By the time the matter reached trial, the mother conceded she no longer believed the father had sexually assaulted the child, a significant concession that undermined her own case.

The Mother's Evidence - What Did the Court Find?

The mother presented herself as a protective parent acting in her child's best interests. She stated that the child was emotionally dependent on her, had difficulty separating from her, and needed her as his primary support. She placed X into play therapy, which the Court Child Expert (CCE); an independent expert appointed by the court to assess the child and family considered was being used as a protective mechanism.

However, the mother's evidence was marked by significant inconsistencies. Key findings included:

→ Police investigated the abuse allegations twice and found no evidence to support them

→ The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ, child protection) also investigated and reached the same conclusion

→ In every instance where the mother alleged the father had breached the ADVO, police pressed no charges

→ Drug and alcohol testing - via hair follicle samples - returned negative results for the father on all occasions

→ The mother's claims about fearing the father were not supported by persuasive evidence

By the time the matter reached trial, the mother herself acknowledged that she no longer believed the father had sexually abused X, a significant concession that undermined the foundation of her case.

The Father’s Response

The father denied all allegations of sexual harm during cross-examination and in his written evidence, appearing honest and responsive. He claimed the mother had a dislike for him and projected this idea to their child. All allegations of drug and alcohol use remained false as all hair follicle tests taken, returned negative.

The father's position was that the mother harboured a deep dislike of him and had, over time, communicated this to the child. He argued that the child's expressed views and distress were not a product of anything he had done, but a result of the mother's influence and the exposure to repeated questioning and investigations.

His drug and alcohol tests all returned negative. No charges were laid in relation to the ADVO. The Court found no evidence of family violence or abuse on his part.

The Child’s Response

Given both parents presented evidence inconsistent with each other, the child’s response became significantly important. During an interview with the CCE, the child continually sought reassurance from their mother when asked questions during the interview. The child started expressing views to the CCE that weren’t age appropriate. However, when the CCE observed the child with the father, he behaved positively, which was inconsistent with the mother’s negative views of him, including her claims that the father was exposing the child to violence and abuse.

The Court also noted that the repeated investigations by police, child protection, and health professionals had traumatised the child in themselves.

What Did the Court Find?

On the Father

The Court found no probative (credible, relevant) evidence that the father had sexually abused or otherwise harmed the child. He did not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. The Court accepted his evidence as reliable.

On the Mother

In a significant finding, the Court determined that it was the mother, not the father, who posed an unacceptable risk to the child's emotional and psychological wellbeing. Her conduct was found to have:

→ Caused X emotional and psychological harm through repeated exposure to investigations and questioning

→ Fed the child a false narrative that he was a victim at the hands of his father

→ Created a resist-refuse dynamic that damaged the child's relationship with his father

→ Failed to promote the child's relationship with a safe and loving parent

→ Demonstrated a lack of child-focused parenting throughout the proceedings

The Court acknowledged that the mother's conduct, while harmful, could be addressed through therapeutic support and structured contact arrangements — and that the risk she posed was not permanent.

The Final Orders

From this evidence, the Court found that it was actually the mother who posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child, specifically to the child's emotional and psychological safety. They found there was a material possibility that the child’s emotional and psychological safety was imperilled through her actions.

Due to this finding, the Court ordered that the father receive sole parental responsibility. They ordered that the child remain out of contact with their mother for 8 weeks. Other supervised contact orders were also made.

The Court ordered:

• The child to live with the father
• The father to receive sole parental responsibility (all major decisions about the child's education, health, and welfare rest with him alone)
• An eight-week moratorium on contact with the mother
• A graduated reintroduction of contact, beginning with supervised time, contingent on therapeutic engagement

So what does this all mean?

The mother’s actions certainly did not work in her favour. Lying to the Court and inconsistencies in your evidence demonstrate that you lack credibility. The mother in this case, failed to promote a close and nurturing father-son relationship, was not child-focussed, created a resist-refuse dynamic and failed to comply with orders regarding equal shared parental responsibility.

If you or your child is experiencing an unsafe environment, it is always important to document evidence of communication, medical records or other evidence that can demonstrate the extent of this behaviour and its impact. If it is safe to do so, it is important to collaborate with your co-parent and remain child-focussed to avoid the issues raised in this case.

If You Are Raising Genuine Concerns About Your Child's Safety

If you have real, genuine concerns about your child's safety with the other parent, it is vital that you approach the matter carefully and responsibly. Courts take protective concerns seriously, but only when they are grounded in evidence.

• Document all relevant communications, incidents, and your child's disclosures in a factual, contemporaneous way
• Seek appropriate professional support, from an expert family lawyer, psychologist, or domestic violence service, before taking unilateral steps
• Report concerns to the appropriate authorities (police, child protection) and allow them to investigate, do not conduct your own investigation or repeatedly question the child
• Follow existing court orders unless you have urgent legal advice to the contrary

If You Have Been Falsely Accused

Being falsely accused of harming your child is devastating. If you find yourself in this position:

• Seek legal advice immediately
• Cooperate fully with any police or child protection investigations
• Keep records of all interactions with your child and the other parent
• Be consistent, honest, and child-focused in all court proceedings

The Broader Message

Courts are increasingly attuned to the harm caused by unsubstantiated allegations and parental alienation. Being an applicant, the party who brings the case, does not guarantee judicial sympathy. The court's sole focus is the child's best interests, and if a parent's conduct is found to harm the child, that conduct will weigh heavily against them, regardless of their intentions.

If you are navigating a contested parenting matter, seeking advice from an experienced child custody lawyer early, before taking any unilateral action, can make a significant difference to both your credibility and your outcome in court.

Key Takeaways from Joustra & Schuman [2025]

• Allegations without evidence can seriously damage your credibility and parenting outcome
• Repeatedly questioning a child about alleged abuse can itself constitute emotional harm
• Courts will protect a child's relationship with a safe parent, even if it means reversing primary care
• A resist-refuse dynamic created by a parent is a significant factor in parenting proceedings
• Both parents are assessed, bringing a case to court does not automatically favour the applicant
• Therapeutic support and cooperation with orders can help restore parenting arrangements over time