Guild icon
Veilocity
Text Channels / court-of-illusions-trafficking
Avatar
18 November 2025 — This email correspondence relates to the family law matter Cooke & Cooke (NCC3896/2023). The Respondent Mother’s solicitors provide service of the Final Orders made on 17 November 2025, attaching the sealed orders to the correspondence. A follow-up email confirms the terms of the costs orders, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) costs and payment arrangements. The correspondence advises that each party is required to pay their respective share of the ICL costs and provides trust account payment details for remittance. Further correspondence from the ICL’s firm supplies additional banking details confirming where the ICL costs are to be paid. The emails collectively document service of the final court orders and formal notification of payment obligations arising from those orders.
1:37 PM
14 November 2025 — This email correspondence relates to the family law matter Cooke & Cooke (NCC3896/2023). The Respondent Mother’s solicitors confirm that the matter is listed for trial before His Honour Judge Betts commencing at 10:00am on 17 November 2025. The email confirms the firm acts for the Respondent Mother, Dr Heather Anne Cooke, and that the Applicant Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer are copied into the correspondence. It advises that the Respondent Mother’s Case Outline was sealed on that date and is attached for service. The correspondence concludes by inviting further contact should additional information be required and provides the solicitor’s professional contact details.
1:37 PM
1:38 PM
10 November 2025 — This email correspondence relates to the family law matter Cooke & Cooke (NCC3896/2023). The Respondent Mother’s solicitors confirm they act for Dr Heather Anne Cooke, with the Applicant Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer copied into the correspondence. The email confirms the matter is listed for trial before His Honour Judge Betts commencing on 17 November 2025. It encloses sealed court material, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer Costs Notice, the sealed affidavit of Heather Anne Cooke dated 20 October 2025 with exhibits, and the sealed affidavit of Taylor Jordain Toni dated 20 October 2025. Exhibits are provided via a secure Google Drive link. The correspondence further confirms that all affidavits and exhibits were served on the Applicant Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer on 20 October 2025. The email concludes by inviting further contact if additional information is required.
1:38 PM
Avatar
17 October 2025 — This affidavit was affirmed by Taylor Jordain Toni and sealed on 20 October 2025 in the proceedings Cooke & Cooke (NCC3896/2023). Ms Toni, a legal assistant at Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers, states that on instructions from solicitor Olivia Shedden, she searched TikTok for content posted by “Stephen Christopher Cooke.” She located an account under the username @faithfulfl1ght titled “Stephen Christopher Cooke,” downloaded and screenshotted videos from that account, and uploaded the material to a Google Drive folder. The affidavit’s sole purpose is to formally identify, preserve, and exhibit the social media content attributed to the Applicant Father for use in the defended hearing.
1:55 PM
20 October 2025 — This affidavit was sworn by the Respondent Mother, Dr Heather Anne Cooke, and sealed in the family law proceedings Cooke & Cooke (NCC3896/2023) for the defended hearing listed on 17 November 2025 before Judge Betts. The affidavit provides a detailed history of the parties’ relationship, separation, and parenting arrangements concerning the two children, Christian (born 2014) and Joshua (born 2017). It outlines longstanding concerns regarding the Applicant Father’s mental health, alcohol use, coercive and controlling behaviour, excessive discipline, and alleged family violence. The affidavit documents disclosures by the children of physical punishment, medical assessments, police involvement, and child protection notifications. It further details events from March 2025, including the father failing to collect the children, police welfare checks across NSW and Queensland, hospitalisation under the Mental Health Act, absconding from hospital, overseas travel, and subsequent cessation of contact with the children. The affidavit describes the significant emotional and psychological deterioration of the children following these events, including anxiety, behavioural dysregulation, school incidents, nightmares, and therapeutic intervention. It also addresses the father’s non-compliance with court directions, absence from Australia, online activity, and lack of financial or emotional support. The affidavit supports the mother’s application for sole parental responsibility, for the children to live with her, and for the children to have no time or communication with the father on safety grounds.
2:00 PM
10 November 2025 — This email from Olivia Shedden of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers confirms that the Respondent Mother’s Tender Bundle has been sent to the Associate of His Honour Judge Betts in the Cooke v Cooke family law matter (NCC3896/2023). The correspondence attaches the sealed Court Orders dated 7 April 2025 and advises the Applicant Father that Order 12(e) permits him to access the Tender Bundle at the Newcastle Registry. The email serves as formal notification that trial materials have been lodged in accordance with the Court’s directions ahead of the final hearing.
2:06 PM
17 October 2025 — This affidavit sets out Stephen Christopher Cooke’s sworn account of events arising from family law proceedings between 2023 and 2025. It details his experiences of exclusion from parenting decision-making, perceived reputational harm, and the emotional and financial impacts of the court process. The affidavit outlines concerns regarding mental-health interventions, alleged procedural unfairness, limitations on participation, and the effect of expert and institutional processes on his parenting relationship. It describes periods of housing instability, delays in access to property settlement funds, and financial pressure experienced during negotiations, which he states impaired his ability to participate on equal footing. Mr Cooke further addresses allegations made against him in court materials, asserting inconsistencies and lack of balanced context. He explains how restricted communication and procedural outcomes led to the loss of regular contact with his children. The affidavit concludes with his declaration that the statement is made in good faith to preserve an accurate record, restore his parental relationship, and ensure the children’s best interests are fully considered.
2:08 PM
14 May 2025 — This email from Olivia Shedden of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers provides formal correspondence in the Cooke v Cooke family law matter. The solicitor advises that a letter to Mr Cooke and a draft final Minute of Order are attached for review. The email requests a response within 14 days and indicates the documents are intended to progress the matter toward final orders.
2:14 PM
14 May 2025 — Olivia Shedden of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers emailed Mr Stephen Christopher Cooke and the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding the Cooke v Cooke proceedings. The email enclosed a without prejudice save as to costs settlement letter dated 14 May 2025 and a draft Minute of Proposed Final Consent Orders. The correspondence referred to the Compliance & Readiness Hearing on 7 April 2025 and stated that Mr Cooke advised the Court he was residing in Thailand and could not indicate if or when he would return to Australia. Mr Cooke does not accept this statement and did not advise the Court that he intended to reside in Thailand. The letter noted Mr Cooke had vacated his tenancy at 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook, and on that basis asserted he did not intend to return to Australia. Relying on this assumption, the Respondent made a settlement offer proposing final parenting orders, including sole parental responsibility to the Respondent Mother, restricted time with the children, restraints and injunctions, and a notation that Mr Cooke had left Australia with no plans to return. The offer was open for 14 days and indicated that, failing agreement, the Respondent would seek amended pleadings and an adverse costs order.
2:21 PM
31 March 2025 — Olivia Shedden of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers emailed the Independent Children’s Lawyer and parties in the Cooke v Cooke matter. The correspondence advised that an attached letter and enclosed documents were provided for consideration. The email included two attachments: (1) a letter to the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding an application in the proceedings, and (2) compiled Our Family Wizard message extracts. The communication formed part of the ongoing preparation and evidentiary material relied upon in the family law proceedings prior to the Compliance and Readiness Hearing listed in April 2025. The email itself contained no court findings or determinations but served to transmit supporting material and correspondence intended to be considered within the litigation process.
2:23 PM
31 March 2025 — Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers, on behalf of the Respondent Mother, wrote to the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding the Cooke v Cooke proceedings. The letter referred to the Respondent’s Application in a Proceeding sealed 12 March 2025 and the Directions Hearing listed for 1 April 2025 before Judicial Registrar Furner. The correspondence outlined events occurring between 13 and 29 March 2025, including communications exchanged via Our Family Wizard concerning weekend care arrangements, the Respondent’s unilateral suspension of time, and allegations relating to the Father’s mental health following police involvement and detention under the Mental Health Act. The letter further stated that NSW Police advised the Respondent that the Father had been reported missing on 27 March 2025 and that border authorities later confirmed he was overseas, believed to be in Canada, resulting in closure of the missing persons report. The Respondent asserted ongoing safety concerns for the children, advised they had remained exclusively in her care, and indicated an intention to seek urgent interim orders and re-listing of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing. The letter enclosed copies of OFW communications relied upon in support of these claims.
2:24 PM
Our Family Wizard Message Record – 13–14 March 2025 The OFW message report shows that on 13 March 2025 the Father advised he would be unavailable for one evening only, stating he would resume care the following day and expressing reassurance and affection toward the children. Later that evening, the Mother unilaterally advised the Father that she had arranged alternative care and that the children would remain with her until the court hearing on 7 April 2025, citing safety concerns. No court order authorising suspension of time was in place at that time. On 14 March 2025, the Father formally objected in writing, stating he did not consent to any change in care arrangements and confirming his intention to follow the existing April orders, including collection from OOSH. He requested clarification regarding the children’s unexplained absence from school and proposed an alternative handover location consistent with prior arrangements. Despite this, the Mother responded that the Father would not see or contact the children until after the April hearing. The message record confirms the suspension of time occurred by unilateral decision, not by court direction or mutual agreement.
Avatar
12 October 2024 – Affidavit and Supporting Annexures (Sealed 7 November 2024) This material comprises an affidavit sworn by Stephen Christopher Cooke in proceedings NCC3896/2023, together with supporting annexures filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The affidavit supports an application to vary parenting-related orders and seeks leave for relevant documents to be provided directly to the Court-appointed Single Expert (Family Report Writer). Key issues identified include concerns regarding procedural fairness and the flow of information to the Single Expert. Subpoenas issued by the respondent’s solicitors were marked “awaiting production” yet granted leave for inspection, while subpoenas issued by the applicant had produced documents available on the court portal but were recorded as “no leave granted,” creating unequal access to material relied upon for expert assessment. Annexures include comprehensive medical records obtained under statutory access rights from Atune Health Centre and Chromis Occupational Medicine. Treating psychiatrist reports (Dr Suraiya Moisey, FRANZCP) confirm a diagnosis of ADHD (inattentive type), stable mental health, treatment compliance, absence of substance-misuse concerns, and confirmation that prescribed medication accounts for drug-screen results. Voluntary hair-follicle testing is referenced. The affidavit also seeks inclusion of final property settlement orders dated 13 September 2024 as evidence of financial entitlement and stability relevant to parenting capacity. Further annexures document correspondence between solicitors and the Independent Children’s Lawyer regarding preparation of the Joint Letter of Instruction to the Single Expert, including disputed document exclusions. The stated purpose is to ensure transparency, procedural fairness, and an accurate evidentiary foundation for assessment of parenting capacity and the children’s best interests.
Avatar
This document contains certified hair drug test results for Stephen Christopher Cooke, conducted by Psychemedics Corporation and administered in Australia by Brassets Group / AWDTS under forensic chain-of-custody standards. The hair sample was collected on 25 September 2024, received by the laboratory on 1 October 2024, and released on 3 October 2024. The test used head hair measuring 0–3.9 cm, representing an approximate three-month detection window based on average hair growth of 1.3 cm per month. The test panel screened for cocaine, opioids (including heroin and prescription opiates), amphetamines, methamphetamine, MDMA/MDA/MDEA, phencyclidine (PCP), and cannabinoids (THC). Initial immunoassay screening was followed by confirmatory mass spectrometry (MS/MS) where required. All substances tested returned NEGATIVE results, except for marijuana (THC). The confirmation analysis detected Delta-9 Carboxy-THC at 4.69 ng/10 mg, exceeding the confirmation cutoff of 2 ng/10 mg, resulting in a confirmed positive for cannabis exposure only. No other illicit or prescription drugs were detected. The report explains that hair testing reflects repeated ingestion over time, not impairment or exact frequency of use. Quantity, timing, or number of uses cannot be precisely determined. Sectional testing or toxicologist interpretation may be obtained if required. Psychemedics hair testing is widely used by courts, employers, and government agencies and has been routinely admitted in legal proceedings. The methodology includes extensive washing, metabolite analysis, and strict cutoff thresholds to eliminate environmental contamination or passive exposure. The document forms Annexures A and B to the sworn affidavit of Stephen Christopher Cooke.
3:19 PM
This bundle contains psychiatrist correspondence from ATUNE by Dr Suraiya Moisey (FRANZCP) to Stephen Cooke’s GPs (Dr Alexander Amory / Dr Alexander Tonkin), covering appointments from Oct 2023 to Oct 2024. Key points: Primary diagnosis: ADHD (inattentive type) with secondary anxiety/Cluster C traits; no major mood disorder identified. Medication management: Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine) initially 20mg, later increased to 30mg, with dexamphetamine 5mg as top-up (sometimes 1–2 daily depending on tasks). Medication reported to improve focus, clarity, prioritising, and executive functioning; minor side effects noted (e.g., dry mouth, appetite change). Substance use: History notes no substance abuse concerns; past brief cannabis use in university and prior periods of alcohol use for social anxiety, but alcohol not currently a concern. In the Oct 23, 2024 letter, the psychiatrist states she has never had concerns of drug/alcohol misuse, and that a positive amphetamine result on a self-initiated test would align with prescribed stimulants. Psychosocial stressors: Ongoing family law proceedings, separation/divorce conflict, reduced time with children under interim orders, housing/property tasks, employment/study pressures. Despite this, Stephen is described as resilient, engaged in self-care (sleep, diet, exercise), church/community involvement, and maintaining stable mental state. Legal admin: Psychiatrist notes receipt of a subpoena for medical records and intention to comply. Functioning goals: Recommended part-time work to maintain stability, allow certifications/study, and remain available for his two boys.
Avatar
An email from “Expert Report in the matter of Cooke S and Cooke H (P)NCC3896/2023”, dated Tue, 25 Mar 2025 (2:40 AM). The sender advises “Dear Colleagues and Mr Cooke” and states that the Expert Report in the matter is attached and was prepared by Drew Cowen. The email also says an expert affidavit is attached, and that it has been signed and witnessed under s14G of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000. It notes the report is being provided to both parties at the same time pursuant to Rule 7.07(2) of the FCFCOA (Family Law) Rules 2021, and that it is for the applicant to file pursuant to Rule 7.07(4). It further states the report has not been provided to the Court. Signed off by Joy Chan, Administrative Manager, with phone 02 9221 1111. There is one PDF attachment shown: “Cooke w Aff.pdf”.
6:05 PM
This document contains an affidavit and Single Expert Report prepared for family law proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Newcastle, file number NCC3896/2023. Drew Cowen, Consultant Psychologist, was appointed as the Single Expert Witness by court order dated 15 October 2024. The affidavit confirms his appointment and annexes the report, curriculum vitae and joint letter of instruction. The Single Expert Report dated 21 March 2025 is based on court documents, affidavits from both parents, extensive subpoenaed medical, psychological, school and allied health records, interviews with both parents and both children, direct observations, and telephone consultations with treating professionals. NSW Police records were not provided. The report outlines the family history, separation in November 2023, interim parenting arrangements and progression of proceedings. It assesses each parent’s mental health, functioning and parenting capacity, including the father’s ADHD diagnosis and treatment and the mother’s engagement in psychological services. The children’s developmental and emotional needs are assessed. Christian is described as having ADHD, learning difficulties and emotional dysregulation with significant focus on video gaming. Joshua is described as academically capable but emotionally affected by parental conflict. The report reviews cross-allegations of family violence, noting they remain untested, and characterises the conflict as situational couple violence of low-level potency. It identifies concerns regarding the children’s exposure to adult conflict and provides recommendations regarding parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, therapeutic support, parenting programs and communication protocols.
Avatar
This email chain records the court-ordered appointment of Drew Cowen as Single Expert Witness following the Directions Hearing before Judicial Registrar Furner. It includes circulation of the revised joint letter of appointment, confirmation both parties would be copied to The Relationspace, payment of the ordered expert fee by Mr Cooke, execution of the joint letter, and confirmation of submission. It also includes Mr Cooke’s written response noting he was not provided opportunity to contribute to the letter’s content, confirming compliance with the court’s directions and costs order, and requesting confirmation once the final email to The Relationspace had been sent.
6:18 PM
This document is a draft joint letter of instruction prepared following the Directions Hearing on 15 October 2024. It was circulated to the parties for review and signature prior to submission to The Relationspace. The draft sets out the proposed appointment of Drew Cowen as Single Expert Witness in matter NCC3896/2023, identifies the parties and children, outlines the applicable Family Law Rules, lists documents and subpoena material intended to be provided, and specifies reporting requirements, communication protocols, and fee arrangements. The letter had not yet been finalised or issued to the expert at the time of circulation and required execution by both parties before becoming operative.
Avatar
This email chain records service of a sealed Application in a Proceeding dated 12 March 2025 and the Affidavit of Heather Anne Cooke sealed 11 March 2025. It confirms the matter was listed for mention before Judge Betts on 7 April 2025, with an intention to seek interim orders in accordance with the filed application. Subsequent correspondence from the Independent Children’s Lawyer requests consent to appear electronically on 7 April 2025 and proposes a meeting with the children at the Newcastle Registry on 31 March 2025. The Respondent Mother’s solicitors confirm their client’s consent to both dates. Final correspondence confirms receipt and agreement by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
6:38 PM
This document is an affidavit filed by Heather Anne Cooke in matter NCC3896/2023, transaction reference FAM4876493, sealed on 11 March 2025 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The affidavit sets out background information regarding the parties, marriage, separation, divorce finalised on 5 March 2025, and the two children, Christian Finn Cooke (born 20 August 2014) and Joshua Finn Cooke (born 27 January 2017). The affidavit references interim parenting orders made on 23 April 2024 providing for the children to live with the mother and spend defined time with the father during school terms and holidays. The affidavit then describes events occurring between 7 and 8 March 2025, including the father’s failure to collect the children from school, messages exchanged via OurFamilyWizard, police welfare checks initiated by the mother, involvement of NSW and Queensland Police, the father being located in Queensland, admission to Goondiwindi Hospital, subsequent absconding, and later admission to Toowoomba Hospital. The affidavit further outlines communications with police regarding the location of the father’s vehicle and information received from hospital staff regarding his admission status as at 11 March 2025. The deponent states concerns regarding the children’s safety and welfare and seeks suspension of specific interim parenting and communication orders pending further court order. The affidavit annexes copies of the OurFamilyWizard message exchanges dated 7 March 2025 and was sworn by the deponent on 11 March 2025 before solicitor Olivia Shedden.
6:42 PM
This document is an Application in a Proceeding filed in matter NCC3896/2023, transaction reference FAM4876493, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Newcastle. The application was filed on 11 March 2025 and sealed on 12 March 2025. The matter is listed before Judge Betts for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing at 2:30 pm on 7 April 2025. The application is filed by Heather Anne Cooke as Applicant and was prepared by Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers. The Respondent is Stephen Christopher Cooke. The Independent Children’s Lawyer is Jo Markham of JLM Family Lawyers. The application seeks urgent interlocutory parenting orders. It requests that service timeframes be dispensed with and that the application be listed on an urgent basis. The orders sought include suspension of Orders 2, 6 and 9 of the interim parenting orders made on 23 April 2024. The application further seeks injunctive relief pursuant to section 68B of the Family Law Act 1975, restraining the Respondent Father from approaching within 100 metres of the Applicant Mother’s residence, the children’s school, and from contacting or approaching the children by any means pending further court order. The application certifies that the orders sought are supported by evidence and is signed by the Applicant’s solicitor.
Avatar
This email records service by the Applicant Father, Stephen Christopher Cooke, of court documents in matter NCC3896/2023. The email attaches an Application in a Proceeding filed on 7 November 2024, a supporting affidavit, and Orders dated 14 November 2024. The email notes a delay in service and explains that the Applicant Father did not receive notification that the orders requiring service had been published on the Commonwealth Courts Portal and only became aware of them at a later date. The Applicant Father acknowledges responsibility to monitor the portal going forward, apologises for the delay, and confirms his availability to address any concerns or queries.
6:57 PM
This document comprises orders made on 14 November 2024 in matter NCC3896/2023 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Newcastle, by Judicial Registrar Furner, determined in chambers without appearances. The Court ordered that the Applicant Father serve the Application in a Proceeding filed on 7 November 2024 on the Respondent Mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer by 4:00 pm on 21 November 2024. The Respondent Mother was ordered, within 28 days of service, to file and serve a Response identifying the interim orders sought and a supporting affidavit. All outstanding applications were adjourned to 18 December 2024 at 12:00 pm for a directions hearing to be conducted electronically. The Court further directed all parties to comply with Rule 12.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 prior to the next and all subsequent court events. The orders include standard court notes regarding access to electronic hearing links, restrictions on publication under section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975, and provisions concerning cross-examination limitations where allegations of family violence are raised, including reference to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme.
6:57 PM
This document is an Application in a Proceeding filed by Stephen Christopher Cooke in matter NCC3896/2023 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Newcastle. The application was filed on 7 November 2024 and sealed on 14 November 2024 under transaction reference FAM4663145. The application seeks parenting orders and does not request urgent consideration. The Applicant is self-represented. The Respondent is Heather Anne Cooke. The matter was listed before Judicial Registrar Furner for a Directions Hearing to be conducted by web conference on 18 December 2024 at 12:00 pm. The application records the parties’ identifying details, addresses for service, and confirms the proceeding relates solely to parenting matters. The document forms the initiating application that subsequently gave rise to service obligations and procedural orders made on 14 November 2024.
7:04 PM
This affidavit was filed by the Applicant Father in support of an application to vary orders made on 15 October 2024. The affidavit seeks permission for the Applicant to provide his affidavits and annexures directly to the Family Report Writer, including full medical records obtained under his right of access, which he states align with subpoenaed material. The affidavit raises concerns regarding the flow of information to the Single Expert, noting that current orders place responsibility for provision of documents primarily with the Respondent’s solicitors, creating risk of omission. It identifies discrepancies between subpoenas marked “awaiting production” and subpoenas that had produced material but for which leave had not been granted. The affidavit addresses the drafting of the joint letter of instruction, noting it remained a draft at the time, and records disagreement regarding exclusion of documents proposed by the Applicant, including property orders. The Applicant seeks amendment of an existing order referencing child protection authorities, citing concern for emotional impact on the children. The affidavit also seeks leave to exceed annexure limits to include material relating to housing stability and a psychological report concerning the children. Extensive medical annexures are included, documenting ADHD diagnosis, prescribed treatment, absence of substance misuse concerns, and ongoing psychiatric management.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 29/01/2026 7:08 PM
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 29/01/2026 7:51 PM
Avatar
15 September 2025 – ICL Meeting Confirmation Email correspondence confirms the Independent Children’s Lawyer requested and conducted a meeting with the children on 15 September 2025 in Newcastle. JLM Family Lawyers later confirmed in writing that the meeting occurred as scheduled. No reference is made to overseas residence or relocation. (edited)
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 29/01/2026 8:08 PM
Avatar
Affidavit by Stephen Christopher Cooke (sealed 7 Nov 2024) supporting an application to vary the orders made 15 Oct 2024. Seeks leave to provide his affidavit(s) and annexures directly to the Family Report Writer, including complete Atune Health Centre and Chromis Occupational Medicine records and drug/alcohol testing context, to demonstrate stable mental health and parenting capacity. Seeks inclusion of the 13 Sep 2024 property settlement orders as evidence of financial stability. Raises concern that current arrangements place the flow of material to the expert largely in the hands of the Respondent’s legal team, creating a risk of omission and impacting objectivity. Identifies an alleged subpoena discrepancy: the Respondent’s Atune subpoena is marked “awaiting production” yet leave is granted, while his Atune/Chromis subpoenas have produced documents but have no leave. Notes the Respondent sought Atune drug/alcohol results despite testing being arranged via Chromis. Requests amendment to Order 11 to remove child protection authority reference to reduce distress to the children, following allegations he denies. Also seeks leave for additional annexures, including a routine property inspection report and material raising concerns about the effects of Christian’s ADHD medication on empathy/emotional expression.
Avatar
This affidavit is filed by Stephen Christopher Cooke in support of parenting proceedings. It explains the rationale for self-representation to ensure key evidence was properly presented, particularly subpoenaed medical and drug and alcohol testing material relevant to parenting capacity. The affidavit confirms a formal ADHD diagnosis, prescribed stimulant medication, and consistent compliance with treatment. Independent hair, urine and alcohol testing from Chromis Occupational Medicine and Psychemedics demonstrates no illicit substance use or alcohol misuse, with any amphetamine detections consistent with prescribed medication only. Medical evidence confirms psychological stability and positive treatment outcomes. The affidavit addresses parenting practices, including online safety, routines, schooling engagement, and emotional support for the children. It outlines concerns regarding the impact of ADHD medication timing on Christian’s emotional expression and the need for appropriate review. School reports confirm stable attendance, sound academic progress and positive behaviour for both children. Evidence is also provided of suitable housing, parenting education completion, community support, and ongoing commitment to a balanced 50/50 shared-care arrangement in the children’s best interests
Avatar
On 18 December 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made orders in matter NCC3896/2023 following a directions hearing conducted by Webex, with appearances by the Applicant Father (self-represented), the Respondent Mother (represented), and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The Court permitted the Applicant to provide the property settlement orders dated 13 September 2024 to the Single Expert for consideration in preparation of the Family Report and extended the timeframe for compliance with earlier Single Expert orders to 23 December 2024. The Application in a Proceeding filed by the Applicant on 7 November 2024 was otherwise dismissed. Costs were ordered against the Applicant in the fixed sums of $465.00 payable to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and $2,435.81 payable to the Respondent. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was granted liberty to re-list the matter for procedural directions on seven days’ notice if required. The previously listed Compliance and Readiness Hearing was vacated and the matter was relisted for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing on 7 April 2025 before Judge Betts. Directions were made requiring the parties to file amended applications or responses (if required), disclosure undertakings, and Certificates of Readiness, and to confer prior to the hearing regarding issues, witnesses, expert evidence, and trial planning. The Court noted the Applicant’s objection to provision of the Single Expert Report to a child protection authority and included standard case-management and family-violence procedural notices.
9:13 PM
On 14 November 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made procedural orders in chambers in matter NCC3896/2023, without the need for appearances. The Court directed that the Applicant Father serve the Application in a Proceeding filed on 7 November 2024 on the Respondent Mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer by 21 November 2024. The Respondent was ordered, within 28 days of service, to file and serve a Response to the Application setting out the interim orders sought, together with a supporting affidavit. All outstanding applications were adjourned to 18 December 2024 for a directions hearing to be conducted electronically. The parties were directed to comply with Rule 12.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 prior to future court events. The orders also include standard court notices regarding electronic hearings, restrictions on publication under section 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975, and procedural guidance concerning allegations of family violence and limits on personal cross-examination under sections 102NA–102NB.
9:15 PM
On 15 October 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made consent orders in matter NCC3896/2023 following a hearing conducted by Microsoft Teams, with appearances by the Applicant Father (self-represented), the Respondent Mother (represented), and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The Court appointed Mr Drew Cowen, Psychologist, as the Single Expert to prepare a Family Report in relation to the children, Christian Finn Cooke and Joshua Finn Cooke. The parties were ordered to jointly finalise and provide a letter of instruction to the Single Expert within 21 days, addressing matters under sections 60CC, 61DA and 65DAA of the Family Law Act 1975, the children’s views, the impact of proceedings on the children, and any other relevant matters. Each party was required to provide to the Single Expert copies of documents they had filed. The parties were prohibited from providing any additional documents except court orders, filed material, subpoenaed documents, documents requested by the expert, or those included in the joint letter of instruction. Orders were made requiring the parties and children to attend interviews as directed by the Single Expert. The expert was authorised to communicate with the children’s treating professionals and school personnel. The parties were to share the costs of the Single Expert equally. The Court granted leave for the Respondent’s solicitor to provide subpoenaed material to the Single Expert if requested and granted the Applicant leave to issue subpoenas to Chromis Occupational Medicine and Atune Psychology. The proceedings were listed for a Compliance and Readiness Hearing on 3 February 2025 before Judge Betts, with directions for amended applications or responses, disclosure undertakings, Certificates of Readiness, and pre-hearing conferencing. The Court noted that an application submitted by the Applicant on 15 October 2024 was rejected for filing due to being incorrectly titled as an Application in a Proceeding when it was a Notice of Address for Service. Standard statutory notices regarding publication restrictions and family-violence cross-examination provisions were included.
9:16 PM
On 13 September 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made final consent property orders in matter NCC3896/2023 without the need for appearances. The Court ordered distribution of the net proceeds of sale from the former matrimonial property at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether, with $250,306.00 paid to the Applicant Father and the balance to the Respondent Mother. The 2015 Honda CR-V was to be transferred to the Applicant, who became solely responsible for all associated costs and liabilities. The orders finalised division of assets and liabilities between the parties. The Applicant retained his investment portfolio, IT equipment, cryptocurrency interests, bank accounts, superannuation, and personal property in his possession. The Respondent retained her Southport property, associated mortgage and offset account, Audi vehicle, business interests, trust interests, Telstra shares, bank accounts, and superannuation. Each party was to assume responsibility for liabilities held in their sole names and indemnify the other accordingly. Provisions were included allowing the Court Registrar to execute documents if either party failed to comply. All financial and spousal maintenance applications were dismissed on a final basis, with each party bearing their own legal costs. The interim financial hearing listed for 27 September 2024 was vacated. The parenting proceedings were expressly preserved and remained listed separately. The Court noted the orders were intended to finally determine the parties’ financial relationship pursuant to section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975.
9:17 PM
On 23 August 2024, Senior Judicial Registrar Rice made procedural orders in chambers in matter NCC3896/2023, without appearances by the parties. The Court varied Order 2 made on 8 August 2024 to amend the scheduling of the confidential Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Conference. The parties and their legal representatives were directed to attend Part 1 of the FDR Conference on 13 September 2024 at revised times, with the Applicant to attend at 10:00am AEST and the Respondent at 10:45am AEST. Unless otherwise directed by the Registrar conducting the conference, the Independent Children’s Lawyer was excused from attendance at Part 1 of the FDR Conference. The Court noted that the original FDR listing had been reallocated due to changes in Registrar availability and that all other existing orders relating to the confidential FDR Conference remained in force. Standard family-violence procedural notices were included.
9:18 PM
On 8 August 2024, Senior Judicial Registrar Rice made procedural orders in chambers in matter NCC3896/2023, without the need for appearances by the parties. The Court directed that the parties and their legal representatives attend a full-day confidential Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Conference commencing at 9:00am AEST on 18 September 2024, pursuant to earlier orders made on 23 July 2024. The parties were also ordered to attend Part 1 of the FDR Conference on 13 September 2024, with the Applicant to attend at 3:00pm AEST and the Respondent at 3:45pm AEST. Unless otherwise directed, the Independent Children’s Lawyer was excused from attendance at Part 1. Part 1 of the FDR Conference was to occur by telephone. Each party was required, within seven days, to provide the Court with their best contact telephone number. By 6 September 2024, the parties were required to complete disclosure obligations, file any relevant private expert reports, and provide the Court and the other party with a single collated bundle including a confidential outline of case, detailed minute of orders sought, details of any family violence orders, and relevant supporting documents. The Registrar was granted discretion to vacate the FDR Conference if a party failed to attend Part 1 or if the conference was no longer considered appropriate. The Court noted cost-disclosure obligations on legal representatives and confirmed that all materials prepared for the FDR Conference were confidential and without prejudice. Standard family-violence procedural notices were included.
9:19 PM
The Court made consent orders in the parenting and property proceedings. Remaining sale funds were to be held jointly in the Applicant’s solicitor’s trust account. A Single Expert psychologist (Drew Cowen) was appointed to prepare a report regarding the children’s welfare, relationships, parenting capacity, family violence impacts, and any risk of harm. An Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) was appointed due to high conflict and dispute about the children’s primary residence. Legal Aid NSW was requested to arrange representation, with parties required to provide all relevant material to the ICL. The matter was referred to court-based Family Dispute Resolution (parenting and property), to occur in two confidential parts. An interim defended hearing was listed for 27 September 2024, with strict filing and evidence requirements imposed. All remaining applications were adjourned to 15 October 2024 for mention.
9:21 PM
The Court formally discontinued and dismissed the Application in a Proceeding filed on 31 May 2024, following the filing of a Notice of Discontinuance on 15 July 2024. An interim order made on 9 July 2024 was discharged. The substantive matter remained listed for a directions hearing on 23 July 2024.
9:21 PM
The Court made procedural directions only. The Respondent was required to file a Response and supporting affidavit by 19 July 2024 setting out the interim orders sought. The matter remained listed for a Directions Hearing on 23 July 2024 at 11:30am before Judicial Registrar Furner. The Court noted that the Merewether property had an accepted offer, contracts not yet exchanged, and that the Respondent was only pursuing limited interim orders from the 31 May 2024 application. No substantive parenting or final orders were made.
9:22 PM
Summary — Orders dated 3 May 2024 The Court granted an administrative adjournment by consent. The Directions Hearing listed for 6 May 2024 was vacated. All outstanding applications were adjourned to 9 July 2024 at 11:30am before Judicial Registrar Furner for mention by electronic hearing. The adjournment was made because the parties were awaiting a Joint Expert Report, after which a mediation was to be scheduled in June 2024. No substantive parenting or financial orders were made.
9:23 PM
On 23 April 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Coffs Harbour made interim parenting orders by consent between Stephen Christopher Cooke and Heather Anne Cooke. The children, Christian Finn Cooke (born 20 August 2014) and Joshua Finn Cooke (born 27 January 2017), are to live with the mother. The children are to spend time with the father as agreed, or failing agreement, on a fortnightly school-term cycle involving extended weekend and mid-week time, with structured holiday and Christmas arrangements alternating by year. Changeovers are to occur at school or otherwise at the Shell Service Station in Merewether. All parental communication must be in writing except in emergencies. The parent caring for the children must facilitate phone contact with the other parent at the children’s request. Both parents are restrained from excessive alcohol consumption, denigrating the other parent, discussing proceedings with the children, or using physical punishment. Special arrangements apply for Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and birthdays. All outstanding interim applications were dismissed.
9:25 PM
On 19 April 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle made procedural orders on its own motion before Judicial Registrar Furner. The mention listed for 22 April 2024 was vacated and all outstanding applications were administratively adjourned to 6 May 2024 at 2:30pm for mention by electronic hearing. The parties were directed to comply with Rule 12.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 prior to the next and all subsequent court events, and were to be contacted by chambers with hearing access details. The Court noted that the docket registrar mention would occur after the anticipated delivery of the interim judgment on 23 April 2024, reminded the parties of the publication restrictions under section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975, and highlighted the application of family violence cross-examination provisions where relevant.
9:26 PM
On 11 April 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle, before Judge Carty, made interim property orders by consent between Stephen Christopher Cooke and Heather Anne Cooke. The Court ordered the sale of the former matrimonial property at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether NSW, to be listed by 11 July 2024 under detailed private treaty and auction fallback provisions. Pending sale, the Applicant Father was granted exclusive occupancy, while the Respondent Mother was to meet all property outgoings. Upon settlement, sale proceeds were to be applied to costs and mortgage discharge, followed by interim property distributions of $200,000 to each party, with the balance held in trust. The Applicant was granted use of the 2015 Honda CR-V, with registration and insurance to be paid by the Respondent. The Respondent was further ordered to pay $50,000 in litigation funding within seven days and interim spousal maintenance of $1,200 per week commencing 12 April 2024 until sale of the property or the Applicant obtaining employment. Orders were also made for a single expert valuation of the Como Crescent property in Queensland, mediation was anticipated within three months, all extant interim financial applications were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
9:31 PM
On 28 March 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle, before Judge Carty, made procedural orders in chambers by consent. Pursuant to Rule 1.31 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, the Court dispensed with the requirements of Rule 2.02 item 4 in relation to the interim hearing scheduled for 11 April 2024. Each party was granted leave to rely upon an affidavit not exceeding fifteen pages and ten annexures for the purposes of that interim hearing.
9:32 PM
On 26 March 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle, before Judicial Registrar Furner, made interim protective procedural orders by consent in chambers. The Court restrained both parties from inspecting any material produced pursuant to subpoena and restrained the parties’ legal representatives from disclosing the Respondent’s residential address or the area in which she resides to the Applicant. The Court noted that the orders were made without prejudice to the Applicant and at the request of the Respondent for her personal protection pursuant to section 114(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975. The Court further reiterated the statutory publication restrictions under section 121 of the Act and the potential application of family violence cross-examination provisions under section 102NA.
9:32 PM
On 7 March 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle, before Judicial Registrar Furner, made procedural orders in chambers on the Court’s own motion concerning the release of the Single Expert Report of Mr Drew Cowen, Consultant Psychologist, dated 29 February 2024. Pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021, the Court authorised the provision of the report to the parties, their legal representatives, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, relevant legal assistance authorities, children’s courts, prescribed child welfare authorities, and any legal dispute resolution convenor. The Court ordered that, without further permission, the report must not be released to any other person. It was noted that the report may not yet have been admitted into evidence and, if admitted, would form only part of the evidence in the proceedings. The Court also reiterated the confidentiality requirements under section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 and the potential application of statutory cross-examination restrictions where allegations of family violence exist.
9:34 PM
On 29 January 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle, before Judicial Registrar Furner, made extensive interim procedural and case-management orders by consent. The Court directed comprehensive financial disclosure by both parties, including tax records, bank statements, cryptocurrency holdings and detailed tracing of funds withdrawn by the Respondent in November 2023. A Single Expert was appointed to prepare a child impact report concerning Christian and Joshua Cooke, with broad powers to interview the parties, children and relevant professionals and inspect subpoena material. The Respondent was ordered to meet the expert costs from joint funds. The interim defended hearing was listed before Judge Carty on 11 April 2024 with strict directions governing affidavits, filing limits, tender bundles and subpoena use. Non-compliance warnings were issued. All outstanding applications were adjourned to 22 April 2024 for mention. The Court noted the dispute regarding $368,787 withdrawn by the Respondent and reiterated confidentiality and family-violence procedural safeguards.
9:39 PM
This affidavit is filed by Stephen Christopher Cooke in support of his parenting application concerning the care and welfare of the parties’ two children, Christian (born 20 August 2014) and Joshua (born 27 January 2017). The Applicant explains his decision to self-represent due to prior procedural delays and the need to ensure key evidence was properly before the Court, including drug and alcohol testing results and medical material. The affidavit confirms the Applicant’s ongoing compliance with all interim orders. Multiple hair and urine drug and alcohol tests conducted between November 2023 and September 2024 demonstrate negative results for illicit substances and alcohol, with only prescribed ADHD medication detected. Treating psychiatrist Dr Suraiya Moisey confirms the Applicant’s ADHD diagnosis, treatment compliance, clinical stability, and absence of substance misuse or significant mental health comorbidities. The Applicant outlines his stable housing, supported by a positive rental inspection report, completion of Triple P parenting programs, and active involvement in the children’s education, routines, and extracurricular activities. School reports annexed demonstrate both children’s consistent attendance, academic progress, and positive engagement. The affidavit addresses Christian’s ADHD, learning disorders, emotional regulation, and the impact of medication, supported by an independent psychological assessment. The Applicant describes strategies used to support screen safety, emotional wellbeing, sleep routines, and educational development. The Applicant details the children’s strong relationship with him, their expressed desire for increased time together, and the emotional impact of limited contact. He affirms his commitment to cooperative co-parenting and submits that a 50/50 shared care arrangement is in the children’s best interests, providing stability, consistency, and continuity of care.
9:42 PM
The Applicant files this Costs Notice pursuant to Rule 12.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. Legal costs incurred to date total approximately $205,421 inclusive of GST, comprising $127,000 in fees previously billed and paid to Clarity Lawyers, $66,421 in billed fees with Ramsden Family Law (of which $60,767.46 has been paid and $5,653.73 remains outstanding), and approximately $12,000 in unbilled work in progress. Estimated future legal costs, should the matter proceed through mention, compliance hearings and final hearing, are approximately $77,040 inclusive of GST, including solicitor and counsel preparation, trial attendance, court fees, and anticipated incidental disbursements such as potential Independent Children’s Lawyer contributions and family report fees. Approximately $91,000 has been sourced from litigation funder JustFund, and $265,681.10 is currently held in trust on behalf of both parties following the sale of the former matrimonial home, pending distribution pursuant to proposed consent orders.
9:45 PM
The Applicant files this Costs Notice pursuant to clause 6.35 of the Central Practice Direction. Legal costs incurred to date total approximately $161,407, comprising $127,000 billed and paid to former solicitors Clarity Lawyers and $34,407 billed and paid to Ramsdens. Estimated future legal costs include approximately $17,000 incurred up to and including the directions hearings in July 2024, a further $5,500 for preparation and attendance at the directions hearing on 23 July 2024, $1,500 for preparation and attendance at the Readiness and Compliance Hearing, and approximately $33,000 for preparation for final hearing in relation to parenting, property and spousal maintenance. Estimated trial attendance costs include solicitors’ attendance of approximately $16,500 for a three-day hearing and barristers’ preparation and attendance estimated at $48,000. Based on an estimated three-day final hearing, total anticipated future costs are approximately $121,500, excluding mediation costs. Additional disbursements may include court setting-down fees, potential family report fees, and contributions toward an Independent Children’s Lawyer if appointed.
9:48 PM
On 17 May 2024, Clarity Lawyers, through solicitor Jacqueline Ann Turner, filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act pursuant to Rule 3.10 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 in proceedings NCC3896/2023. The notice formally recorded that Clarity Lawyers no longer acted for the Applicant, Stephen Christopher Cooke. The Court was advised of the Applicant’s last known residential address, telephone number and email address, and the Applicant was provided with a Notice of Address for Service to complete in order to continue the proceedings as a self-represented litigant. The notice outlined the Applicant’s obligation to maintain a current address for service in Australia and warned that failure to do so could result in service being effected at his last known address. The documents identified the next court event as a Directions Hearing listed for 9 July 2024 at 11:30am before Judicial Registrar Furner. The Notice was sealed by the Court on 24 May 2024.
9:51 PM
The Respondent filed a Case Outline for the interim hearing on 11 April 2024 seeking interim parenting, property and financial orders. The Respondent proposes the children continue to live with her and spend reduced time with the Applicant, opposing the Applicant’s proposal that the children live primarily with him. The Respondent relies on the Child Impact Report of Drew Cowen dated 29 February 2024 and submits that a change in primary residence would be destabilising, particularly having regard to the eldest child’s ADHD diagnosis. The Respondent seeks the interim sale of the former matrimonial home with the Applicant to have exclusive occupancy pending sale, opposes additional periodic spousal maintenance, agrees to vehicle-related maintenance only, opposes injunctions concerning funds, and submits that any interim property distribution should be limited to $30,000.
9:52 PM
This interim hearing concerns competing parenting and financial applications. The Applicant Father seeks orders that the children live with him, with time to the Respondent Mother, together with spousal maintenance, exclusive occupation of the former matrimonial home, use of the Honda CR-V, litigation funding, and injunctive relief in relation to joint funds withdrawn by the Respondent at separation. The Respondent opposes these orders and seeks that the children live with her with reduced time to the Applicant, that the former matrimonial home be sold, that interim spousal maintenance be limited, and that the Respondent retain control of the withdrawn funds. The Court is required to determine interim parenting arrangements, spousal maintenance, interim property issues, litigation funding, and whether injunctive relief should be granted.
9:56 PM
The Respondent Mother seeks parenting orders that the children live with her, with the Father spending time each Thursday after school and on alternate weekends, plus half of school holidays, with defined special-day arrangements and changeovers at school or an agreed public location. She seeks written-only parent communication, phone contact facilitated for the children, and restraints including no alcohol for the Father within 12 hours before/during care, non-denigration, no discussion of proceedings in front of the children, and no physical punishment. For property, the Respondent seeks orders dealing with the parties’ real property, vehicles, and joint accounts, including steps to refinance/remove the Applicant from the home loan, allocation of specific assets between the parties, closure of joint bank accounts with equal division of balances, and an overall 50/50 net division of assets (including superannuation). On an interim basis, she seeks exclusive occupancy arrangements, immediate sale processes for the Morgan Street property (with detailed agent/price/auction mechanics if not sold), continued payment of outgoings pending sale, and litigation funding to the Applicant of $30,000 as partial property settlement.
10:02 PM
The Applicant Father states that the parties were married in September 2012 and separated in November 2023 after a long relationship in which he was the children’s primary caregiver and homemaker. He says he relinquished his employment and relocated internationally to support the Respondent Mother’s medical career, remaining the primary carer for both children throughout the relationship. He alleges that following separation, the Respondent unilaterally removed the children from the former matrimonial home without his consent, restricted his time with them, and withheld their location. He raises concerns regarding the children’s emotional wellbeing, including separation anxiety, exposure to adult conflict, inappropriate communications made to the children, and incidents of physical discipline and excessive alcohol consumption by the Respondent. The Applicant asserts he has maintained consistent involvement in the children’s education, medical care, routines, extracurricular activities, and therapeutic support, supported by documentary evidence and school records. He denies allegations made against him regarding alcohol misuse, harassment, parenting capacity, and financial irresponsibility. In relation to property, the Applicant states he is financially dependent on the Respondent, has not been in the workforce for approximately eight years due to caregiving responsibilities, and lacks independent income. He alleges the Respondent exercised sole control over finances, removed substantial joint funds without consent, failed to provide full disclosure, and pressured him to sign documents encumbering joint assets for investments solely in her name. The Applicant seeks interim parenting, financial, and property orders, including the return of funds removed from joint accounts, spousal maintenance, litigation funding, and arrangements he says best support the children’s stability, safety, and best interests.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 29/01/2026 10:10 PM
Avatar
Google Timeline data extracted from the account stevecooke.c@gmail.com records the Applicant Father’s consistent day-to-day care of the children throughout 2023. The data shows regular school drop-offs and collections from Merewether Heights Public School, attendance at learning support sessions at LAB Learning Clinic, and transport to and supervision of the children’s extracurricular and therapeutic activities including music lessons, swimming, tennis, ice skating, and paediatric appointments. These entries occur predominantly before and after school hours and across weekdays, demonstrating the Applicant’s ongoing responsibility for the children’s routine care, education support, therapy attendance, and after-school supervision during the relevant period.
Avatar
The Walshs Finance “Game Plan” dated 6 November 2023 relied on financial information that materially overstated Stephen Cooke’s assets, including listing the Praemium managed fund at approximately $274,986, which was around 150% higher than its actual value at the time. This inflated asset position was then used within the lender assessment to calculate borrowing capacity, total assets of approximately $1.01 million, total securities of $3.38 million, and an estimated LVR of 63.78%, forming the basis of the proposed $1,050,000 investment loan over 35 years with a 5-year interest-only period. The document therefore reflects a lending scenario built on incorrect asset data, which materially affected serviceability, surplus calculations, and the Approval-in-Principle modelling presented by Walshs Finance prior to the proposal being declined by Stephen on 7 November 2023. https://walshs.com.au/ (edited)
Walshs is one of South East Queensland’s leading accounting and financial planning firms for businesses, individuals and medical professionals.
Avatar
On 12 September 2024, solicitors for the Applicant Father, Ramsden Family Law, wrote to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia confirming that the parties had reached and signed final property orders in matter NCC3896/2023. The correspondence, copied to the Respondent Mother’s solicitors and the Chambers of Senior Judicial Registrar Kelly, advised that the parties were listed for a Part 1 DRC-P the following day and requested that the Court make the agreed property orders in Chambers. The email confirmed that parenting issues remained outstanding.
11:57 PM
On 11 September 2024, Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers wrote to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia confirming that the parties had reached a final agreement resolving all property and spousal maintenance matters in proceeding NCC3896/2023. The correspondence advised that the proposed Minute of Consent Orders had been executed by both parties and jointly requested that Judicial Registrar Furner consider making the orders in Chambers. The letter confirmed that the property settlement would finalise all financial proceedings, render the Interim Hearing listed for 27 September 2024 unnecessary, and that the matter should proceed only in relation to unresolved parenting issues, including the scheduled Family Dispute Resolution before Senior Judicial Registrar Kelly.
12:01 AM
On 2–3 September 2024, the parties executed final consent property orders in proceeding NCC3896/2023, which were subsequently made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) at Newcastle pursuant to Part 10.4 of the Family Law Rules. The orders finally determined all property and financial matters between the parties, including distribution of the net sale proceeds of 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether, transfer of the 2015 Honda CR-V to the Applicant, and confirmation that each party retained their respective real estate, investments, bank accounts, businesses, superannuation, and personal property. The orders expressly recorded that they were intended to finally determine the parties’ financial relationship under section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975, with each party indemnifying the other for liabilities in their sole name and each bearing their own legal costs.
12:02 AM
On 11 September 2024, Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers wrote to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia confirming that the parties had reached a final agreement resolving all property settlement and spousal maintenance matters in proceeding NCC3896/2023. The correspondence jointly requested that Judicial Registrar Furner make the enclosed Minute of Consent Orders in Chambers, noting that the agreement rendered the interim hearing listed for 27 September 2024 unnecessary. The letter confirmed that while property and spousal maintenance proceedings were finalised by consent, parenting issues remained unresolved and were to continue through the scheduled Family Dispute Resolution process and subsequent directions hearing if required.
12:06 AM
By consent pursuant to Part 10.4 of the Family Law Rules, final property orders were made in proceeding NCC3896/2023, formally resolving all financial matters between the parties. The orders confirmed distribution of the net sale proceeds of 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether, with $250,306 paid to the Applicant and the balance to the Respondent, transfer of the 2015 Honda CR-V to the Applicant, and allocation of all remaining assets, liabilities, businesses, investments, bank accounts and superannuation to each party respectively. The orders included mutual indemnities for liabilities held in sole names, enforcement provisions under section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975, and a costs order that each party bear their own legal costs. The notations expressly recorded that the orders were intended to finally determine the parties’ financial relationship pursuant to section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975.
12:11 AM
On 13 September 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made final property orders by consent in chambers in proceeding NCC3896/2023. The orders finalised all financial and spousal maintenance matters, including distribution of the net sale proceeds of 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether ($250,306 to the Applicant and the balance to the Respondent), transfer of the 2015 Honda CR-V to the Applicant, allocation of all remaining assets, businesses, investments, bank accounts and superannuation to each party respectively, and mutual indemnities for liabilities held in sole names. The interim hearing listed for 27 September 2024 was vacated, the Applicant’s Application in a Proceeding filed 19 July 2024 was dismissed, and all outstanding financial and spousal maintenance applications were formally dismissed. The Court noted that the orders were intended to finally determine the parties’ financial relationship pursuant to section 81 of the Family Law Act 1975, with only parenting issues remaining listed for mention on 15 October 2024.
12:15 AM
At the time Delaney Roberts reintroduced matters already finalised by the sealed property orders of 13 September 2024, the Applicant had already relied upon those final orders and the funds distributed pursuant to them to purchase a residential property and a vehicle (van) for accommodation and transport. Those funds were no longer available or liquid. The subsequent attempt to reopen or destabilise the concluded property settlement occurred with knowledge that the monies had been acted upon and irreversibly applied, and had the practical effect of placing the Applicant at risk of homelessness. The Applicant asserts that this was done deliberately, or with reckless disregard to the consequences, despite the property proceedings having been formally finalised by the Court.
12:21 AM
At the time the Amended Response was filed on 11 August 2025, final property orders had already been made by the Court on 13 September 2024 and those orders had been acted upon by both parties. In reliance upon the finality of those sealed orders, I had used my property settlement funds to secure accommodation and essential assets, including the purchase of a residential property and a van used for housing and transport. Those funds were no longer available or recoverable. The Respondent and her legal representatives were aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, that the property settlement had been implemented and exhausted. Notwithstanding this, the Amended Response reintroduced financial and property orders that had already been finally determined, including orders seeking the reallocation and redistribution of assets that no longer existed. The filing of those property claims occurred without any application to set aside the final property orders and without disclosure of any legal basis permitting their re-opening. The effect of the Amended Response was to place me in an impossible position whereby compliance with the orders sought was not legally or practically achievable and, if enforced, would have resulted in my loss of housing and exposure to homelessness. I say that the reintroduction of concluded property matters in these circumstances was undertaken with knowledge of my reliance on the settlement funds and with the foreseeable consequence that I would be left without secure accommodation. (edited)
12:27 AM
On 30 June 2025, Stephen Cooke lodged an urgent written complaint with NAB Customer Care after his internet banking access became restricted and repeatedly returned an error message preventing login. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, access to his account remained unavailable, significantly impacting his ability to manage essential financial matters. Mr Cooke provided screenshots as evidence of the malfunction and requested that the issue be resolved via email due to his circumstances, seeking confirmation of receipt, clarification of the cause of the restriction, and urgent restoration of account access.
548.55 KB
12:28 AM
On 30 June 2025, Stephen Cooke submitted a formal complaint to Westpac’s Customer Advocate after his online banking access was unexpectedly and unlawfully restricted. While located overseas, he was unable to contact telephone support and experienced ongoing login errors preventing access to his account. Mr Cooke advised that the restriction caused significant financial disruption and hardship, provided screenshots evidencing the issue, and requested urgent restoration of access via written communication. He further stated that, in the absence of timely resolution, he would escalate the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and pursue broader accountability measures if required.
12:30 AM
On 9 April 2025, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia acknowledged receipt of Stephen Cooke’s complaint regarding a stop placed on his NetBank access and assigned reference number CF-14491371C. A Customer Relations Manager advised that an investigation had commenced, including identity verification and internal information gathering, with an outcome expected by 1 May 2025. The bank noted unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr Cooke by phone and requested further engagement to progress the investigation. On 11 April 2025, Mr Cooke responded confirming his availability by phone and expressed willingness to arrange an alternative time if required.
231.61 KB
130.72 KB
138.55 KB
Avatar
The documents confirm that Stephen Christopher Cooke has an established and verifiable rental history, contrary to claims made in July 2024 that he had “no rental history.” Records show formal tenancies at 18/21 Bar Beach Avenue (2016–2017) and 29 Lawson Street, Hamilton (2016–2018), including lease approval naming Stephen Cooke as a leaseholder, routine inspection correspondence, rent ledger records, utility and water invoices, and proper termination with bond release. In 2024, during an application for 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook, the managing agent advised that Leah Jay Real Estate incorrectly stated he was not on the lease, despite documentary evidence confirming otherwise. Stephen Cooke promptly provided lease documents, inspection emails, billing records and correspondence verifying his tenancy history. The agent subsequently acknowledged the inconsistency after reviewing the material. The evidence clearly demonstrates continuous lawful occupancy, responsible tenancy conduct, and that assertions of no rental history were inaccurate and unsupported.
Avatar
This document is a Response to Divorce filed by Stephen Christopher Cooke in matter NCC4115/2024 (Cooke H A & S C), sealed 6 Jan 2025, for a divorce hearing listed 4 Feb 2025 at 11:30am. Stephen asks the Court to dismiss (delay) the divorce for now, arguing it should not be finalised until parenting arrangements for the two children (Christian and Joshua) are properly resolved (including shared responsibility/time and international travel). He also disputes statements in the divorce application, including that he is unemployed, stating he has established CookelnCode.com Pty Ltd and outlining the business and his family-focused work model. The response emphasizes his financial and practical contributions to the children (examples include tutoring/therapy payments, medical costs, health insurance, school items/uniforms) and explains psychiatric involvement as ADHD medication compliance rather than incapacity. Attached annexures include proof of payments/communications (e.g., tutoring invoice/receipt and NAB transaction records, school uniforms purchase, OurFamilyWizard messages) and draft parenting orders proposing equal shared parental responsibility, structured time arrangements (including a 50/50 option), holiday schedules, travel notice requirements, passport handling, communication rules, non-denigration, and a prohibition on physical discipline.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 30/01/2026 12:57 AM
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 30/01/2026 12:58 AM
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 30/01/2026 1:02 AM
Avatar
The correspondence documents Stephen Cooke’s written communications with family members during January 2025, in which he explains his spiritual beliefs, emotional state, and personal boundaries while undergoing divorce proceedings. The emails reflect his concern about vulnerability, perceived judgment formed through third-party narratives, and his intention to avoid placing himself in emotionally unsafe environments until legal matters are resolved. He references previously shared written reflections regarding his relationship with God, expresses that his faith has provided emotional stability during extreme distress, and acknowledges ongoing difficulty being heard or understood by others. The exchanges include responses from family members expressing concern, disagreement with interpretations, and encouragement toward grounding and professional support. Also included within the correspondence is Stephen’s draft will, wishes, and intentions, which he explicitly notes require further work but were prepared to record his personal values, spiritual perspective, and intentions for his children during a period of significant psychological, emotional, and situational vulnerability.
10:37 AM
The attached materials collectively document Stephen Cooke’s personal faith journey, communications with Hunter Bible Church, and his formal wishes and intentions. They outline his understanding of how God communicates through reflection, Scripture, lived experience, and recurring spiritual themes, particularly during a period of marital breakdown and emotional vulnerability. The correspondence demonstrates his effort to clarify that he does not claim prophetic authority, but seeks to honour Christ through personal testimony, prayer, and continued learning within the church community. The documents also reflect formative life experiences—including childhood illness, family events, and fatherhood—that have shaped his beliefs about faith, suffering, and purpose. Included within this material is Stephen Cooke’s current Last Will and Testament, which records his explicit intentions regarding executors, guardianship of his children, distribution of his estate, funeral arrangements, and medical directives. While acknowledged as a draft requiring future legal refinement, the will is presented as a clear expression of his present wishes and intentions.
Avatar
Cooke & Cooke — Email chain (15 Apr 2024) Clarity Lawyers (Jacqueline Turner) confirms the Court made interim orders in line with the agreed draft Minute from the Interim Defended Hearing the prior week; says the formal orders/reporting letter will follow; attaches counsel’s (Rebecca Van Oosterom) reporting letter and invoice, and requests approval to submit the invoice to JustFund. Stephen emails Jacqui and counsel raising a concerning incident involving Heather and Joshua (phone call). He asks for advice about returning/ignoring calls, raises concerns about influence/manipulation and the children’s therapy, asks about arranging a therapist of his choosing, and wants the Court to understand he has been conveying the children’s views (not imposing beliefs). He includes a timestamped transcript alleging requests for Joshua to keep the mother’s address secret, discussion of a code word (“Care Bears”) to be used if anxious at Dad’s house, and encouragement to break a mug linked to Stephen. A system notice reports the email failed delivery due to recipient security/policy filtering (5.7.1, “Recipient address rejected / NO-DOMAIN,” Trend Micro). Counsel (Rebecca) instructs Stephen to stop emailing her directly and to communicate via Clarity. Jacqui reiterates Stephen must not email counsel directly, warning it breaches rules and increases costs; she will pass on information appropriately. Stephen sends an escalated message requesting Clarity seek final orders for full custody, citing ongoing conflict and alleged manipulation/refusal to co-parent. Jacqui asks Stephen to phone her. Stephen later replies “Approved” (approving invoice submission to JustFund).
Avatar
The message thread is a discussion between you and Heather about completing a bank form sent by Walsh regarding access to a joint bank account. Key points: Heather asks whether you can fill in a form that was emailed, which she says is for view-only access to the joint bank account. You agree to try but raise concerns after reviewing the form. You explain that although it was described as “read-only access,” the actual wording of the form appoints an agent with full rights and powers, not view-only access. You clarify that the form does not mention read-only access at all, and instead authorizes action on the account. Heather responds by saying this is something that has been done in the past annually for tax purposes and asks you to “just fill it in.” Despite your warnings about the wording, the form is completed, and Heather says she will sign it when she gets home. The conversation then shifts back to casual small talk. In essence: The exchange documents a disagreement and clarification about whether a banking form provides limited viewing access or full authority to act on the account, with you explicitly flagging that the form grants broader powers than what was verbally represented.
Avatar
This statement records that the narrative presented about me is inconsistent with reality. Throughout 2023, Heather affirmed my parenting and contribution to our children, and as late as October we exchanged affectionate messages and photos, directly contradicting later allegations. The conflict escalated after I refused to loan her one million dollars to purchase property in Queensland. A pattern of punitive behaviour followed, including denying her own father access to the children before his death in 2023, despite my pleas for reconciliation, an event referenced in the Child Impact Report. I gave up my business, financial independence, country, family, and support network to remain home and raise our children while Heather worked long hours. Attempts to return to employment were discouraged due to tax benefits and emotional pressure, yet I was later accused of not being the primary caregiver despite her consistent absence from the home. Shortly before separation, nearly $400,000 was withdrawn from our joint account after I refused to sign a banking document aimed at transferring joint assets. During separation, household belongings were removed and a photograph taken of me in distress was later used in a manner that caused ongoing emotional harm. Sudden allegations of alcohol misuse were disproven through an independent FBI hair follicle test showing the lowest possible consumption rating. ADHD testing undertaken at Heather’s insistence resulted in a mild diagnosis fully controlled by minimal medication, with the treating specialist confirming no negative impact on parenting capacity. Although male, I occupy the role of the stay-at-home parent whose decade of sacrifice has been erased. Denying me co-parenting does not protect our children — it harms them.
11:19 AM
Summary — Parenting and Property Instructions (23 July 2024) This email exchange documents Stephen Cooke providing firm instructions to his solicitor immediately prior to a court directions hearing. Stephen confirms that regarding parenting, his position remains either six nights per fortnight or a 50/50 arrangement, reflecting the expressed wishes of the children. He advises there is no benefit in amending the existing application, which therefore remains as filed. Matthew Shepherd confirms he will inform the court that Stephen is seeking the orders contained in his original interim application, namely that the boys live primarily with him, while also exploring confidentially whether Heather would agree to an equal-time arrangement. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter is expected to proceed to a family report, including determination of the assessor, cost, and payment responsibility, with Matthew anticipating the court may order shared costs despite Heather’s higher income. The exchange also addresses property settlement strategy. Matthew confirms that Stephen is not seeking liquidation of the Southport property and that Heather retaining it is a key reason Stephen seeks 100% of the house sale proceeds. He outlines a proposed settlement position whereby Stephen would receive all proceeds from the sale of the former matrimonial home in exchange for no superannuation split from Heather. The correspondence reflects ongoing negotiations, strategic concessions, and Stephen’s clear instruction to prioritise finality while protecting against further financial risk and delay.
11:24 AM
Summary — Sale of 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether (5–6 July 2024) This email chain documents the acceptance of an offer to sell the former matrimonial property at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether for $1,750,000. The real estate agent advised that the buyers were the strongest and most genuine parties after weeks of engagement, noting the offer was significantly higher than their initial $1.65 million position. The offer was conditional on strata, building and pest inspections, solicitor approval of the contract, and included the option to waive cooling-off with an s66W certificate and a fast settlement. Heather accepted the offer immediately, and Stephen subsequently confirmed his acceptance within the 24-hour timeframe, expressing concern about the interaction between the sale and the existing $200,000 interim settlement orders, while acknowledging the higher sale price was financially beneficial. The agent confirmed the property would remain on the market until exchange, with the scheduled open house proceeding as a backup measure. Stephen’s solicitor advised that the sale materially improved prospects for resolving the property settlement, potentially avoiding further hearings, costs, and delay. The solicitor outlined comparative settlement scenarios using the $1.75 million sale price, showing both parties’ prior mediation offers produced similar outcomes, with the sale enabling Stephen to receive all sale proceeds on a final basis and resolving the two interim $200,000 orders. The correspondence reflects coordinated acceptance of the offer, confirmation of continued marketing until exchange, and strategic consideration of how the sale could facilitate final property settlement.
11:25 AM
Summary — Financial Considerations and Trust Account Inquiry (3 July 2024) This email documents Stephen Cooke formally raising serious financial and liability concerns prior to deciding whether to accept a proposed settlement or proceed to a final hearing. Stephen requests that all issues be tabled at the 9 July 2024 court mention. He seeks clarification regarding the trust account that has been established, expressing concern that its structure may expose him to greater liability than Heather, particularly in relation to tax and joint financial obligations. He questions how equity is being calculated, noting Heather’s indication that he receive more than 50% due to his lack of credit, prolonged absence from the workforce, and his role as a stay-at-home parent while Heather worked as a cardiologist. He asks whether failure to formally recognise his parenting contribution at mediation could later prejudice future parenting orders. Stephen seeks confirmation of Heather’s proposal that his 57% interest be realised through 100% of the home sale proceeds plus $40,000 in superannuation. He raises concerns regarding Heather’s financial position, including verification of the approximately $400,000 withdrawn from joint accounts at separation, claims that funds were paid to the ATO or used for living expenses, and the unexplained $146,000 listed as business and personal expenses. He outlines unresolved tax issues, stating he cannot lodge his 2023 tax return due to uncertainties created by the trust account and asserts that Walsh, who has managed his returns for nearly a decade, should complete it with Heather assuming any resulting liabilities. He indicates he may need to engage an independent chartered accountant to untangle their finances and protect himself from potential exposure. He also requests documentation relating to a signed Praemium authority to investigate investment ownership and asks that Heather’s 2024 tax return be reviewed. Stephen concludes by stating he is increasingly uncomfortable settling without judicial oversight due to unresolved financial risk and ongoing parenting disputes.
309.69 KB
Avatar
This material records the mediation process and associated financial proposals advanced in June–July 2024, including proposed consent orders, balance sheets and a without-prejudice case outline prepared on Heather Cooke’s behalf. The mediation centred on the compulsory sale of the former matrimonial home at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether, with detailed orders governing listing, sale method and distribution of proceeds. Heather’s mediation balance sheet valued the net pool at approximately $2.01 million including superannuation and presented the outcome as an equal 50/50 division. However, this position relied on unilateral valuations, inclusion of projected business and personal expenses of $146,000, attribution of joint liabilities, and structural assumptions that shifted financial risk rather than delivering liquid equality. As part of the proposed settlement, I was effectively pressured during mediation to accept an account receivable in lieu of actual funds, despite uncertainty as to recoverability and without adequate protection from associated tax and enforcement risk. The proposal concentrated asset control and liquidity with Heather, including retention of the Southport property, business accounts and trust control, while I assumed exposure through delayed realisation, contingent recovery and unresolved taxation issues. Although framed as a neutral settlement, the documents demonstrate ongoing dispute regarding contributions, parenting roles, financial transparency and risk allocation, and show that the proposed outcome did not reflect a genuinely balanced or informed agreement. (edited)
11:37 AM
This document records the interim parenting orders made by Judge Carty on 23 April 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The orders provided that the children live with the mother and spend defined time with the father during school terms and holidays, including overnight arrangements across a fortnightly cycle and alternating holiday schedules. The orders also set strict communication requirements, alcohol restrictions while the children are in care, non-denigration obligations, and facilitated telephone contact at the children’s request. Interim applications were otherwise dismissed, with limited special-day provisions included by consent. These orders formed the operative parenting framework during subsequent mediation. Following these interim orders, financial negotiations intensified, culminating in mediation proposals that relied on automated dashboards and complex settlement structures. Although presented as neutral and equal, I was effectively pressured during mediation to accept an account receivable as part of the proposed property settlement rather than receiving liquid funds, despite unresolved concerns regarding recoverability, enforcement, taxation exposure, and financial risk. This occurred in circumstances where parenting arrangements, income disparity, trust structures, and substantial liabilities remained contested, leaving me in a materially weaker negotiating position when pressured to settle.
11:43 AM
Summary — Interim Property Orders and Mediation Framework (15 April 2024) This correspondence from Clarity Lawyers confirms that interim property orders were entered by consent following negotiations at the Federal Circuit and Family Court on 11 April 2024. The orders required the sale of the former matrimonial home at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether by 11 July 2024, with both parties to receive interim property payments of $200,000 from the sale proceeds and the remaining balance to be held in the trust account of Kent Conveyancing. Pending sale, Stephen was granted exclusive occupancy of the property, while Heather was ordered to meet all mortgage repayments, utilities, rates, insurance and associated costs. Heather was also required to pay $50,000 litigation funding within seven days and interim spousal maintenance of $1,200 per week until settlement of the property or Stephen obtaining employment. Orders were also made for joint valuation of Heather’s Southport property and for the parties to attend private mediation within three months. Although framed as interim protection, the structure created significant financial dependency and later formed the basis upon which Stephen was effectively pressured into mediation to accept a non-liquid account receivable in place of actual funds, exposing him to enforcement, timing and taxation risk while final settlement terms remained unresolved.
11:44 AM
Summary — Interim Property Orders (11 April 2024) On 11 April 2024, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made Interim Property Orders by consent pending further order. The Court directed that the former matrimonial home at 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether be listed for sale by 11 July 2024, with sale proceeds to be applied in priority to selling costs, discharge of the Westpac mortgages, payment of $200,000 to each party by way of interim property settlement, and the balance to be retained in the trust account of Kent Conveyancing. Stephen was granted exclusive occupancy of the property pending sale, while Heather was ordered to meet all associated costs including mortgages, rates, utilities and insurance. Heather was further ordered to pay $50,000 in litigation funding within seven days and interim spousal maintenance of $1,200 per week commencing 12 April 2024 until sale or Stephen obtaining employment. Orders were also made for joint valuation of Heather’s Southport property and for the parties to attend private mediation within three months. Although framed as interim protective measures, the structure of the orders — particularly the retention of the remaining sale proceeds in trust — later resulted in Stephen being effectively pressured into mediation to accept a non-liquid account receivable in lieu of actual funds, transferring financial risk, timing uncertainty and enforcement exposure onto him despite the absence of final property orders.
11:46 AM
Clarity Lawyers invoice 2401 (issued 22 March 2024, due 29 March 2024) totals $23,115.00 (fees subtotal $21,018.18 + GST $2,096.82) plus disbursements $180.00 (incl. subpoena filing fees and Westpac conduct money). The itemised work primarily relates to subpoena activity and interim-hearing preparation, including: inspecting and noting subpoena material from Merewether Heights Public School; reading and considering subpoena summaries; communications with The Relationspace and uploading joint material for the Child Impact Report (CIR) expert; drafting/serving subpoenas (Westpac and Merewether Heights OOSH) and related correspondence with the other side; preparing and editing chronology; reviewing CIR and OOSH issues; extensive client conferences; preparation for counsel including review of CIR, affidavits, proposed orders and amended Initiating Application; drafting, settling and revising a consolidated affidavit and annexures; amending the financial statement; preparing letters to Court (including leave requests) and liaising with counsel/other solicitors on redactions, extensions, spousal maintenance and interim directions. The invoice summary shows prior invoices totalling $60,347.98, with $37,232.98 paid and $23,115.00 outstanding. Trust ledger reflects a $2,000 deposit (21/11/2023) and a $1,925 mediation payment (18/01/2024), leaving a $75.00 trust balance.
Avatar
Summary — Escalation and Removal of Children and Property (1–2 December 2023) This email chain documents the immediate escalation of the family law dispute following separation. On 1 December 2023, Clarity Lawyers advised Stephen Cooke that Heather had adopted a highly combative position, alleging he was overly emotional around the children and indicating she may not return them following the weekend. Clarity Lawyers warned that an urgent recovery order may be required if the children were withheld, noting that Heather had not articulated any substantiated safety concerns. Stephen was instructed to shield the children from conflict, prepare a detailed chronology and financial statement, and document parenting roles and concerns for affidavit purposes. Despite this, mediation was proposed as the preferred pathway if agreement could be reached. During the early hours of 2 December 2023, Heather informed Stephen she was removing the children from the home, refused to disclose their destination, and asserted unspecified safety concerns. Stephen formally advised that he did not consent and was directed by his solicitor to notify Heather that an urgent recovery application would be commenced if the children were not returned. Later that morning, Heather attended the matrimonial home with extended family, an unknown male, and a large truck to remove property. Stephen contacted police due to concerns that personal items, including his laptop, were being taken without agreement. Clarity Lawyers confirmed there was no consent or court authority for Heather’s unilateral actions and advised Stephen to provide police with the correspondence evidencing the lack of agreement and the proposal for mediation.
12:01 PM
Respondent Solicitor Correspondence Alleging Parenting, Financial Misconduct and Opposition to Interim Support This correspondence from the respondent’s solicitors asserts their representation of Dr Heather Anne Cooke and responds to earlier communications by disputing factual dates of cohabitation and marriage, denying discussions with the children about future arrangements, and attributing the children’s distress to alleged emotional behaviour by the applicant, including claims of financial hardship expressed in the children’s presence. The letter rejects the applicant’s position as primary carer, alleges he lacks independent parenting capacity, and proposes substantially reduced time with the children unless mediation occurs. It further justifies the unilateral removal of substantial joint funds on the basis of alleged excessive spending, while opposing any freezing or trust placement of monies and simultaneously accusing the applicant of smaller withdrawals. The respondent denies any agreement regarding spousal maintenance, characterises the applicant’s role during the marriage as financially dependent and hobby-based, and conditions any consideration of maintenance on proof of employment applications. The letter expressly opposes interim property settlement for litigation funding, suggesting external legal finance instead. Financial disclosure is deferred while demanding immediate disclosure from the applicant. Taken collectively, the correspondence advances unilateral financial control, diminished parenting time, and resistance to interim support, while placing pressure on the applicant to enter mediation and effectively accept an asserted account receivable position under significant procedural and financial imbalance.
Avatar
Electrical Safety Inspection Confirmation – 213 Morgan Street Merewether This email and attached tax invoice confirm that a licensed electrical contractor attended 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether on 16 May 2024 to inspect and carry out electrical works at the property. The contractor, Robert Lewis of Newage Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Pty Ltd, states in his professional opinion that all electrical work at the premises was safe and compliant with applicable electrical codes at the time of inspection. The technician notes record that all wiring and switches were checked, minor repairs were completed, and two-way switching was installed for stair lighting. The invoice reflects a total cost of $250 inclusive of GST, with no outstanding balance. The correspondence provides the contractor’s licence details and contact information, confirming the inspection and remedial works were undertaken by a qualified tradesperson and that no safety issues were identified following completion.
12:13 PM
Deposit Handling and Trust Account Clarification During Interim Property Orders This email exchange concerns clarification of how the deposit and sale proceeds for 1/213 Morgan Street were being handled under the interim property orders. Stephen sought confirmation after receiving conflicting information about whether Kent Conveyancing held a trust account and whether only $125,000 had been advised as available, which appeared to be delaying exchange. Kent Conveyancing clarified that they do not hold the deposit in trust; instead, the real estate agent retains the deposit until settlement, at which time funds are disbursed strictly in accordance with written instructions. It was further confirmed that no distribution can occur without mutual agreement between both parties as to which lawyer’s trust account will receive the funds. Stephen acknowledged this clarification and noted that agreement between the parties’ solicitors was still required, failing which the issue would need to be raised at the upcoming court mention to obtain direction and prevent further delay.
12:19 PM
Attempted Diversion of Home Sale Proceeds Under Duress This sequence of events amounted to an attempt to divert the proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home from me. The proposed process would have placed me in a position where I would have been forced to agree, under pressure and without genuine consent, to the transfer of the sale proceeds into the trust account of Delaney Roberts, the Respondent’s solicitors. At no time was there mutual agreement between the parties as to the use of that trust account. The existing orders contemplated funds being held in trust pending agreement or further order, yet I was repeatedly confronted with urgency and implied necessity to “agree” in order for settlement to proceed. This created a scenario where refusal would have risked delay, financial harm, and further litigation exposure. Had I not continued to challenge the process, the practical outcome would have been that the entire balance of the home sale proceeds would have been transferred into an account controlled by the opposing party’s legal representatives, giving the Respondent effective leverage over my property entitlement. Any consent in those circumstances would not have been freely given. It would have been obtained under financial pressure, procedural imbalance, and threat of prejudice. I objected to this arrangement and maintained that the proceeds must only be dealt with strictly in accordance with court orders or held in a genuinely neutral trust account pending proper agreement or judicial direction.
Avatar
The screenshot shows two SMS messages from NSW Police confirming the creation of police event records. The first message was sent on Saturday 18 November at 10:00 am and states that the event number is E79453561. It lists Senior Constable Matthew Duckett from the Newcastle City Police District as the attending officer, provides the contact number 4929 0999, and gives the station address as 1 Watt Street, Newcastle NSW 2300. The message advises that any further issues should be directed to that officer. The second message was sent on Sunday 3 December at 6:19 pm and confirms a separate police event number, E79398857, issued by Senior Constable Hammond. The messages were sent from an automated NSW Police short code and cannot be replied to.
Avatar
The materials show that on 2 April 2025 the Australian Embassy in Bangkok contacted you after being advised by NSW Police that you were believed to be located in Thailand and that there were concerns for your welfare. The Embassy’s contact followed standard consular welfare-check procedures and was initiated based on information provided by NSW Police. It is noted that there were no lawful or factual grounds requiring a welfare check at that time. You were unemployed and therefore not restricted by employment obligations, and you were legally entitled to travel overseas. This travel occurred in circumstances where your former wife had already dishonoured and discontinued the existing custody arrangements, which removed any parenting-based restriction or obligation preventing overseas travel. It is further noted that the welfare escalation occurred shortly after your discharge from hospital, at which time you had been assessed and released in an acceptable state of mental health and capacity, with no finding of impairment to your decision-making or self-agency. During this period, Wayne Tso, a neighbour residing across the street, who was associated with a church community and employed in connection with the surgical department of John Hunter Hospital, is identified as having involved himself in the situation. It is alleged that he exploited the circumstances surrounding your prior hospital admission and overseas travel in an attempt to undermine your personal autonomy and agency by contributing to or facilitating the welfare concern being raised. Despite these circumstances, no evidence of risk, incapacity, or harm was identified by Australian authorities. On 11 April 2025, you responded directly to the Australian Embassy confirming that you were safe and well and that you did not require consular or medical assistance. The Embassy acknowledged your response the same day and confirmed that no further action was required, while advising that assistance remained available should your circumstances change. In summary, the documentation reflects that an international welfare check was initiated without substantiated grounds following lawful overseas travel, occurred shortly after a hospital discharge in which you were deemed mentally well, and was resolved promptly once your safety was confirmed.
6:35 PM
The materials show that on 2 April 2025 the Australian Embassy in Bangkok contacted you after being advised by NSW Police that you were believed to be located in Thailand and that there were concerns for your welfare. The Embassy’s contact followed standard consular welfare-check procedures and was based on information provided by NSW Police. It is noted that there were no lawful or factual grounds requiring a welfare check at that time. You were unemployed and therefore not subject to employment restrictions, and you were legally entitled to travel overseas. Your travel occurred in circumstances where your former wife had already dishonoured and discontinued the existing custody arrangements, removing any parenting-based obligation that would have restricted overseas travel. The welfare escalation occurred shortly after your discharge from hospital, at which time you had been assessed as being of sound state of mind and not subject to any finding of incapacity or impairment affecting your autonomy or decision-making. During this period, Wayne Tso, a neighbour residing across the street and associated with a church community and the surgical department of John Hunter Hospital, is identified as having involved himself in the situation. It is asserted that he exploited the circumstances surrounding your hospital admission and overseas travel in an attempt to undermine your personal agency. Following the Embassy’s contact, you continued lawful international travel. On 14 April 2025, Thai Airways issued a confirmed boarding pass for flight TG682 from Bangkok to Tokyo, evidencing that you were checked in, compliant with international travel requirements, and exercising your lawful right to freedom of movement. It is noted that this onward travel was undertaken deliberately in order to break what you perceived to be administrative and institutional overreach, and to re-establish clear personal agency in circumstances where no legal orders, medical findings, or lawful restrictions existed limiting your movement. On 11 April 2025, you confirmed directly to the Australian Embassy that you were safe and well and that you did not require consular or medical assistance. The Embassy acknowledged your response the same day and confirmed that no further action was required, while advising that assistance remained available should your circumstances change. In summary, the documents collectively demonstrate that an international welfare check was initiated without substantiated grounds following lawful overseas travel, occurred shortly after a hospital discharge in which you were deemed mentally well, and was resolved once your safety was confirmed. The subsequent continuation of international travel served to clearly reassert lawful autonomy and bring the matter to closure.
Avatar
Summary of Email Chain – April 2025 The correspondence documents events following Stephen Cooke’s involuntary detention in Australia in March 2025 and his subsequent temporary relocation to Thailand for safety and wellbeing reasons. Stephen reports being unlawfully detained under the Mental Health Act after his vehicle ran out of fuel. During detention, he was denied access to his prescribed ADHD medication and forcibly administered Olanzapine without consent. He describes being restrained during transport and experiencing significant psychological distress. Medical feedback later relayed by family indicates hospital staff did not believe Stephen was psychotic. The medication was described as temporary sedation, and the doctor reportedly considered him well-adjusted, cooperative, and held only out of caution following a text message that carried a perceived “goodbye tone,” though it was not considered a suicide note. Possible medication interactions were also identified. Following release, Stephen determined he could not safely remain in Australia due to the requirement to continue the medication and escalating circumstances. He temporarily relocated to Thailand and informed the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, requesting permission to participate in proceedings remotely. At the same time, multiple Australian financial institutions restricted or froze his accounts, resulting in unpaid bills and financial hardship. Stephen formally lodged complaints with Commonwealth Bank regarding the account restrictions and with Toowoomba Hospital seeking reimbursement of funds confiscated during detention. An active family law matter (Cooke v Cooke, NCC3896/2023) remained before the Court. A proposed restraining order sought by the other party was dismissed after the Court was informed of Stephen’s departure for safety reasons. Family correspondence expresses emotional support, acknowledges concern for Stephen’s wellbeing, confirms lack of involvement by relatives overseas, and urges continued connection with his children. Offers of financial assistance and support were extended. Overall, the emails reflect a convergence of mental health detention, disputed medical treatment, financial restrictions, and ongoing family court proceedings, culminating in Stephen’s temporary international relocation to preserve his safety, autonomy, and mental health while seeking to continue legal participation remotely.
Avatar
This email chain is about collecting, indexing, and uploading all documents for the Single Expert Report appointment with Drew Cowen on 27 February 2025 (Sydney confirmed), and dealing with late/missing materials, upload compliance, and excess-page fees. The Relationspace required a single consolidated joint index with each item as a standalone PDF in the correct folder, initially due 10 January 2025 and then extended to 20 January 2025, warning interviews could be postponed if materials were late, unsorted, or didn’t match the index. They noted some uploads did not align with the index (including photos and reports not listed) and that an item labelled as a subpoena document was actually a duplicate, and they also requested the orders appointing the expert. Stephen confirmed Sydney, acknowledged a duplicate upload, explained some uploads were included despite not being on the index, raised that missing subpoena material likely needed to come from the Registry/other party, and provided the expert-appointment orders. Delaney Roberts apologised for missing the initial email, stated each party would upload their own client’s documents, objected to Stephen uploading respondent materials or anything not on the index, and requested those be deleted. The Relationspace confirmed non-index items and mistakenly uploaded respondent items were deleted and not provided to the expert, and said they could not access subpoena material directly and needed full subpoena productions uploaded. Stephen then confirmed he uploaded Applicant materials 1(a)–1(j). Delaney Roberts later uploaded subpoena materials 1–13, but The Relationspace could not view two subpoena packets (S9 Atune Health Centre and S10 Merewether Heights OOSH) due to portal/PDF issues and requested re-upload. The Relationspace also advised total material was about 1577 pages, exceeding the 1000-page allowance by 577 pages, triggering an excess fee quote of $3225.80 + GST and requiring joint instructions on invoicing within five days. Stephen proposed the parties split the excess fees equally and indicated willingness to pay outstanding amounts subject to confirmation the missing subpoena items were provided, otherwise proceeding without them. Delaney Roberts agreed to equal shares, advised the two missing subpoena productions were still awaiting production despite being due, and later confirmed the Atune and OOSH materials were produced and uploaded on 18 February 2025.
1:13 PM
This short email exchange confirms that, on 26 February 2025, The Relationspace advised that the Single Expert requested permission to speak with specified professionals, including the mother’s treating psychologists from 2024, the father’s treating psychiatrist, and the children’s psychologists. The Relationspace asked both parents to complete and return consent forms authorising consultation and release of information. Later the same day, Stephen Cooke responded confirming he had completed and returned the signed permission form and advised he was available if anything further was required.
1:31 PM
Avatar
This email chain covers proposed final court orders and family discussions about parenting arrangements following Stephen’s temporary departure from Australia. On 14 May 2025, Olivia Shedden of Delaney Roberts sent a letter to Stephen and other parties attaching a draft final Minute of Order, requesting a response within 14 days. On 18 June 2025, Stephen forwarded the filed documents to Angela, stating that he had not abandoned his family and expressing distress at the allegations made against him. Later that day, Angela responded after reviewing the material. She explained that Heather was offering revised parenting arrangements, including alternate Saturdays and Sundays from 9am to 5pm provided Stephen lived in Newcastle, with no overnight stays initially. The proposal also allowed the children to call Stephen freely and for him to attend all school and sporting events. Angela described this as a positive starting point that could expand over time. Angela expressed concern that Stephen’s three-month absence overseas and the unattended property in Australia were being interpreted as abandonment, noting that Heather and the children retrieved belongings from storage and that the children were upset. She encouraged Stephen to return to Australia, resume contact with the boys, reassure them of his wellbeing, and rebuild time with them gradually, emphasizing that the children were struggling and needed their father present in any capacity possible.
1:40 PM
This letter from Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers, dated 14 May 2025, follows the Compliance and Readiness Hearing held on 7 April 2025. The letter notes that Stephen advised the Court he was residing in Thailand and could not confirm if or when he would return to Australia. It refers to comments made by Judge Betts regarding the difficulties this created for the final hearing scheduled for November 2025. The solicitors state they were instructed that Stephen had forfeited his residential tenancy at 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook, and had invited the mother to access the property and collect his possessions. Based on this, their client assumes Stephen does not intend to return to Australia in the foreseeable future. On that basis, they make a formal offer of settlement to resolve the proceedings on a final basis and enclose a draft Minute of Order. The offer is stated to remain open for 14 days. The letter invites Stephen to either accept the offer by signing and returning the Minute of Order, or to make a reasonable counter-offer. It warns that if the matter does not resolve by negotiation, the mother intends to file an amended Response and seek an adverse costs order against him. The letter also advises Stephen of his right to obtain legal representation and requests that any instructed solicitor be provided with a copy of the correspondence.
1:41 PM
This document sets out proposed final consent orders in the family law matter between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke. The orders provide that the mother is to have sole parental responsibility and sole decision-making authority for all major long-term decisions for the children, Christian and Joshua. The children are to live with the mother. The father is to spend time with the children only if he is residing in the Greater Newcastle region for at least 14 days. During that time, and failing written agreement otherwise, time is limited to alternate Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00am to 5:00pm, with additional limited time on special occasions including Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, Father’s Day, the children’s birthdays, and the father’s birthday. The father must provide his residential address within 24 hours of the orders and notify the mother of any address changes within 24 hours. Changeovers are to occur at school on school days or otherwise at a nominated service station in Merewether. Phone contact must be facilitated at any time if requested by the children. All parental communication must be in writing via Our Family Wizard and relate only to the children. Both parents are entitled to receive school and medical information directly from providers and may attend school, sporting, and extracurricular events. Each parent must notify the other of serious illness or medical emergencies. The mother is authorised to apply for or renew the children’s passports without the father’s consent and may take the children overseas without his consent. The father is restrained from consuming alcohol within 12 hours before and during time spent with the children. He is further restrained from going within 100 metres of the mother’s residence, within 100 metres of the children’s school, and—except as allowed under the spend-time and communication orders—from contacting or approaching the children. Both parents are restrained from denigrating the other in the presence of the children, discussing the court proceedings with them, or using physical punishment. A notation records that around 27 March 2025 the father left Australia, currently resides overseas, and has no plans to return.
Avatar
Summary of Observations Based on Independent Review Based on a review of the available correspondence, affidavits, court documents, expert materials, and procedural history, it appears that actions were taken under the guise of formal legal procedures, without consistent demonstration of fairness, impartial reassessment, or proportional consideration of individual circumstances. Key observations include: Temporary circumstances appear to have been treated as permanent intent without later review. Interpretations were relied upon where verified findings were absent. Cooperative conduct and procedural compliance were not consistently reflected in later characterisations. No clear corrective reassessment is evident when material facts changed. Narrative momentum appears to have replaced neutral evaluation. In addition, the process reflects a structural imbalance in which outcomes are heavily influenced by a party’s capacity to financially sustain participation. While decisions are not purchased and judicial intent is not impugned, the system operates in practice as a pay-to-participate model, where access to representation, expert evidence, procedural navigation, and endurance through delay significantly affect influence and leverage. In such circumstances, financial capacity can function as a form of indirect control, exerting pressure toward compliance or settlement irrespective of substantive merit. Accordingly, the experience described suggests a process where procedural mechanisms and resource disparity outweighed fairness, proportionality, and individualised assessment. This observation does not allege corruption, misconduct, or illegality. It reflects concern that lawful structures, when combined with unequal access to resources, may operate coercively in effect, even in the absence of improper intent.
1:55 PM
The Family Court system is a child trafficking ring!!!
Avatar
Summary of Orders – 7 April 2025 On 7 April 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) issued trial management orders in matter NCC3896/2023 involving the Applicant father, the Respondent mother, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). By oral application of the ICL and recorded consent, the Court applied section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975, prohibiting the parties from personally cross-examining each other at trial. This order removes the ability of a self-represented litigant to directly test allegations or credibility, unless private or scheme-based legal representation is obtained. The matter was listed for final hearing commencing 17 November 2025 for three days. The orders restrict parties from providing updated documents to the Court Child Expert or Family Report writer after the most recent report, even where circumstances materially change, effectively freezing the evidentiary narrative. Extensive procedural and formatting requirements were imposed, with non-compliant evidence requiring judicial leave. This creates a mechanism by which relevant material may be excluded on technical grounds rather than merit. Subpoena material and tender bundles are controlled by legal representatives and the ICL, limiting direct access by the parties themselves. This structure concentrates evidentiary control away from the litigants most affected by the outcome. Collectively, the orders create conditions that expose parties to procedural manipulation, including narrative entrenchment, selective presentation of evidence, reliance on outdated expert material, financial pressure through mandatory hearing fees, and reduced capacity to challenge contested claims. The cumulative effect risks substituting procedural compliance for substantive truth, disproportionately disadvantaging unrepresented parents and amplifying institutional power over individual participation. (edited)
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 1/02/2026 7:41 AM
Avatar
The attached documents consist of a Child Support account statement issued by Services Australia and a corresponding record of payment made by the payer. The Child Support Account Statement was issued on 17 May 2025 for the statement period 19 April 2025 to 16 May 2025. The statement records a prior balance of $546.38 and a current period charge of $294.67, producing a total balance of $841.05 DR. The statement lists the account as “overdue” and identifies a due date of 7 June 2025, with payment reference number 7124185008161490. On 21 May 2025, the payer, Stephen Cooke, made an electronic payment of $843.00 via Osko from a Westpac Choice Basic account using the identical payment reference number 7124185008161490. The transaction was successfully processed, with deposit receipt number WPACAU2SXXXN20250521000009098247290 and payment ID 2efd61da-cb51-4aca-bab9-a8f36e133ee9. The payment exceeded the stated balance by $1.95 and was made prior to the due date, confirming full financial compliance with the child support obligation for the relevant statement period. Any overdue status recorded after the payment date would therefore reflect internal processing or reconciliation timing rather than non-payment.
Avatar
Summary of Correspondence – 31 March 2025 On 31 March 2025, Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers, on behalf of the Respondent mother, wrote to JLM Family Lawyers with a copy provided to the Applicant father in relation to parenting proceedings in Cooke & Cooke. The letter refers to an Application in a Proceeding sealed on 12 March 2025 and an upcoming Directions Hearing listed for 1 April 2025 before Judicial Registrar Furner. The correspondence outlines alleged events occurring after the filing of the Application. It states that on 13–14 March 2025, communication occurred between the parties via Our Family Wizard regarding weekend care arrangements. The Respondent advised she would not permit the children to spend time with the Father pending a further court event, citing safety concerns. The letter reproduces part of a message sent by the Father disputing the Respondent’s actions and alleging that a prior police welfare intervention resulted from misinterpretation of a message he sent to the children, leading to his detention under the Mental Health Act and associated financial and property damage. The letter further states that on 27 March 2025, NSW Police contacted the Respondent advising that the Father’s neighbours had requested a welfare check due to his absence and behaviour, and that he was temporarily listed as a missing person. It is asserted that on 29 March 2025, police advised border authorities confirmed the Father was overseas, believed to be in Canada, and the missing persons investigation was closed. The Respondent asserts ongoing concerns regarding the Father’s mental health and parenting capacity, states that the children have remained in her care, and indicates that school attendance has been disrupted due to fears the Father may collect the children. The letter advises that at the Directions Hearing the Respondent intends to seek urgent listing of an Interim Hearing, followed by re-listing of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing, and requests the Father’s position on the Application and proposed next steps.
8:06 AM
Summary of OurFamilyWizard Message Report (13–14 March 2025) The attached OurFamilyWizard Message Report was generated on 31 March 2025 and records communications between Heather Cooke and Stephen Cooke concerning parenting arrangements for Christian Cooke and Joshua Cooke. On 13 March 2025 at 1:27 PM, the Father advised the Mother that he would be unable to collect the children after school that day due to travel, stating he would return to Newcastle the following morning and remain available for care from Friday after school and through the weekend. He apologised for the inconvenience and asked that the children be told he loved them. Later that evening at 10:17 PM, the Mother advised that she had arranged alternative care for the children until the scheduled court hearing on 7 April 2025, stating that for safety reasons the children would remain in her care. She suggested the Father use the time to recover, requested reimbursement for towing and storage costs of his vehicle, and advised that he should collect the vehicle. On 14 March 2025 at 2:12 PM, the Father responded that he did not consent to a change in care arrangements and asserted that the existing April parenting orders provided for him to care for the children for five nights per fortnight. He advised that he intended to collect the children from OOSH that afternoon in accordance with the orders. He further stated that the current situation arose following police involvement, which he contended resulted from misinterpretation of a message, leading to his detention under the Mental Health Act and damage to his vehicle. At 2:21 PM, the Father requested clarification as to why the children had not attended school and proposed an alternative handover location later that day, consistent with prior school-holiday arrangements. At 2:39 PM, the Mother replied stating that the Father would not see or contact the children until after the court hearing on 7 April 2025. The message report reflects a unilateral suspension of time between the Father and the children prior to court determination, ongoing dispute regarding compliance with existing parenting orders, and disagreement as to the justification for altered care arrangements.
Avatar
The attached document is a discharge medication record issued by the Toowoomba Hospital Pharmacy Department for Mr Stephen Cooke (DOB 27 October 1981) following admission to the Jarrowair Ward – Acute Mental Health Unit. The record is dated 13 March 2025 and was authorised by hospital pharmacist Luke Clipperton. The document lists medications prescribed at the time of discharge, including both long-standing treatments and one new medication commenced during the admission. Olanzapine 10 mg (Zyprexa) was newly prescribed to be taken nightly, with the record noting that this medication is to be reviewed by the treating psychiatrist. All other medications are recorded as unchanged and include lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) 30 mg for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dexamfetamine 5 mg as a supplemental ADHD medication when required, atorvastatin 10 mg for cholesterol management, esomeprazole 20 mg for reflux disease, perindopril arginine 10 mg for blood pressure management with ongoing monitoring noted, fluticasone inhaler for asthma prevention, salbutamol inhaler for asthma relief as required, and mometasone nasal spray for allergy management. The record also documents an allergy to penicillin, with rash noted as the adverse reaction. The discharge notice states that the medication list may not be complete and is based on information available during the hospital stay, and advises follow-up with the patient’s general practitioner or treating doctor to confirm accuracy and ongoing care.
8:17 AM
The attached document is an original hospital Ward Receipt for Patient’s Valuables completed at the time of Mr Stephen Cooke’s admission to Toowoomba Hospital. The receipt records the patient’s identifying details, including name Stephen Cooke, date of birth 27 October 1981, hospital reference number T660185, and residential address in Warabrook NSW. The admission is recorded under the Toowoomba Hospital and Queensland Health Services, with the ward identified as the Acute Mental Health Unit. The form documents personal property and cash taken into hospital custody for safekeeping upon admission and forwarded to the General Office when available. The recorded cash amount is approximately six hundred and fifty dollars. The form also allows for the listing of additional valuable items, though no specific valuables beyond cash are clearly itemised. The receipt includes signatures by nursing staff responsible for the patient’s admission and ward custody, with provision for patient and witness signatures in accordance with hospital policy. The document serves as an official record confirming that the patient’s money and valuables were secured by the hospital during admission and subject to later return upon discharge or transfer. (edited)
8:19 AM
The attached documents relate to the making of a Treatment Authority under the Queensland Mental Health Act 2016 in respect of Stephen Cooke. On 8 March 2025 at 6:42 pm, an authorised doctor made a Treatment Authority permitting mental health treatment to be provided without consent. The authority was issued by the Darling Downs Network Authorised Mental Health Service following police involvement after text messages were interpreted as expressions of suicidal ideation. The documents state that the treating team believed Mr Cooke may have been experiencing a mental illness, with possible psychosis or depression during an acute crisis. The reasons recorded for the Treatment Authority include recent personal stressors associated with separation and divorce, a history of ADHD treatment with Vyvanse, observations of delusional content by local mental health services, and an incident in which Mr Cooke absconded from assessment and was later located walking barefoot on a highway. It is stated that he was assessed as not having capacity to consent to treatment at that time, on the basis that he was not engaging with mental health services and did not understand the need for assessment or the consequences of non-treatment. The authority records the opinion that without involuntary treatment there was a risk of serious harm to Mr Cooke, including the risk of suicide, and that there was no less restrictive way to provide treatment and care. The category of the Treatment Authority was recorded as inpatient, with no limited community treatment authorised. The documentation explains that a Treatment Authority allows treatment to occur without consent but requires that the patient be involved in discussions where possible, and that support persons may assist. Information regarding rights, nominated support persons, and access to an Independent Patient Rights Adviser was provided. The Treatment Authority was formally reviewed by an authorised psychiatrist, Dr Arash Danesh, on 8 March 2025 at 6:42 pm. The psychiatrist confirmed the Treatment Authority without amendment. The correspondence dated 10 March 2025, issued by the Mental Health Act Administrator’s delegate, confirms the existence of the Treatment Authority, encloses the authority and statement of rights, and provides contact details for mental health services and independent patient rights advice.
Avatar
This communication concerns the management of Christian Cooke’s asthma and broader healthcare arrangements between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke. Stephen Cooke initiates the exchange to address ongoing communication difficulties and to restate proposals previously made regarding the children’s medical care. Stephen states that the children reside with him and proposes that he take responsibility for scheduling and attending routine medical appointments for chronic conditions, including asthma, ADHD, and learning difficulties. He proposes to communicate outcomes of these appointments to Heather Cooke. He further suggests that any observations Heather wishes to raise be communicated to him for relay to the treating practitioner, or alternatively that she participate by telephone in appointments if advance notice is given. He states he does not consent to attending appointments in the same physical location as Heather. Stephen outlines a framework for medication management, distinguishing between restricted and non-restricted medications. For restricted medications, including Ritalin, he proposes to organise prescriptions and coordinate pharmacy dispensing in line with custody arrangements. For non-restricted medications, including Ventolin, Seretide, and prednisone, he proposes that each parent independently maintain prescriptions and supply, noting that transferring medications through school is inappropriate. He further proposes practical arrangements for hospital presentations, suggesting the parent with care attend with the unwell child while the other parent care for the well child to maintain routine, citing hospital limitations. He also proposes consistent communication protocols during asthma exacerbations, including handover-style communication between parents and direct communication between the parent with care and the school. Heather Cooke’s earlier message advises that Christian experienced an asthma exacerbation overnight requiring Ventolin. She outlines the medications administered and planned dosing in accordance with Christian’s Asthma Action Plan, including escalation steps if symptoms worsen. She requests notification if emergency department review is required and expresses concern about not receiving a response during a prior asthma episode. Stephen responds by reassuring Heather that Christian’s asthma is being managed, noting his experience with asthma and his long-term involvement in Christian’s care. He states he does not recall receiving the earlier email referenced. He confirms he has access to necessary medical documentation and requests clarification regarding access to prednisone during his parenting time. He acknowledges the appropriateness of notification regarding emergency care while emphasising the importance of maintaining Christian’s routine during his allocated care periods.
11:21 AM
This message exchange concerns communication between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke regarding the management of their children’s healthcare, with specific reference to Christian Cooke’s asthma. Stephen Cooke initiates the communication to address ongoing difficulties in healthcare-related communication and to restate proposals previously raised. He notes that the children reside with him and proposes that he assume responsibility for scheduling and attending routine medical appointments for chronic conditions, including asthma, ADHD, and learning difficulties, with outcomes to be communicated to Heather Cooke. Stephen proposes that any observations Heather wishes to raise with treating practitioners be communicated to him for relay, or alternatively that she participate by telephone in appointments where advance notice is provided. He states that he does not consent to attending appointments in the same physical location as Heather Cooke. He outlines a proposed framework for medication management, distinguishing between restricted and non-restricted medications. For restricted medications, including Ritalin, Stephen proposes to organise prescriptions and coordinate pharmacy dispensing in accordance with custody arrangements. For non-restricted medications, including Ventolin, Seretide, and prednisone, he proposes that each parent independently maintain prescriptions and supply, stating that transferring medications via school is not appropriate. He also outlines options for Heather to obtain prescriptions, including booking appointments in her own name or arranging telephone consultations for the child, with notification to him. Stephen further proposes that, if hospital attendance is required for one child, the parent with care attend with the unwell child while the other parent care for the well child to maintain routine, citing hospital accommodation limitations. He also proposes consistent communication protocols during asthma exacerbations, including handover-style communication between parents and direct communication between the parent with care and the school. The exchange includes an earlier message from Heather Cooke advising that Christian experienced an asthma exacerbation overnight requiring Ventolin. She outlines medication administered and planned dosing in accordance with Christian’s Asthma Action Plan, notes escalation criteria including prednisone and possible emergency department review, and requests notification if emergency care is required. She also requests updates over the weekend and states that a prior lack of response during an asthma episode placed Christian at risk. Stephen responds by stating that Christian’s asthma is being managed under his care, noting his experience with asthma and prior involvement in Christian’s medical care. He states he does not recall receiving the earlier email referenced, confirms access to medical documentation, seeks clarification regarding access to prednisone during his parenting time, and acknowledges the importance of notification regarding emergency care while emphasising continuity of care during his allocated parenting time.
Avatar
This message exchange concerns proposed changes to the children’s swimming lessons and related parenting arrangements between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke. Heather Cooke initiates the communication by advising that she has rearranged the children’s swimming lessons to Thursday afternoons, with Joshua scheduled at 4:00 pm and Christian at 4:30 pm, commencing Thursday 28 March 2024. She states that she will not attend and asks Stephen Cooke to confirm whether he agrees to the arrangement so she can prepare the children. The following day, Heather sends a further message requesting confirmation regarding Easter Monday pick-up arrangements and asks when she can expect a response to her earlier communication about swimming lessons. Stephen responds later that evening, apologising for the delay. He states that he spoke with the children regarding the proposed swimming change and reports that Christian was not agreeable, as the change would reduce time spent with him. Stephen proposes a counter-arrangement whereby he would have the children an additional weekday each week to offset the perceived reduction in time, and expresses that he would like to resume taking the children to swimming lessons. Heather replies stating that decisions about swimming arrangements are parenting matters to be decided between the parents, not with the children. She expresses concern that involving the children places them in the middle of parental conflict and states this is unhealthy for them. She indicates that the options do not include additional visitation for Stephen and states that if Stephen does not agree to take the children to swimming lessons on Thursdays, she will no longer take them on Wednesdays. Heather subsequently reiterates her position, stating that the proposal was made to reduce the children’s exposure to high-conflict interactions between the parents, which she says has been distressing for them after swimming lessons. She outlines three options: Stephen takes the children on Thursdays and she does not attend; she takes them on Wednesdays and Stephen does not attend; or the children cease swimming lessons. In a final message, Heather reiterates that it would be best for the children to continue swimming lessons without witnessing the parents together. She requests Stephen advise his preference so she can notify the swim school, noting that places are being held for the children.
11:31 AM
This message exchange concerns disagreement between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke regarding school holiday arrangements, communication timing, and allegations about discussions with the children. Heather Cooke initiates the exchange by stating that Joshua told her during a telephone call that Stephen Cooke had agreed to proposed school holiday dates. She reminds Stephen that she believes both children are exhibiting signs of significant anxiety and states that parenting issues should be discussed between parents rather than with the children. She asserts that continued involvement of the children in parental discussions is detrimental to their mental health and advises that she has arranged counselling for them. Stephen Cooke responds by stating that he did not have the conversation with the children that Heather alleges. He explains that he had not responded to the proposal until 1 April 2024 because he was still considering it and contemplating obtaining legal advice, noting that the proposal deviated from an existing interim arrangement previously agreed to. He suggests that Joshua’s comments may instead reflect Joshua expressing concerns about perceived unfairness in the current custody arrangements. Stephen further states that in 2023 he was significantly involved in the children’s before- and after-school activities, including educational, sporting, and recreational programs, and estimates his participation at approximately 65% during a period when Heather was occupied with work. He states that there has since been a unilateral change to this arrangement, which he says has had a considerable impact on the children’s lives. Stephen also addresses allegations raised in correspondence from Heather’s legal representatives, Delaney Roberts, regarding claims that his emotional state, including alleged frequent crying, has caused distress to the children. He denies crying constantly in front of the children and states that Christian has questioned why Stephen’s contact photo on Heather’s phone depicts him crying on a couch. Stephen concludes his message by acknowledging Heather’s arrangement of counselling for the children.
11:32 AM
This message exchange concerns disagreement between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke regarding school holiday arrangements, communication timing, and allegations about discussions with the children. Heather Cooke initiates the exchange by stating that Joshua told her during a telephone call that Stephen Cooke had agreed to proposed school holiday dates. She reminds Stephen that she believes both children are exhibiting signs of significant anxiety and states that parenting matters should be discussed between the parents rather than with the children. She asserts that involving the children in such discussions is detrimental to their mental health and advises that she has arranged counselling for them. Stephen Cooke responds by stating that he did not have the conversation with the children that Heather alleges. He explains that he had not responded to Heather’s proposal until 1 April 2024 because he was still considering it and contemplating seeking legal advice, noting that the proposal deviated from an interim agreement previously agreed upon to avoid uncertainty. He suggests that Joshua’s comments may instead reflect Joshua expressing concerns about perceived unfairness in the current custody arrangement. Stephen further states that in 2023 he was significantly involved in the children’s before- and after-school activities, including educational, sporting, and recreational programs such as Lab Learning, hockey, ice skating, music classes, swimming, and tennis. He estimates that he participated in approximately 65% of these activities while Heather was occupied with work. He states that there has since been a unilateral change to this arrangement, which he believes has had a considerable impact on the children’s lives. Stephen also addresses allegations raised in correspondence from Heather Cooke’s legal representatives, Delaney Roberts, which allege that his emotional state, particularly instances of crying, has caused distress to the children. He denies crying constantly in front of the children and states that Christian has questioned why Stephen’s contact photo on Heather’s phone depicts him crying on a couch. Stephen concludes his message by acknowledging Heather’s arrangement of counselling for the children.
Avatar
Bupa Bronze Plus Simple Hospital with a $500 excess provides inpatient hospital cover Australia-wide in public and private hospitals for common treatments. Medicare covers 75% of approved medical fees, with Bupa covering the remaining 25% of the Medicare Benefits Schedule, reducing out-of-pocket costs. Emergency ambulance is covered. Dependent children are fully included with no excess payable. Together, Medicare and private hospital cover ensure lawful, continuous access to necessary medical and hospital care, demonstrating the capacity for both children to be appropriately cared for under the law.
3.99 MB
Avatar
Stephen Cooke wrote to his solicitor, Matthew Shepherd, seeking clarification on several financial and legal issues before deciding whether to settle or proceed to a final hearing in his separation and divorce matter, and requested these issues be raised at the 9 July 2024 mention. His concerns include understanding the nature and implications of a newly established trust account and whether it increases his financial liability relative to Heather. He seeks clarity on proposed property settlements, noting Heather’s offers (initially framed as 67/43, later 57/43), justified by his employment gap, reduced credit capacity, and significant role as a stay-at-home parent supporting Heather’s medical career. He asks whether recognition of his parenting contribution at mediation could impact future parenting orders. Stephen questions claims about Heather’s lack of available cash, including $146,000 in business and personal expenses and funds withdrawn shortly before separation. He raises concerns about his 2023 tax return, stating it should be lodged by Heather’s long-term accountant (Walsh), with Heather assuming any liabilities, and notes the trust arrangement complicates his ability to lodge independently. He anticipates needing an independent chartered accountant to untangle finances and protect against potential liabilities. He also requests a signed Praemium authority to investigate investments potentially held in Heather’s name and asks to review Heather’s 2024 tax return. Stephen expresses increasing discomfort settling without judicial oversight due to unresolved financial and parenting issues.
1:17 PM
Stephen Cooke emailed Robinson Property (Brooke Taylor/Mike Flook) and Kent Conveyancing (Angel/Michelle Kent), copying his solicitor Matthew Shepherd, seeking clarity on how the mortgage would be discharged and how sale proceeds for 1/213 Morgan Street, Merewether would be handled given Kent Conveyancing does not operate a trust account. Stephen asked whether Kent would manage the mortgage discharge, whether the purchaser would pay Westpac directly the exact payout amount, and where the remaining funds would be held or distributed. Robinson advised they held the 10% deposit ($175,000) in trust, would deduct commission/marketing ($37,005.40), leaving $137,994.60 to the vendor, and had not yet received trust account details; disbursements could be split with written authority from all parties. Matthew Shepherd confirmed the purchaser pays Westpac directly, and the remaining proceeds go to an agreed trust account or are divided per agreement, noting April orders allowed $200,000 to each party unless changed. Michelle Kent confirmed Kent would handle discharge, Westpac receives only the payout balance, and absent agreement the proceeds would be held in one of the family lawyers’ trust accounts until instructions/consent orders exist. Stephen raised urgency because existing orders assumed Kent could hold trust funds; Kent noted an agent (Sydney Legal Agents) could hold trust if required and would confer with the family lawyers.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 2/02/2026 1:24 PM
Avatar
Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers wrote to JLM Family Lawyers regarding recent events following the Father’s Application filed 12 March 2025 and ahead of the Directions Hearing on 1 April 2025. They report that on 13–14 March 2025 the Father sought to care for the children in accordance with existing Orders, which the Mother refused, citing safety concerns and indicating the children would remain with her until a court event on 7 April 2025. The Father objected, stating he did not consent to altered arrangements and asserting that the Mother’s report to police mischaracterised a message as a suicide note, resulting in his detention under the Mental Health Act, financial loss, and damage to his vehicle. Further OFW messages addressed school attendance and changeover disputes. On 27 March 2025, NSW Police informed the Mother that the Father’s neighbours requested a welfare check; he could not be located and was listed missing. On 29 March 2025, Police advised border services confirmed the Father was overseas, presumed in Canada, and the missing persons matter was closed. The Mother maintains concerns regarding the Father’s parenting capacity and the children’s safety, noting the children have remained in her care, with assistance from her mother, and that school attendance has been disrupted to prevent collection by the Father. At the Directions Hearing, the Mother intends to seek an urgent Interim Hearing and relisting of the Compliance and Readiness Hearing, and requests the Father’s position on next steps.
1:57 PM
An Affidavit of Service by Hand was filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in divorce proceedings (file NCC4115/2024, Cooke HA & SC). The affidavit confirms that Stephen Christopher Cooke was personally served on 11 December 2024 at 2:32 pm at 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook NSW 2304, by a licensed process server, Janelle Wilson. The documents served included a letter dated 9 December 2024, the sealed Application for Divorce, Affidavit for e-Filing Application (Divorce), Marriage Certificate, Citizenship Certificate, and the Marriage, Families and Separation brochure. The process server identified the respondent by direct verbal confirmation of his full name and confirmed he acknowledged being the person named in the documents. Stephen Cooke signed the Acknowledgment of Service (Divorce), confirming receipt of the documents on the same date. The affidavit was sworn in Newcastle on 13 December 2024 before a Justice of the Peace (Mark Adam Stephenson, JP 145122). The documents were sealed by the Court on 8 January 2025. The divorce matter was listed for court on 4 February 2025.
Avatar
Summary – Single Expert Report (Drew Cowen), NCC3896/2023 Pursuant to Orders dated 15 October 2024, Drew Cowen, Consultant Psychologist, was appointed as Single Expert to prepare a Family Report regarding Christian (10) and Joshua (8). The report draws on court orders, affidavits, subpoenaed medical, educational and psychological records, and interviews with both parents, both children, treating practitioners, and school representatives. The parents separated in November 2023 and have since operated under interim arrangements whereby the children live predominantly with the mother during term and spend substantial time with the father. The report identifies significant parental conflict, cross-allegations of family violence, and inappropriate involvement of the children in adult disputes. While allegations are largely untested, the report assesses overall risk as low-level potency and consistent with situational couple violence rather than coercive or terrorising violence. The father is diagnosed with ADHD and demonstrates executive functioning difficulties, boundary issues, and poor routine enforcement. The mother reports trauma responses linked to past interactions with the father and seeks sole decision-making authority. Christian presents with ADHD, learning disorders, anxiety, and problematic video-game use; Joshua presents as developmentally typical but emotionally impacted by sibling conflict and parental tension. The report concludes the children’s expressed wishes are significantly influenced by the father and should be given limited weight. Recommendations include: the children living predominantly with the mother during school term; equal time during holidays; joint parental responsibility except for health (sole to mother); restrictions on screen time; therapeutic intervention for both children; and psychological support and parenting programs for the father.
2:21 PM
This Affidavit of Service (Transaction Ref. FAM4908574) was filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in family law proceedings NCC3896/2023. It records service of documents on Stephen Christopher Cooke on behalf of Heather Anne Cooke. Service was not effected by hand. The affidavit states that service was carried out by electronic communication. The documents served were an Application in a Proceeding, the Affidavit of Heather Anne Cooke sworn on 11 March 2025, and Orders sealed on 17 March 2025. The Application in a Proceeding and the affidavit were sent on 12 March 2025, and the sealed Orders were sent on 18 March 2025. All documents were sent to the email address stephencooke.c@gmail.com , being the address used for service. The affidavit does not record any signed Acknowledgment of Service by the recipient and does not assert personal receipt, only that the documents were sent electronically. The affidavit was sworn or affirmed by Olivia Jade Shedden of Delaney Roberts Family Lawyers and witnessed by a lawyer on 26 March 2025 in Newcastle, asserting compliance with the applicable service rules under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
Avatar
The purpose of this affidavit is to establish that a serious and material change in circumstances has occurred since the interim parenting orders were made, such that those orders can no longer operate safely in their current form. The document is directed toward protecting the children by demonstrating that the father’s current condition raises legitimate concerns about his capacity to safely exercise unsupervised parenting time. The affidavit begins by setting out basic, uncontested facts regarding the parties, their marriage, separation, divorce, and the existence of two young children. This framing is intentional. It places the matter firmly in the post-separation parenting phase and signals that the issue before the Court is not relationship conflict, but child welfare and parental capacity. The document then establishes a baseline of stability. It shows that the interim parenting orders were functioning as intended and that the mother consistently complied with them. Her role as the primary carer and her full-time professional employment are included to demonstrate continuity, reliability, and an absence of disruption prior to the events in question. This background supports the position that the application is not motivated by hostility or control, but by a genuine response to changed circumstances. The affidavit’s central focus is the incident of 7–8 March 2025. The failure of the father to collect the children from school during his scheduled time marks the beginning of a pattern of concern. The affidavit does not exaggerate this event, but treats it as the first visible sign of impaired functioning. The mother’s response is documented to show that she acted reasonably by arranging appropriate care for the children and attempting communication. The father’s subsequent message is included as evidence of altered judgment and an inability to engage with the immediate needs of the children. The affidavit does not interpret his beliefs or intentions, but demonstrates that the content of the message, combined with his disappearance, raised sufficient concern to warrant police involvement. A key direction of the affidavit is its reliance on independent authorities. The involvement of police across state borders, the tracking of devices, hospital admissions, and ongoing inpatient mental health care are presented to show that the situation was objectively serious. This shifts the narrative away from subjective fear and toward demonstrable risk confirmed by third parties. The affidavit also establishes that the instability was ongoing. The father’s car was located abandoned, and medical staff confirmed that he remained hospitalized with no imminent discharge. These facts are included to show that the situation had not resolved by the time the children were due to resume time with him. Importantly, the affidavit does not seek permanent removal of the father from the children’s lives. Its direction is cautious and interim. It asks the Court to temporarily suspend specific parenting and communication orders pending further assessment. This frames the application as protective rather than punitive. Overall, the affidavit aims to demonstrate that continuing the existing parenting arrangements in the face of recent events poses an unacceptable risk to the children. Its purpose is to justify immediate court intervention to pause unsupervised time until the father’s capacity and stability can be properly assessed and the children’s safety assured.
Avatar
The overall direction of this email chain is to document how a parenting dispute that was active in September 2024 was being managed as a negotiable, non-urgent disagreement about parenting practices, rather than as a safety or capacity issue. The correspondence shows a moment in time where both parties, through their lawyers, were preparing for a dispute resolution conference and were focused on strategy, positioning, and tone rather than adjudication. Heather, through her legal representatives, proposed draft parenting orders for the purposes of mediation. While the core “spend time” arrangements largely mirrored existing proposals, she sought to introduce additional conditions that would regulate aspects of Stephen’s parenting during his time with the children. These included limits on screen time, restrictions on games and media content to PG standards, and a requirement that if a child became unwell while in Stephen’s care, the child would be returned to Heather so she could manage medical treatment. The direction of these proposed orders was toward greater consistency between households, but also toward increased oversight of Stephen’s parenting decisions. Stephen’s lawyers immediately framed these proposals as matters better suited to discussion at mediation rather than detailed written argument. They repeatedly cautioned against engaging in a long or complex response, noting time constraints and the risk of distraction. This advice reflects a clear strategic objective: to avoid escalating ordinary parenting disagreements into entrenched conflict through correspondence, and to preserve Stephen’s position ahead of the dispute resolution conference. The responses drafted on Stephen’s behalf were intentionally restrained and cooperative. They acknowledged shared concerns about screen time and content, agreed in principle to consistency between households, and accepted that Christian’s interest in “Five Nights at Freddy’s” warranted discussion. Where nuance was introduced, such as peer influence or Christian’s ADHD, it was framed carefully and without accusation. The consistent deferral to mediation underscores that the intent was not to resolve these issues by email, but to keep them within a negotiable framework. Matthew Shepherd’s later email makes the strategic direction explicit. He frames negotiation as an exchange of leverage and encourages Stephen to see Heather’s requests as opportunities to trade agreement on lower-cost issues for outcomes that mattered more to him, particularly maintaining meaningful time with the children. He also notes that some of Heather’s proposed conditions were likely to be made mutual or imposed by a court if the matter proceeded, reinforcing the value of cooperation at this stage. Importantly, the correspondence reflects an underlying assumption shared by all legal actors involved: that Stephen’s ongoing involvement in the children’s lives was expected and appropriate. There is no suggestion in these emails that Stephen posed a safety risk, lacked parental capacity, or required supervision. The issues are treated as differences in parenting style, boundaries, and control, not as matters of immediate welfare concern. In essence, the direction of this document is contextual and evidentiary. It captures a point in time where the parenting dispute was being managed through negotiation and compromise, with Stephen actively engaging, following legal advice, and presenting as cooperative and child-focused. This establishes a baseline that the dispute was about parenting preferences and consistency, not incapacity or danger, and that any later claims to the contrary would represent a significant shift in narrative rather than a continuation of concerns already present.
Avatar
The overall direction of these proposed final parenting orders is to consolidate parental authority, control, and decision-making in the mother, while substantially narrowing and conditioning the father’s role in the children’s lives. Although framed as “final” orders for dispute resolution, their substance goes well beyond time arrangements and moves into comprehensive regulation of how the father may parent during his time. At the highest level, the proposal seeks sole parental responsibility for the mother. This is a decisive structural shift. It removes shared decision-making entirely and positions the mother as the sole authority over long-term and significant decisions affecting the children. This establishes a hierarchy rather than a cooperative parenting model and signals an intention to resolve disagreement by centralising power rather than managing difference. The time arrangements reinforce this imbalance. While the children are to live with the mother, the father’s time is reduced, fragmented, and tightly scheduled, particularly during school terms. The structure limits overnights, shortens weekday time, and creates a pattern that is predictable but constrained. Holiday time is more evenly distributed, but still carefully segmented and administratively complex, reinforcing the sense that the father’s involvement operates within a tightly managed framework. The most significant directional feature of the orders is the conditioning of the father’s time. His parenting is made subject to detailed behavioural requirements that regulate screen time, content access, software controls, alcohol consumption, and responses to medical issues. These conditions do not merely set shared expectations; they impose unilateral obligations on the father that are enforceable as compliance measures. The effect is to treat his parenting time as contingent and conditional rather than autonomous. In particular, the restrictions on screen time, media content, and specific franchises go beyond general guidance and enter the realm of prescriptive control over day-to-day parenting choices. The requirement to install and maintain restrictive software further embeds oversight into the father’s household, even extending to periods when the children are not under his direct supervision. This reflects a lack of trust in the father’s judgment rather than a negotiated standard. The medical emergency provisions similarly shift authority. In the event of illness or emergency, the father’s time is automatically suspended, and control transfers to the mother. This removes discretion from the father in moments where parental competence would ordinarily be assumed, and instead treats medical decision-making as exclusively maternal. Communication provisions limit interaction between the parents to written, child-focused exchanges, reducing flexibility and spontaneity. While framed as conflict-management, they also formalize distance and reinforce separation of roles rather than cooperation. Taken as a whole, the direction of these proposed orders is not merely to provide stability or consistency for the children, but to redefine the parental relationship itself. The father is positioned as a secondary, supervised, and regulated participant, while the mother is positioned as the central decision-maker and gatekeeper. The orders assume disagreement, risk, or unreliability on the father’s part, and respond by embedding control mechanisms rather than mutual standards. In essence, the document aims to transform shared parenting into a managed access model, justified through structure, conditions, and restraint rather than explicit findings of harm.
10:05 PM
The direction of this file note is to record a dispute resolution conference that was intentionally focused on understanding conflict through the lens of the children’s needs, rather than determining fault between the parents. The Senior Judicial Registrar made clear that the purpose of the conference was exploratory and reflective, designed to surface perceptions and barriers to agreement so that parenting arrangements could better serve the children. A central theme emerging from the discussion is the impact of separation on the children and their expressed need for stability, fairness, and a meaningful relationship with both parents. Stephen articulated that his request for increased time, specifically six nights per fortnight, was not driven by entitlement but by what he believes the children need. He stated that the children have experienced upheaval since separation, including a partitioned lifestyle, and that increased time with him would help restore balance, continuity, and a fair relationship with both parents. He emphasised treating both children equally and fostering a loving, secure environment that supports their emotional wellbeing. Stephen also acknowledged differences in household routines, particularly around screen time, noting that he has been accommodating restrictions while seeking to gradually reduce reliance on digital entertainment. He observed that the children themselves appear aware of, and to some extent accepting of, the partition between households, suggesting they are adapting but still affected by the divide. In explaining why he believes the co-parenting relationship broke down, Stephen pointed to a loss of emotional connection well before separation and a breakdown in communication. He described feeling that parenting and financial arrangements became punitive following separation, rather than collaborative, and that decisions affecting the children were increasingly driven by control and fear of loss rather than shared problem-solving. He expressed concern that the conflict, legal escalation, and focus on costs risk overshadowing the children’s actual needs. Importantly, the Registrar raised no safety concerns during the conference. Parenting differences were treated as matters for negotiation, counselling, and mutual adjustment. Overall, the file note reflects a process aimed at re-centering the children’s interests, encouraging self-reflection, and moving toward cooperative solutions that reduce conflict and support the children’s long-term wellbeing.
Avatar
The timing, scope, and sequencing of the subpoenas and Family Report preparation suggest a deliberate pattern designed to constrain Stephen’s position before any adverse findings had been made. The breadth of subpoenas sought is notable. They extend simultaneously into the children’s school, after-school care, allied health providers, and Stephen’s personal medical and psychological records. While framed as preparatory for a Family Report, the cumulative effect is not merely informational but positional. By saturating the expert pathway with third-party material—much of it selective and context-dependent—the process shifts from evaluating parenting capacity to constructing a narrative of supervision and deficit. Crucially, this escalation occurs in the absence of an interim hearing or findings of risk. The subpoenas were unsealed and subject to approval, yet the strategic intent was already in motion: to normalise intrusive oversight and recast ordinary parenting disagreements as matters warranting institutional scrutiny. Stephen is placed in a reactive posture, required to navigate procedural complexity simply to avoid being framed as obstructive. The Family Report process, while outwardly collaborative, becomes the gravitational centre around which control consolidates. Agreement to share costs and proceed promptly is framed as cooperation, but refusal would risk being characterised as resistance to transparency. Consent, in this context, is not freely exercised but functionally compelled by the procedural consequences of non-compliance. What emerges is a pattern where legal process substitutes for dialogue, and escalation replaces negotiation. Each step narrows Stephen’s room to manoeuvre while expanding institutional involvement in private parenting decisions. The pattern unfolds predictably: evidence gathering precedes narrative framing, narrative framing precedes conditional parenting, and conditional parenting precedes control.
11:04 PM
The overall direction of this email chain is to document Stephen’s proactive, transparent, and procedurally compliant engagement with the Court regarding subpoenas for his own medical records, in circumstances where timing and access were critical to the preparation of a Single Expert Report. The correspondence shows an effort to ensure accuracy, fairness, and completeness in the evidentiary process, rather than to obstruct or delay it. Stephen initiates contact with the Court seeking clarification about apparent inconsistencies on the Commonwealth Courts Portal relating to subpoenas issued to Chromis Occupational Medicine and Atune Psychology. His concern is not about avoiding disclosure, but about ensuring that all subpoenaed material is properly authorised for inspection by all parties and available within the timeframe required by existing court orders. He expressly links the urgency of his request to the 21-day deadline for finalising the joint letter of instruction to the Single Expert, demonstrating awareness of procedural obligations and the downstream impact on the parenting proceedings. A key aspect of the correspondence is Stephen’s attempt to correct the record regarding the source of drug and alcohol testing. He clarifies that these tests were independently arranged through Chromis, not through Atune or Dr Moisey, and that this distinction is relevant to why separate subpoenas and leave were sought. This reflects a concern for evidentiary precision rather than resistance to scrutiny. The responses from JLM Family Lawyers and the Court confirm that the subpoenas were properly issued, sealed, and returnable on the relevant date, and that no procedural defect exists. When informed of the correct process, Stephen immediately acknowledges the clarification, adjusts his understanding, and confirms his intention to follow the correct steps, including filing a Notice of Request to Inspect after the return date. Importantly, the exchange shows no finding of non-compliance, concealment, or impropriety. Instead, it records a cooperative interaction in which Stephen seeks guidance, receives it, and responds appropriately. The overall effect of the correspondence is to establish that Stephen acted in good faith to facilitate timely disclosure so that the Single Expert could be properly informed, supporting a fair and thorough assessment rather than undermining it.
11:06 PM
The timing, scope, and sequencing of the subpoenas and Family Report preparation suggest a deliberate pattern designed to constrain Stephen’s position before any adverse findings had been made. The breadth of subpoenas sought is notable. They extend simultaneously into the children’s school, after-school care, allied health providers, and Stephen’s personal medical and psychological records. While framed as preparatory for a Family Report, the cumulative effect is not merely informational but positional. By saturating the expert pathway with third-party material—much of it selective and context-dependent—the process shifts from evaluating parenting capacity to constructing a narrative of supervision and deficit. Crucially, this escalation occurs in the absence of an interim hearing or findings of risk. The subpoenas were unsealed and subject to approval, yet the strategic intent was already in motion: to normalise intrusive oversight and recast ordinary parenting disagreements as matters warranting institutional scrutiny. Stephen is placed in a reactive posture, required to navigate procedural complexity simply to avoid being framed as obstructive. The Family Report process, while outwardly collaborative, becomes the gravitational centre around which control consolidates. Agreement to share costs and proceed promptly is framed as cooperation, but refusal would risk being characterised as resistance to transparency. Consent, in this context, is not freely exercised but functionally compelled by the procedural consequences of non-compliance. What emerges is a pattern where legal process substitutes for dialogue, and escalation replaces negotiation. Each step narrows Stephen’s room to manoeuvre while expanding institutional involvement in private parenting decisions. The pattern unfolds predictably: evidence gathering precedes narrative framing, narrative framing precedes conditional parenting, and conditional parenting precedes control.
11:11 PM
On its face, this joint letter of instruction is neutral, orthodox, and procedurally compliant. However, when situated within the broader sequence of events, it functions as a critical structural hinge in the progression of the matter, formalising a shift from negotiation to expert-driven adjudication. The letter crystallises the Family Report as the central mechanism through which the parenting dispute will now be interpreted and resolved. By enumerating an expansive list of matters for the expert’s opinion, it effectively transfers evaluative authority from the parents and the Court’s interim oversight into a single expert pathway. While framed as joint and cooperative, the scope of inquiry is exceptionally broad, extending beyond present parenting arrangements into lifestyle, maturity, psychological risk, attitudes, and inferred capacity. Importantly, this transfer of authority occurs before any final hearing, and in the absence of findings of risk. The expert is asked to assess not only relationships and capacity, but potential harm, psychological risk, and the impact of alleged family violence, notwithstanding that earlier dispute resolution processes had not identified safety concerns. The result is that issues previously treated as relational or negotiable are repositioned as matters requiring expert judgment. Although cost-sharing and joint instruction give the appearance of parity, participation is effectively compulsory. Once the Family Report is commissioned, disengagement or resistance would likely be interpreted adversely. Cooperation becomes a procedural necessity rather than a freely exercised choice, particularly where the report may later be relied upon by either party. The attachment of a substantial document index further reinforces this dynamic. The expert’s lens is shaped in advance by curated third-party material, meaning the assessment does not arise from a neutral starting point but from a pre-loaded evidentiary environment. This amplifies the influence of earlier subpoena activity and embeds it within the expert process. Viewed cumulatively, the letter does not merely instruct an expert; it locks in a trajectory. It formalises a pattern where dialogue gives way to documentation, and where parenting disagreement is subsumed into institutional evaluation. The significance lies not in any single instruction, but in how the process consolidates around the expert as the arbiter of parental capacity, narrowing the space for relational resolution and expanding the role of procedural control.
Avatar
This provision required the parties, within a strict 21-day timeframe, to finalise and send a joint letter of instruction to the Single Expert for the preparation of a Family Report addressing statutory considerations, the children’s views, the impact of proceedings on the children, and any other matters the expert considered relevant. On its face, the clause appears neutral and child-focused, intended to facilitate an impartial expert assessment aligned with the Family Law Act. In practice, however, this mechanism did not operate impartially in my matter. The requirement to produce a “joint” instruction under a compressed deadline returned effective control of the process to party-driven negotiation at a point where neutrality was meant to be secured by the Court. That negotiation occurred through lawyers, under time pressure, and in circumstances of unequal financial and procedural capacity. As a result, genuine agreement was not reached on an equal footing; instead, compliance became the practical necessity to avoid being characterised as obstructive or uncooperative. The breadth of the instruction compounded this imbalance. While reference to sections 60CC, 61DA and 65DAA is orthodox, the inclusion of open-ended matters—particularly “any other matters the Single Expert considers relevant”—allowed previously generated material, assumptions, and third-party documents to be carried forward into the expert process without any prior judicial findings of risk. Issues that had previously been treated as relational, negotiable, or unresolved were effectively reframed as matters requiring expert scrutiny. For me and my children, this was not a theoretical concern. The combined effect of the deadline, the breadth of the mandate, and the consequences of non-agreement meant that participation was functionally compelled rather than freely given. What was intended to advance an impartial, child-focused inquiry instead operated to reintroduce imbalance, shift the dispute back into a lawyer-driven re-negotiation phase, and prioritise procedural momentum over meaningful, equitable engagement.
Avatar
On 13 June 2025, Heather contacted me requesting my consent to renew Christian’s passport. At the time, I did not respond immediately, as my delay was to protect the children.
Avatar
This email chain documents Stephen Cooke’s decision to self-represent in ongoing family law proceedings, outlining the procedural failures, escalating pressures, and personal impacts that led to that decision. Stephen explains that his choice to self-represent arose after repeated instances where critical evidence and concerns were not properly progressed despite ample notice, preparation, and financial cost. Central to this is the issue of alcohol restrictions. While existing interim orders imposed equal alcohol-related conditions on both parents, proposed amendments at a recent dispute resolution conference sought to apply restrictions solely to Stephen. Although his lawyer advised that alcohol use was not raised by Heather as a reason to reduce time with the children, the draft orders and supporting documents reflected a clear shift that singled Stephen out, implicitly reinforcing allegations of problematic drinking. To address these implications transparently, Stephen voluntarily undertook a comprehensive six-month drug and alcohol hair follicle test. However, despite providing these results to his former lawyer in February 2024, multiple attempts to have them shared with the family report writer, Drew Cowan, were unsuccessful. The results were never forwarded, nor was the issue remedied despite follow-ups. This occurred on more than one occasion and is documented in Exhibit A. As a result, Stephen concluded that formally subpoenaing Chromis Occupational Medicine was the only way to ensure the evidence was placed on the court record. Stephen also highlights concern about the upcoming family report being prepared by Drew Cowan under restrictive mutual consent orders. These restrictions limited what information could be included, and Stephen felt he was given insufficient time to properly review them before agreeing. Given the earlier failures to include relevant evidence, he expressed the need to ensure his concerns were formally raised with both OS Legal and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and communicated to the Registrar. The cumulative effect of these procedural breakdowns significantly disrupted Stephen’s life. He describes substantial emotional strain, professional disruption, and financial cost, including difficulty securing employment and continuing his studies. Although he had hoped to rely more fully on legal representation following the completion of the financial settlement, this proved untenable. Consequently, he initiated steps to represent himself via the court portal, requested his Client ID, and planned to file an amended initiating application seeking a 50/50 care arrangement, potentially subject to reciprocal drug and alcohol testing. The correspondence also reflects the personal toll of the proceedings on Stephen’s mental health and family relationships. In emails to his parents and psychiatrist, he describes deep frustration and anger triggered by dismissive responses and a perceived lack of support. While acknowledging financial assistance from his family, Stephen requests that legal discussions cease due to the harm they were causing. His father responds by affirming support but setting boundaries, emphasizing personal responsibility and encouraging employment. Overall, the emails demonstrate that Stephen’s decision to self-represent was not impulsive, but driven by repeated procedural omissions, the need to protect the integrity of evidence before the court, and the cumulative personal and professional costs of continuing under circumstances where his concerns were not adequately addressed.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 3/02/2026 11:01 AM
Avatar
On 20 February 2024, Stephen emailed his solicitors at Clarity Lawyers attaching the results of a hair follicle drug and alcohol test conducted by Chromis Occupational Medicine. He advised that a prior pathology report relating to medication intake should be disregarded, as it was unsigned and therefore invalid. The attached documents included hair test results, drug and alcohol screening reports, and interpretive material. On 26 February 2024, Stephen followed up after a meeting with his solicitor, confirming that he had discussed presenting evidence of medication compliance to the court. He noted that alcohol consumption was not discussed during the meeting and was not raised by the family report writer, Drew. After contacting Drew’s office, Stephen was informed that permission from the other party was required before the reports could be shared. He requested that his lawyers initiate this process, stating there was no apparent downside to disclosure. In early March 2024, Stephen sought confirmation as to whether his drug and alcohol results had been accepted or considered. He also raised concerns about obtaining banking records relating to mortgage changes, requesting legal assistance to formally pursue disclosure. His solicitor responded by explaining that further information would require subpoena and that follow-up on parenting matters was ongoing.
11:12 AM
Demonstrates a material divergence in professional views and a substantive shift in proposed parenting conditions relating to alcohol use. The “Diff of Opinion” document reflects a disagreement between legal practitioners regarding the relevance, treatment, or framing of alcohol-related concerns within the parenting proceedings. It indicates that there was no settled or unanimous legal position supporting the imposition of alcohol-specific restrictions against the Father, and that the issue was contested or viewed differently by successive legal representatives. The “OS Legal Restriction on Alcohol – Father Only” document evidences a proposed amendment to parenting orders whereby alcohol restrictions, previously applied equally to both parents, were altered to apply solely to the Father. This change represents a departure from the existing balanced framework and introduces a unilateral condition that implicitly associates the Father with alcohol-related risk, despite the absence of new findings or substantiated evidence within the document itself. Taken together, these documents show (a) an internal legal disagreement as to the necessity or fairness of alcohol-based conditions, and (b) a concrete proposal that singles out the Father for restrictive treatment. The juxtaposition supports the position that the restriction was not grounded in consensus, but rather reflects a contested and escalatory change in approach.
11:14 AM
In this email, Stephen Cooke writes to JLM Family Lawyers and Delaney Roberts to apologise for any confusion or frustration arising from the previous day’s court mention and to seek guidance on next steps now that he is self-represented. He acknowledges concerns raised about adherence to due process, clarifying that any missteps were not intentional and inviting the recipients to contact him directly with questions or requests, particularly regarding the children while in his care. Stephen requests, at a high level, information about what material has already been received or reviewed for the Family Report (such as school or OOSH records), so he can provide relevant additional context in an appropriate and procedurally correct manner, without intruding on the children’s time with their mother. He provides updated service and residential contact details. He explains that his hesitation during the prior mention related solely to ensuring that relevant information could be properly placed before the family report writer, Drew, and not to any attempt to delay or undermine the process. Stephen affirms his confidence in Drew’s professionalism and commitment to the children’s best interests. Stephen states that he has remained celibate since separation and does not consume alcohol other than at occasional work functions, noting that testing confirms compliance with court orders. He reiterates his aim of achieving a 50/50 parenting arrangement, proposes co-parenting therapy, raises concerns about audio recording, and requests assistance with issuing subpoenas to specified medical providers in relation to the Family Report.
11:18 AM
This summary outlines changes to mortgage balances, offset accounts, and linked Westpac accounts from the separation period (November 2023) through to 25 March 2024, identifying funds removed or credit utilised by Heather. First Mortgage (Fixed Rate Loan – 216802): Between November 17, 2023 and March 25, 2024, payments totaling $10,194.91 were made back into the mortgage by Heather. Second Mortgage (Variable Rate Loan – 7671): Available credit was utilised, increasing the loan balance by $3,401.93. Second Mortgage Offset Account (Westpac Choice – 5063): The offset account balance of $178,201.51 was fully depleted. Stephen’s access to this account was later revoked. Third Mortgage (Variable Rate Loan – 7778): Available credit was drawn down in the amount of $163,967.60, increasing the loan balance accordingly. Third Mortgage Offset Account (Westpac Choice – 2594): The offset account was reduced by $38,470.58, with Stephen’s access subsequently revoked. Westpac Choice Account (645055): Funds totaling $4,854.23 were depleted, and access was later revoked. Additional Withdrawal: Stephen Cooke withdrew $8,000.00 on November 18, 2023. Total Funds Removed by Heather: The cumulative amount attributed to Heather’s depletion of offset accounts and utilisation of available credit is $391,090.76.
Avatar
Stephen reports that Heather initiated the phone call, which he returned despite not being obligated to facilitate contact unless requested by the children. During the call, Heather made a series of statements to Joshua that Stephen considered inappropriate and potentially harmful. These included repeated references to money and financial security, contrasting her own purported ability to earn vast sums with statements implying Stephen was unable to do so. Heather also spoke about secrecy, telling Joshua that it was “really important” that Stephen not know her address and explicitly asking Joshua to keep this information from his father, while acknowledging that asking a child to keep secrets was stressful. The conversation further included Heather encouraging Joshua to destroy a sentimental object—a chipped mug previously given to her by Stephen—by instructing him to find it and smash it on the floor. Joshua expressed discomfort and reluctance, stating that he did not want to do this and that it might upset her if he did. Heather persisted, reiterating that she no longer needed the item and directing Joshua to destroy it. Heather also raised the idea of a “secret code word” for Joshua to use if he ever felt scared or worried while at Stephen’s house. She proposed that Joshua say a specific phrase so that she could come and retrieve him, framing this as a safety measure. Joshua agreed to the suggestion, though the exchange indicated confusion and an attempt to please his mother. Throughout the call, Joshua’s responses were minimal, hesitant, and often redirected toward neutral or unrelated topics. Stephen included a detailed, timestamped transcript of the call and attached an audio recording, expressing concern that the conversation placed Joshua in a conflicted position, encouraged secrecy from one parent, and undermined the child’s emotional security. He stated that his concern was not isolated to this incident but reflected a broader pattern affecting the children’s wellbeing. In his correspondence with Clarity Lawyers, Stephen sought advice on how to manage future communications initiated by Heather and questioned whether it would be more appropriate to decline such calls. He also raised concerns about Heather’s influence over the children in therapeutic contexts and asked whether arrangements could be made for the children to see a therapist of his choosing, independent of Heather’s involvement. Stephen emphasised that his intention was to protect the children’s emotional wellbeing and to ensure that their voices were accurately represented, rather than imposing his own views. He requested that the substance of the call be properly considered within the broader parenting context and made available to the Court for consideration in relation to custody and parenting arrangements. The email thread records Stephen’s view that the conversation with Joshua was significant, concerning, and warranted careful attention due to its potential impact on the child and the co-parenting relationship.
12:09 PM
Avatar
This document contains account information and balance details for Stephen Cooke’s superannuation held with Future Super. Stephen Cooke is identified as the member, with member number 164556 and account number 509018. The registered contact details include a mobile number (0412 846 712) and email address (stevecooke.c@gmail.com ). The most recent employment record listed is Doctor Heather Anne Cooke as the employer. The last superannuation contribution received was $1,224.21, credited on 29 November 2023. No further employer contributions are recorded after that date. As at 6 June 2024, the total superannuation balance is $163,478.91. Historical balance data shows a steady decline over the preceding months, consistent with market movement and/or the absence of new contributions. Earlier balances shown include approximately $182,164.57, $175,843.70, $169,522.83, and $163,201.96 across the March to June 2024 period. The full balance is invested in a single investment option, Balanced Impact, at 100% allocation, with no diversification across other options. The fund is administered by Apex Superannuation (Australia) Pty Ltd, with Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited acting as trustee. The issuer and investment manager is Future Super Investment Services Pty Ltd. Insurance cover, where applicable, is provided by AIA Australia Limited. The document also notes that no rollover requests have been made in the preceding 30 days and includes general product, regulatory, and disclosure information.
12:23 PM
This screenshot shows the Westpac personal banking account overview for Stephen Cooke as at 18 March 2024, listing three home loan accounts and one transaction account. The Fixed Options Home Loan (Account 037-173-216802) shows a current balance of –$600,357.74. The Rocket Repay Home Loan (Account 037-173-257671) shows a current balance of –$187,401.93. The Rocket Repay Home Loan (Account 037-173-257778) shows a current balance of –$248,788.84. The Westpac Choice transaction account (Account 732-501-653193) shows an available and current balance of $6,659.57. The total available funds across all listed accounts is $6,659.57, reflecting only the balance of the transaction account. The combined total balance across all accounts is –$1,029,888.94, representing the aggregate position after taking into account all home loan liabilities and the available transaction balance. No offset account balances are visible in this view. The screenshot reflects account balances only and does not show transaction histories, credit limits, or details of prior withdrawals or access changes
Avatar
The internal email contains a comment by Jacqueline Turner suggesting that if Stephen requested the forensic accountant to join a pre-mediation conference, staff should “just humour him.” This language is inappropriate and dismissive. A forensic accountant’s involvement in a property mediation—particularly where valuations and financial facts are expressly identified by the mediator as critical—is a legitimate procedural consideration, not a frivolous request. Characterising it otherwise undermines informed preparation, disregards the mediator’s stated concerns about unresolved valuation issues, and reflects a lack of professional respect for the client’s right to properly participate in and prepare for mediation. (edited)
5:11 PM
The correspondence confirms arrangements for mediation listed for 18 June 2024 at 9:30am in Newcastle before The Hon. Garry Foster. Mr Foster acknowledges the matter and reiterates that mediation was requested in relation to property and parenting, noting the importance of resolving significant factual or valuation issues beforehand. He requests a collaboratively prepared Balance Sheet prior to mediation and confirms the process will be conducted on an evaluative basis. Anna Roberts responds to clarify that the mediation is intended to address property issues only, with parenting matters to be discussed only if property issues are resolved and time permits. She confirms her intention to cooperate in preparing the Balance Sheet and looks forward to working with the mediator. Mr Foster acknowledges this clarification.
Avatar
This email confirms the formal booking of mediation for the Cooke family law matter on Tuesday, 18 June 2024, to be conducted by The Hon. Garry Foster at the Newcastle Resolution Centre. Jacqueline Turner advises that the mediation is intended to address both parenting and property issues. The email identifies the parties and their legal representatives: Stephen Cooke as the applicant father, represented by Clarity Lawyers with Rebecca Van Oosterom as barrister, and Heather Cooke as the respondent mother, represented by Delaney Roberts with Ashley Bithrey as barrister. The correspondence follows a prior telephone discussion and provides logistical details to Culwulla Chambers to secure the booking and confirm attendance of all parties and practitioners involved.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 3/02/2026 5:29 PM
Avatar
Holy Family Primary School Merewether Family Verification Report (29 Apr 2021) confirms student Christian Cooke (DOB 20/08/2014), enrolled since 28/01/2020 in Year 1. Residential address: 1/2 13 Morgan St, Merewether NSW. Medical records note asthma, medication use (Ventolin held at school, exp. Sept 2021), no allergies, immunisations up to date. Parents listed as Heather Cooke (doctor) and Stephen Cooke (carer), with verified contact and guardian details.
Avatar
Westpac account summary (as at 7 Nov 2023) shows multiple joint financial facilities held before Heather unilaterally withdrew all funds without notice, leaving me without access to money or a credit card. Accounts included three housing loans and three Westpac Choice accounts linked to the family home at 1/2 13 Morgan St, Merewether NSW. Customer: Stephen Christopher Cooke (customer since 17 Jul 2015). Balances reflected substantial liabilities and available funds prior to removal.
Avatar
This summary consolidates information provided by the father, Stephen Christopher Cooke, to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, Jo Markham of JLM Family Lawyers, on Friday, 6 September 2024 at 6:44 AM, concerning the children Christian Finn Cooke (DOB 20/08/2014) and Joshua Finn Cooke (DOB 27/01/2017). The material was supplied to assist the ICL in understanding the children’s health, education, living arrangements, and the father’s parenting position. Stephen Cooke (DOB 27/10/1981), an Australian and Canadian citizen, currently has the children for five nights per fortnight. He resides at 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook NSW 2304, where the children have settled well. The home has a large front and back yard, three bedrooms, and is located in a quiet residential circuit with minimal through-traffic. The children share a bedroom, with a third room used as a music and study space. Stephen reports the neighbourhood provides a safe environment, nearby children of similar age, and a park within walking distance. The home is approximately 20 minutes from Merewether Heights Public School, allowing continuity of schooling and friendships. Stephen was raised in the Catholic faith, which Heather supported throughout the relationship. The parties were married in a Catholic church, and both children were baptised. Faith remains part of Stephen’s household routine. When the boys are with him, they pray together nightly, including the Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. Joshua learned a modern version of the Our Father at school, and Stephen also taught him the pre-1980s version he grew up with. Stephen reports the children have told him they no longer pray before bed when with their mother. Christian has ongoing health needs including asthma, allergies, and ADHD. His asthma is managed in accordance with an asthma action plan, including Seretide as a preventer and Ventolin as a reliever. Stephen reports he is familiar with asthma management and has coordinated Christian’s care with the school and treating doctors over many years. Christian’s seasonal allergies are managed with antihistamines, regular bathing, eye drops, and minimising exposure to known allergens. Christian is prescribed Ritalin for ADHD and attends routine paediatric reviews. In 2023, Christian developed separation anxiety around school drop-offs and received treatment from a psychologist. Stephen reports he was excluded from a paediatric appointment on 12 March 2024 after the mother arrived. Educationally, Christian demonstrates strong communication skills, reading comprehension, and insight, with some need for additional support in mathematics and written tasks. Teachers have provided positive feedback regarding his engagement and understanding of complex concepts. Joshua is in good overall health. Stephen describes him as emotionally expressive, socially confident, and highly self-aware. Joshua is in Year 2 and is progressing well academically, working independently and confidently. His reading comprehension continues to improve, while writing benefits from support in organising ideas. Joshua engages well in interactive and hands-on learning environments and demonstrates creativity and leadership. Stephen states he supports cooperative co-parenting but raises concerns about behaviours he believes undermine the children’s emotional security, including discouraging statements about belonging with him, restrictions on transferring sentimental items between homes, and difficulties coordinating medical care and medication dispensing. He proposes a structured approach to managing the children’s healthcare across households. Stephen also provided evidence of consistent involvement in the children’s lives, including medical appointments, school engagement, extracurricular activities, and completion of recognised parenting programs. He reports both children have expressed a desire to spend more time with him and appear settled, secure, and thriving in his care.
Avatar
The email exchange begins with Walshs issuing a meeting confirmation addressed to both Heather and Stephen, written in a way that reasonably conveyed a shared or joint meeting, notwithstanding that the call was to be placed to Heather’s phone. In reliance on that communication, Stephen sought legal guidance and responded by confirming his availability, requesting clarification of the meeting’s purpose, and asking whether the meeting could be conducted via Zoom and recorded, given the parties’ separation and his belief that the meeting may relate to court-ordered financial matters. The interaction then undergoes a marked reframing when Heather responds by stating that Stephen was not to attend the meeting, would not receive the agenda or any recording, and that his request constituted a breach of her privacy and ongoing harassment. At this point, Stephen’s conduct is recharacterised from a reasonable response to an email he was included in, to behaviour framed as improper. Walshs subsequently clarifies that Stephen was included in the meeting invitation in error and confirms that no information relating to Heather’s meeting will be provided to him. This acknowledgement establishes that Stephen’s involvement arose from an administrative mistake rather than self-initiation. Nevertheless, it must be noted that gaslighting occurred in effect. Regardless of intention, the sequence results in Stephen being led to question the legitimacy of his own reasonable reliance on a communication addressed to him. Conduct that arose directly from an external error is retrospectively reframed as misconduct, while the precipitating error itself is displaced from focus. This shift alters the perceived reality of events after the fact, creating a discrepancy between the documented record and the later characterisation of Stephen’s actions. In this sense, the gaslighting lies not in motive but in outcome: a situation where a party’s reasonable interpretation of events, grounded in the written record, is later invalidated and recast as wrongful, despite objective evidence explaining how that interpretation arose.
12:45 PM
This email is an early record of Simon Farmer’s direct involvement in the financial planning and lending strategy that later culminated in the “Game Plan” document. In August 2022, Darole Evans of Walshs introduces herself and the lending team to both Heather and Stephen, stating explicitly that they are acting at the request of Simon Farmer. The purpose of the engagement is to investigate the couple’s lending capacity for a new investment property loan, with Walshs coordinating the assessment, bank selection, product choice, and pursuit of pre-approval. The email presents the work as a joint financial strategy undertaken for both parties, with Simon positioned as the initiating adviser directing the process. This correspondence establishes that Simon was not a peripheral adviser but was actively commissioning and coordinating financial strategies involving Stephen’s financial position well before the later “Game Plan” document was produced. It provides documentary evidence that Simon had detailed access to, and influence over, Stephen’s financial affairs and strategy formation, forming part of the broader continuum of advice and planning that later evolved into the Game Plan strategy, which Stephen asserts was ultimately used in a manner that was financially adverse to him.
12:52 PM
In December 2023, Stephen writes directly to Praemium requesting the immediate removal of Simon Farmer, identified as the authorised financial adviser on the account, along with the removal of any other listed financial advisers. He instructs that Stephen alone is to be authorised to make changes to, or withdraw funds from, the account and requests that no further transfers be made into the SMA until further notice. He also asks Praemium to update his contact email address on file. The email evidences a clear and unequivocal withdrawal of trust and authority from Simon Farmer and Walshs Financial Planning in respect of Stephen’s investment account. It establishes that, by this date, Stephen had taken active steps to sever Simon’s advisory role and restrict any further adviser access or control over his funds, marking a decisive shift away from the prior adviser-client relationship.
12:58 PM
This email to Samantha Miller (with Prue Garvin copied) documents Stephen’s attempt to understand and clarify an investment account held in his name and to seek legal advice about its implications within the context of his divorce. Stephen explains that he contacted Praemium directly to gain a clearer understanding of account SMA00418788. He states that while Simon Farmer acted as his financial adviser at Walshs, Simon primarily communicated with Heather without Stephen present. Stephen describes a pattern in which he was asked to sign documents prepared by Simon, Heather, or other Walshs representatives without being provided with a clear explanation of their purpose, and that when he questioned these arrangements he was told they were “in our best interest,” sometimes accompanied by pressure from Heather to proceed. He further advises that Darole Evans prepared the “Game Plan” document for signature and that, during a prior conference call, Darole stated the strategy had been developed under Simon Farmer’s guidance following discussions with Heather that excluded Stephen. Stephen notes that Darole’s earlier email correspondence appears to support this account of how the strategy was formed. Stephen informs his lawyers that, following his conversation with Praemium, he now understands that the investment is held in his name and that he appears to have unilateral control over the funds, including the ability to sell assets to cash and transfer funds to his personal bank account. He expresses concern about whether exercising that control could negatively affect the investment’s value, given his lack of investment expertise. He then asks for legal advice on several issues: whether the investment forms part of the marital asset pool, whether it affects his financing arrangements (including with JustFund), and whether the circumstances surrounding the investment support his claim of financial abuse. Finally, Stephen highlights a significant discrepancy between the “Game Plan” document, which states that he holds 100% ownership of an investment valued at $274,986.33, and the Praemium account documents he attaches, which indicate the investment balance is substantially lower. He raises this discrepancy as a further concern regarding the accuracy and reliability of the financial strategy and documentation prepared for him.
Avatar
This email chain records Stephen’s successful removal of Simon Farmer/Walshs as adviser from Praemium account SMA00418788, subsequent administrative updates to Stephen’s banking details, and a later dispute about an unexpected $5,000 deduction that caused immediate hardship. On 8 December 2023, Praemium (Hovhannes Sahakyan) confirms they have processed Stephen’s request to remove the adviser from his account. Praemium states the account is now “non-advised,” meaning no adviser will review whether the investment remains suitable, and Stephen’s permitted actions are limited to closing or withdrawing funds, updating bank details, and updating personal/contact details. Praemium also notes that buying or switching investments would require appointing a new adviser, and asks Stephen to confirm the bank account name to complete the bank-update request. Between 12–13 December 2023, Praemium follows up to confirm the correct bank account name. Stephen initially provides “Westpac Choice,” then clarifies that the name on the bank card is “Stephen C Cooke.” Praemium confirms the bank update has been processed and advises the regular contribution plan has been handled in line with his instructions. On 16 December 2023, Stephen emails Praemium urgently stating that despite his earlier written instruction to stop future payments, Praemium withdrew $5,000 from his personal Westpac account, pushing it into overdraft and leaving him without access to funds over the weekend. He explains the immediate impact (a declined purchase while trying to buy a Christmas gift for his son), requests the funds be returned as soon as possible, and requests compensation for any interest or penalties incurred. On 18–19 December 2023, Praemium (Christian Schrampf) responds following a call, asks Stephen to provide a letter to process the withdrawal matter, then confirms the funds have been returned (asking Stephen to check his bank account ending in 193) and confirms the regular contribution plan has been cancelled. Stephen replies seeking confirmation that the $5,000 was reversed rather than withdrawn and asks whether an additional $1,000 withdrawal is possible. Overall, the chain documents: adviser removal (leaving the account non-advised), changes to bank details, cancellation of regular contributions, and a contested $5,000 transaction that was later reversed after Stephen’s complaint and follow-up with Praemium.
Avatar
This email exchange records the formal commencement of Stephen’s family law representation with Clarity Lawyers and identifies the documents exchanged at the outset of his matter. On 20 November 2023, Prue Garvin of Clarity Lawyers writes to Stephen following his discussions with Samantha Miller, enclosing Clarity’s initial correspondence and costs disclosure for review. The attachments included with Prue’s email are: – Initial letter to client with cost disclosure – Cost Agreement – Before You File – Pre-Action Procedure (Financial Cases) – Before You File – Pre-Action Procedure (Parenting Cases) – Brochure – Marriage, Families and Separation – Central Practice Direction – Duty of Disclosure Stephen replies later the same day to Samantha Miller and Emily Partridge, advising that he is still working on the “FamilyProperty” section but may need to submit it due to time constraints while caring for his children. He attaches key financial and strategic documents relevant to the proceedings. The attachments included with Stephen’s reply are: – Cost Agreement – Westpac Accounts (dated 07-11-23) – GamePlan_11062023_103510 document This exchange confirms both the commencement of Clarity Lawyers’ engagement and the early disclosure of significant financial records and the “Game Plan” document as part of Stephen’s family law matter.
Avatar
Family Update – Health, Children, and Caregiving – 19 May 2023 On 19 May 2023, an email exchange occurred between Sheila Cooke, Heather Finn, Neill Cooke, and Stephen Cooke concerning Heather’s mother’s medical condition and general family matters. Sheila Cooke initially wrote expressing concern and support after learning that Heather’s mother had developed blood clots and was receiving hospital care. Sheila conveyed well-wishes on behalf of the family and hoped for a swift recovery. Heather Finn responded later the same day, advising that her mother’s condition had improved, that she did not require oxygen overnight, and that she was being discharged from hospital. Heather explained that the cause of the blood clots remained unclear, that testing had been conducted to rule out clotting disorders and cancer, and that a haematologist had prescribed lifelong blood thinners as a preventative measure. In the same email, Heather explicitly stated that Stephen had been “marvellous this week,” noting that despite the family suffering from a head cold, Stephen had managed the children’s daily routines, including getting them ready, taking them out, and settling them into bed when Heather was unwell. Heather also shared positive updates about the children, including: Joshua losing his front teeth and reacting to differing “tooth fairy” expectations, Christian receiving a secret love letter at school, Christian delivering a school speech titled “My Ideal World” and receiving an A++ grade, which she described with pride. Neill Cooke later replied, expressing relief at Heather’s mother’s recovery and making light-hearted comments about the children’s experiences.
Avatar
Based on the emails provided, taken as a whole and in chronological sequence, the correspondence shows a longstanding and consistent pattern during the relationship in which Heather voluntarily involved Stephen in managing digital communications, devices, and technical or administrative tasks, while financial management responsibilities were primarily handled by Heather. Over a period spanning at least from 2012 to 2022, Heather forwarded password resets, professional credentials, employment correspondence, property and banking documents, and technical support communications to Stephen, often with direct instructions such as “print,” “print please,” or requests to check her email or resolve an issue. The emails demonstrate a clear division of roles within the relationship. Stephen handled information technology–related matters, device setup, troubleshooting, document handling, and communications with service providers where technical or administrative assistance was required. Heather, by contrast, managed the household and relationship-level financial matters, including dealings with banks and financial institutions such as Walshs. Stephen did not impersonate Heather for the purpose of managing finances, nor did he take control of financial decision-making on her behalf. Instead, he relied on Heather to manage financial relationships and accounts in a manner intended to serve both parties equally, fairly, and honestly. Stephen’s involvement occurred openly and with Heather’s knowledge, including corresponding with third parties while copying Heather into communications, and acting on her instructions. There is no indication in the emails of secretive access, financial impersonation, or unilateral financial control by Stephen. Likewise, there are no contemporaneous objections, warnings, or expressions of concern from Heather that Stephen’s access to her devices or accounts for IT and administrative purposes was unauthorised or inappropriate. While none of the emails expressly state that permission was granted, the repeated delegation of technical and administrative tasks, the forwarding of credentials and account communications, and the absence of any limitation or revocation of access demonstrate implied and ongoing consent within clearly understood boundaries. Those boundaries included Stephen managing IT and administrative matters, and Heather retaining control over financial relationships and decisions. Taken together, the documentary record supports the conclusion that Stephen’s access was cooperative, role-defined, and consistent with the mutual trust and division of responsibilities that existed throughout the relationship.
3:39 PM
This email chain dated 28–29 June 2021 further supports the established division of responsibilities within the relationship and clarifies the nature of Stephen’s involvement in financial matters. The correspondence shows that Walshs Financial Advisors communicated jointly with Heather and Stephen regarding the establishment of a Praemium Investment Account. However, Heather is the party who directly provided the bank account details to Walshs, confirmed instructions, and responded substantively to the advisor. Heather managed the ongoing relationship with Walshs and exercised control over the provision of financial information and instructions. While Stephen was copied into the correspondence and received certain administrative communications, including the digital acceptance request being sent to his email, there is no indication that Stephen acted independently, impersonated Heather, or managed the financial relationship on her behalf. Rather, the emails reflect that Heather retained responsibility for financial decision-making and engagement with Walshs, and Stephen’s involvement was limited, transparent, and consistent with a shared awareness rather than financial control. Taken in context with the earlier emails, this correspondence reinforces that Stephen handled information technology, device access, administrative support, and technical tasks, while Heather handled financial relationships and decisions. Stephen trusted Heather to manage dealings with Walshs in a manner intended to serve both parties equally, fairly, and honestly. The email record does not show Stephen exercising unilateral financial authority or misrepresenting himself in financial communications, and instead reflects a cooperative arrangement with clearly understood boundaries between IT and administrative support on one hand, and financial management on the other.
Avatar
In December 2023, I obtained a Commonwealth Statutory Declaration from Mr David Robert, pharmacist at TerryWhite Chemmart Junction Fair, located at Shop 18, The Junction Fair, corner of Glebe Road and Union Street, The Junction NSW 2291. Mr Robert has dispensed medication for my family for many years and confirms that I have consistently been the parent responsible for collecting prescriptions for my sons, and at times for Heather, including Christian’s ADHD and asthma medication. This declaration was provided to my solicitor at the time, Samantha Miller of Clarity Lawyers, to corroborate my long-standing role in the children’s medical care and day-to-day parental responsibilities.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 5/02/2026 11:53 AM
Avatar
On Sat 2 Dec 2023 at 7:49am via Signal, Stephen told Heather he did not consent to the children leaving the home permanently, warned his solicitor would file an urgent recovery application, and raised safety concerns to be addressed in Court. He sent the same message by Gmail email (“Regarding the children”) shortly after.
12:42 PM
On Sat 2 Dec 2023 at 12:42am, Samantha Miller (Clarity Lawyers) emailed Stephen attaching information regarding recovery orders (Court brochure). Stephen replied at 12:51am thanking her. This preceded his Signal message later that morning referencing an urgent recovery application if the children were removed permanently.
12:45 PM
On Thu 14 Dec 2023 at 2:47am, Samantha Miller forwarded Stephen a letter from Heather’s solicitors proposing $5,000 per month and indicating he would be expected to cover mortgage and property outgoings from that amount. Samantha asked Stephen to review the dates and expenses and reassured him not to worry before discussing further. Stephen replied at 4:34am providing detailed mortgage repayment information, explaining the family had three home loans with total monthly repayments of $5,431, and stated he would not agree to any dates without further discussion.
12:46 PM
On 14 December 2023, Heather Cooke’s solicitors (Delaney Roberts) sent correspondence to Clarity Lawyers proposing a schedule of Christmas and January parenting time, including daily phone contact and changeovers at a Shell Service Station in Merewether. The letter alleges Stephen acted irrationally, unnecessarily filed a recovery application, and withheld Christian’s Ritalin. It requests confirmation Stephen will return the children as agreed and that he does not intend to leave Australia. The letter also proposes $5,000 per month spousal maintenance conditional on job-seeking evidence, with deductions for alleged account withdrawals and fees. It further raises complaints about Stephen’s behaviour and communications since separation.
Avatar
On 7 February 2024 at 7:58am, Jacqueline Turner (Clarity Lawyers) emailed Stephen confirming a detailed task list following their discussion. Stephen was asked to urgently provide further financial disclosure, consider obtaining a hair follicle alcohol test if it would show only low-to-moderate intake, engage an accountant to better understand investments, review and provide instructions on an updated Initiating Application, and prepare responses to Heather’s affidavit for a consolidated interim hearing affidavit. Jacqueline also suggested Stephen consult his psychologist regarding treatment compliance and potentially obtain a supporting letter. Jacqueline confirmed her own tasks included responding to property mediation proposals, updating the Initiating Application, following up subpoenas from the school, progressing a Child Impact Report, and reviewing disclosure material. Stephen replied across 7–8 February confirming a psychologist appointment, requesting a brief call, and raising concerns about reciprocal disclosure obligations. Further correspondence on 14 February confirmed Stephen had contacted an accountant and noted the interim hearing date (26 February) had been diarised. It should also be noted that although the hair follicle test was raised as important evidence in February 2024, Jacqueline Turner did not ensure the results were provided to the Family Report Writer prior to the first Child Impact Report meeting regarding the children, meaning the report writer did not have the benefit of that material at the initial appointment.
Avatar
Stephen Christopher Cooke filed parenting and financial proceedings (NCC3896/2023) seeking recovery and primary care of Christian (20/08/2014) and Joshua (27/01/2017) after separation (17/11/2023) and the mother removing the children (02/12/2023). He states he was primary homemaker/carer, alleges risk and co-parenting concerns, and seeks interim orders including spousal maintenance ($1,457/week), return of withdrawn joint funds, and litigation funding. Consent orders (26/03/2024) restrain subpoena inspection and prevent disclosure of the mother’s address.
Avatar
Stephen Christopher Cooke states that throughout the marriage he was the primary homemaker and day-to-day carer for the parties’ two children, Christian Finn Cooke (20 August 2014) and Joshua Finn Cooke (27 January 2017), while the Respondent, Heather Anne Cooke, worked full-time as a cardiologist. He asserts his parenting role included routine care, schooling support, and managing the children’s medical needs. Mr Cooke notes he organised the children’s COVID-19 vaccination appointments through NSW Health in January 2022, with confirmed first-dose paediatric Pfizer bookings for Christian (20 January 2022) and Joshua (27 January 2022). He also provides examples of continued health-focused parenting communication via OurFamilyWizard. In March 2024, when the Respondent raised concerns about Christian’s blurred vision while reading, Mr Cooke responded with detailed guidance regarding hydration, allergy symptoms, safe use of eye drops, and follow-up care. The parties separated on 17 November 2023. Mr Cooke commenced parenting and financial proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Newcastle Registry, file NCC3896/2023. In his Amended Initiating Application, he seeks urgent interim and final parenting orders, including that the children live primarily with him, with the Respondent spending structured time on alternate weekends and midweek periods. He also seeks orders addressing communication, changeovers, non-denigration, restraints against physical discipline, participation in post-separation parenting courses, anger management, and restrictions on alcohol consumption around the children. Mr Cooke also seeks interim financial and property relief. His 2nd Amended Financial Statement declares no current income and identifies his occupation as parent and homemaker. He discloses assets including the jointly owned former matrimonial home at 213 Morgan Street, Merewether (estimated $800,000), a Praemium investment portfolio (~$143,107), superannuation (~$164,304), and other personal property. Liabilities are primarily joint home loans, with his share disclosed as approximately $517,629. He estimates weekly living expenses of approximately $1,457. A key issue raised is the unilateral withdrawal of substantial funds from joint accounts following separation. Mr Cooke alleges the Respondent withdrew significant sums without agreement, including amounts exceeding $38,000, $178,000, and $163,000. Messaging provided indicates the Respondent stated funds were moved on legal advice so they could later be divided. Mr Cooke seeks return of withdrawn monies, safeguards requiring mutual consent for future withdrawals, and interim litigation funding of $50,000. In correspondence with his solicitors in early April 2024, Mr Cooke provided preparation materials for a barrister conference and requested amendments to his affidavit, including clarification of employment history and inclusion of his role in arranging vaccinations. He also raised concerns regarding a hospital incident referenced by the Respondent, suggesting the urgency of attending Lake Macquarie Private Hospital may have been overstated given he had arranged a GP appointment the following morning, noting the Respondent’s professional connection to that hospital as relevant context. On 26 March 2024, Judicial Registrar Furner made consent orders restraining subpoena inspection and preventing disclosure of the Respondent’s residential address or area of residence to the Applicant for her personal protection under s114(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975.
1:37 PM
Summary – Assistance with Securing Replacement Blinds (7A Bakeri Cct, Warabrook) This email correspondence between Stephen Cooke and Courtney Simpson (JCS Real Estate Newcastle) concerns Stephen’s request for guidance and landlord approval in relation to replacing multiple sets of blinds at the rental property located at 7A Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook NSW 2304. On 12 September 2024, Stephen contacted Courtney explaining that he was in the process of replacing blinds in several rooms of the house. He provided detailed measurements for both window frames and existing blinds across five areas: the master bedroom, boys’ bedroom, third bedroom, living room, and family room. Stephen also proposed recommended blind dimensions, noting the importance of allowing extra height (approximately 29 cm) to ensure coverage of the upper bar when blinds are fully drawn. Supporting photos and an Excel spreadsheet were attached, along with images intended to assist with colour matching. Stephen described the blinds as likely custom-made, with a light grey or off-white tone, and requested advice on whether the measurements should be provided directly to a supplier or adjusted further for proper fit. On 13 September 2024, Courtney responded that she was not the best person to advise on measurements, suggesting that the blind supplier would likely need to attend the property in person. She expressed concern about the potential cost of replacing all blinds and asked whether it was truly necessary, whether Stephen was seeking compensation, and whether the blinds would remain in the property upon vacating. Courtney recommended “Blinds Online” as a reasonably priced supplier and requested Stephen resend the archive link in another format, as she could not open it. She also asked for a photo of the new blinds so she could seek landlord approval. On 15 September 2024, Stephen clarified that the link was a ZIP archive containing the measurement photos, and he provided an alternative cloud link. He explained that the property currently contained two sets of blinds: a newer set in good condition and an older set with visible mould-like staining. Although cleaned, the stains remained noticeable in photographs. Given his circumstances—navigating a difficult separation and prioritising a healthy environment for his children—Stephen stated he needed to treat anything resembling mould with caution. He offered to pay for replacements upfront but requested that the landlord consider reimbursing costs at the end of the six-month lease, noting that new blinds would enhance the property’s appearance. He also indicated he was likely to stay beyond the initial lease term, as his children had settled well into the community. On 16 September 2024, Courtney agreed that Stephen’s proposal was reasonable and advised that if he could provide a quote, it could be submitted to the landlord for approval. Stephen then asked whether she knew the previous blinds supplier, mentioning Bunnings as a possible option for colour matching. Courtney replied that Winning Blinds had replaced blinds previously but were very expensive (approximately $600 per blind), again recommending Blinds Online as the best alternative. Stephen thanked her and confirmed he would investigate further.
Avatar
Mediation is confirmed for 27 June 2024 in Adamstown (Delaney Roberts offices). Matthew Shepherd prepared a Mediation Discussion Paper including the draft balance sheet, property orders (initial $200,000 payment, Merewether sale split, possible Southport sale fallback) and a spousal maintenance proposal of $1,200/week for 2 years. Before sending to the mediator and other side, he needs Stephen to sign the mediation participation agreement and confirm funds held in trust, including $3,850 (half mediator fee) plus $5,500 legal fees.
Avatar
AGL’s final electricity bill lists the supply address as U1/7 Bakeri Circuit, Warabrook NSW 2304, while the Residential Tenancy Agreement and Condition Report identify the premises as 7A Bakeri Cct, Warabrook NSW 2304. This inconsistency in the legal/property description is concerning and raises questions as to whether the tenancy and utility accounts were correctly aligned to the same dwelling. Clarification is requested, as mismatched addressing may affect billing, bond records, and notice validity.
Avatar
A birthday message from my brother expressing love, asking for forgiveness, and hoping for reconciliation.
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 21/02/2026 1:45 PM
Avatar
10-08-25 - A plea from David asking you to call Christian on his birthday because Christian is emotionally struggling and would be deeply hurt if you didn’t.
1:53 PM
29-03-2025 The email states that the sender was informed police had been attempting to locate the recipient as a missing person but have since concluded he is in Canada. It urges him to make contact immediately or return to Australia, asserts that his absence is causing significant stress to his children and family, and accuses him of abandoning his sons.
1:58 PM
26-11-2025 The email states that the sender believes the recipient has either blocked the email address or ignored previous attempts to make contact. It expresses concern about not knowing the recipient’s whereabouts, invites him to visit for Christmas, offers to pay for airfare, and asks him to respond, noting that family in Canada would like to see him.
Avatar
14-05-2025 - This screenshot shows messages from Joshua Davidson, a member of Hunter Bible Church, who would visit me and the boys weekly at 7A Bakeri Cct, Warabrook NSW 2304. The messages are friendly check-ins, expressing concern for our wellbeing and asking whether we were still overseas or back in the country. (edited)
Avatar
24-10-2024 - The photo shows Wayne Tso, a neighbour who introduced Stephen to Hunter Bible Church, with his children alongside Stephen’s sons, Christian and Joshua.
Avatar
This document is a summary snapshot of a Future Super superannuation account held by Stephen As at 6 June 2024, the total superannuation balance is $163,478.91. The account shows recent balance fluctuations over time, with figures indicating previous higher values (around $182,164.57) and gradual changes through to mid-2024. Recent employment details list the employer as Doctor Heather Anne Cooke. The most recent contribution to the super account was $1,224.21, received on 29 November 2023. No start or end employment dates are specified in the snapshot. All funds (100%) are currently invested in the “Balanced Impact” investment option. This means both the existing balance and any future contributions or rollovers received into the fund will be allocated entirely to this option unless changes are made. The portal indicates that no rollover (transfer of super from another fund) has been requested in the last 30 days. There is an option available to consolidate other super accounts if applicable. The dashboard also provides tools to view statements, transactions, manage investments, notify an employer of fund details, and download the Future Super mobile app. The remainder of the document contains standard financial services disclosures. It notes that the information provided is general in nature and does not take into account personal financial objectives, needs, or circumstances. It recommends reviewing the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS), Financial Services Guide (FSG), and Target Market Determination (TMD) before making decisions about acquiring, holding, or transferring superannuation. The issuer and promoter of the fund is Future Super Investment Services Pty Ltd. Equity Trustees Superannuation Limited acts as trustee of the Future Super Fund. The fund is administered by Apex Superannuation (Australia) Pty Ltd, and insurance cover for eligible members is provided by AIA Australia Limited. In essence, this is a member dashboard overview showing account details, current balance, latest contribution, investment allocation, and standard regulatory disclosures for a Future Super superannuation account.
Avatar
Investor portal transaction history (May 2023–April 2024) showing regular deposits, managed fund buys, income and fees, followed by multiple asset sales and $10,000 withdrawals. Funds were drawn down from the investment portfolio to cover legal fees, support and care for the children, prepare and sell the family home, and secure a new property to reside in.
Avatar
Letter dated 12 January 2024 from Alan Wright, Accredited Mediator, confirming he conducted family dispute resolution for Cooke & Cooke regarding parenting arrangements for Christian and Joshua. Interim arrangements were agreed. Financial matters were not discussed due to time limits. Further mediation on finances was offered. Tax invoices were attached.
Avatar
Federal Circuit and Family Court (NCC3896/2023) released a Child Impact Assessment (29 Feb 2024) on Stephen and Heather Cooke. It outlines parenting disputes, cross-allegations of family violence, mental health concerns, and differing parenting styles. The children seek equal time but were exposed to adult conflict. Further expert review and parenting programs are recommended.
6:10 PM
6:12 PM
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 2/03/2026 4:15 PM
Veilocity pinned a message to this channel. 2/03/2026 4:15 PM
Avatar
On 11 Aug 2025, Delaney Roberts served Stephen Cooke with a sealed Amended Response seeking parenting and property orders. However, final property orders made by Judicial Registrar Furner on 13 Sept 2024 had already conclusively settled the parties’ financial matters, including distribution of the Morgan Street proceeds and division of assets, raising questions about reintroducing property issues.
Avatar
In November 2025, Stephen Cooke’s Debtor’s Petition and Statement of Affairs were accepted by the Australian Financial Security Authority, resulting in bankruptcy effective 22 November 2025 (NSW 2278/25/9). The acceptance letter was issued by Matt Shepherd — notably the same name as the lawyer who previously represented the opposing side in Cooke’s Family Court proceedings that led to financial damage and eventual bankruptcy. The coincidence highlights a striking and unsettling overlap in names within the process.
Avatar
The communications provided show ongoing co-parenting correspondence between Stephen Cooke and Heather Cooke regarding their children, Christian Cooke and Joshua Cooke, with a strong focus on healthcare coordination, medication supply, and related logistics. Messages occur through OurFamilyWizard and email and include supporting documents such as an Asthma Action Plan and school-related communications. A major theme is Stephen Cooke’s attempt to create a structured approach to managing the children’s health needs, particularly because the children reside primarily with him. Stephen proposes that he schedule and attend routine appointments for chronic conditions (including asthma, ADHD, learning difficulties), and then communicate outcomes to Heather. He suggests that Heather provide observations for him to share with the treating practitioner, or participate by telephone if needed, while stating he does not consent to being in the same physical location as her. Stephen also proposes a division of responsibility for medications: restricted medications (notably Ritalin) coordinated by him with pharmacy dispensing aligned to custody arrangements, and non-restricted medications (including Ventolin, Seretide, prednisone) maintained separately by each parent, noting school is not an appropriate place to pass medicines between households. He further proposes that if one child requires hospital care, the other parent care for the well child to maintain routines, referencing practical constraints in hospitals. Christian’s asthma management generates repeated communications. Heather advises Stephen of an asthma exacerbation, the Ventolin dosing she administered overnight, and the need for continued doses at school and at home. She states that if Ventolin is required more frequently, escalation may be needed (prednisone and possible emergency department review) and requests notification if emergency care becomes necessary. Stephen responds by asserting he has extensive experience managing asthma and has overseen Christian’s care for many years. He says he does not recall receiving a prior email referenced by Heather, requests clarity about prednisone availability, and emphasizes that the children should remain under his care during his allocated parenting time. Heather later indicates Stephen could arrange a phone consultation for medications and maintains her tone is appropriate. A separate acute health issue involves Joshua developing a significant elbow infection in January 2024. Heather repeatedly urges urgent same-day medical assessment due to risks associated with infections near joint spaces and provides options for care (GP access line, emergency departments, doctor-to-door). Stephen documents efforts to secure GP appointments, provides symptom updates and photos, and asks whether waiting until the next morning is reasonable. He then takes Joshua to hospital, obtains antibiotics, attends a GP review the next day, and later shares prescriptions and aftercare details. Heather acknowledges updates and requests clarification on medication instructions, which Stephen provides. Other exchanges include Joshua’s illness episodes (vomiting/cough), school absence queries, and coordination with school staff and clinicians regarding Christian’s ADHD treatment and Ritalin administration. Disputes also appear in scheduling decisions (e.g., swimming lessons and a learning assessment), with Heather objecting to involving the children in parental decisions and Stephen proposing alternatives to preserve his time with them. Overall, the records show frequent friction about process, responsibility, and communication, alongside evidence that care was obtained and updates were exchanged when medical issues arose.
Avatar
Summary of Phone Call (17 November 2023 – After School Pickup) This phone call occurred on 17 November 2023, shortly after school pickup, on the same day Heather informed Stephen that she was leaving the marriage. The call took place after Heather had already transferred funds out of joint accounts and altered Stephen’s access to marital finances. At the beginning of the call, Stephen asks Heather why multiple joint bank accounts have been emptied, why large transfers have occurred, and why his credit card has been cancelled. Heather initially denies knowledge of the transactions and suggests Stephen is being paranoid. Stephen states that he has received real-time bank notifications showing transfers of approximately $29,000 and $178,000, cancellation of his MasterCard, and issuance of a new MasterCard with a reduced credit limit. Heather later acknowledges that she is aware of the financial actions. Stephen asks why these actions were taken without discussion. Heather responds that Stephen does not communicate with her and asserts that she has already tried extensively over the course of the marriage. Stephen asks about the children’s welfare. Heather confirms that the children are safe, have been fed, and are with her following school pickup. Heather then explicitly states that she is leaving Stephen and does not believe they have a future together. She explains that she no longer wishes to wait for Stephen to change and does not believe he is the partner she needs. When Stephen asks how long this decision was planned, Heather states it was not long-term planning but acknowledges deciding the day prior. Heather raises allegations that Stephen accused her of affairs and financial misconduct and claims Stephen breaches her privacy and personal boundaries. Stephen denies these allegations and asks for specific examples, which are not provided. Stephen expresses concern that he has been left without access to marital funds while interstate (in Texas). Heather acknowledges that she has taken control of the finances and states that she intends to move into a rental with the children. She states she will pay the mortgage but will leave Stephen responsible for utilities and personal expenses, and that she will provide him with an “allowance.” Regarding the children, Heather states that Stephen will continue to see them and denies intending to remove them from his life, but asserts that they will be “better with her.” She denies having prepared legal documents or a separation agreement for Stephen to sign. Stephen expresses confusion and distress and asks Heather to reconsider. Heather remains firm in her decision, stating she no longer needs to try and that separation will be difficult but necessary. The call concludes with Stephen stating that he was attempting to contact Westpac’s fraud line regarding the account activity.
Avatar
Oct 19, 2024 This email exchange documents the circumstances leading to Stephen Cooke’s decision to proceed with self-representation in an ongoing family law matter, highlighting procedural inconsistencies, evidentiary concerns, and the personal impact of the process. At the core of the issue is a shift in proposed legal orders relating to alcohol restrictions. Initially, restrictions applied equally to both parents. However, during a dispute resolution conference, amendments were introduced that would apply these restrictions solely to the father. This change raised concerns about fairness and the implication of a drinking issue that, according to prior legal correspondence, had not been formally raised as a justification for reducing time with the children. In response, Stephen undertook proactive steps to address these implications, including voluntarily completing drug and alcohol testing. Despite this, he states that his results—provided to his former legal representative in February 2024—were not submitted to the relevant parties, including Drew Cowan, who is responsible for preparing a family report. This omission occurred despite multiple follow-ups and incurred costs, and is cited as a key failure in the handling of his case. As a result, Stephen determined that subpoenaing the testing provider (Chromis Occupational Medicine) was necessary to ensure the evidence would be formally entered into the court record. This reflects a broader concern about control over the presentation of evidence and the integrity of the process. Compounding this is the impending preparation of a family report, which is subject to strict evidentiary limitations under a mutual consent order. Stephen indicates that he felt pressured to agree to this order without sufficient time for review, raising further concerns about whether critical information—particularly his testing results and related context—would be adequately considered. These procedural issues are framed within a wider context of personal and professional strain. Stephen describes significant disruption to his life, including financial burden, employment instability, and the emotional toll of navigating a complex legal matter largely unsupported. His intention to secure employment while managing legal responsibilities adds to this pressure. The exchange also includes communication with legal counsel, where alternative approaches—such as sharing test results without a subpoena—were suggested. However, given prior failures to submit evidence, Stephen expresses a loss of confidence in relying solely on representation to manage critical aspects of his case. In addition to legal correspondence, the exchange includes emotionally charged communication with family members. Stephen expresses frustration at feeling dismissed or misunderstood, particularly in response to comments perceived as minimizing his experience. While acknowledging financial support received, he ultimately sets a boundary to avoid further discussion of his legal matter with family, citing negative impacts on his mental health. A response from his father reflects a contrasting perspective, emphasizing the broader impact of the situation on the family and encouraging personal responsibility moving forward. Overall, the exchange captures a convergence of procedural breakdowns, perceived inequities, and personal strain. These factors collectively reinforce Stephen’s decision to take direct control of his case through self-representation, with the aim of ensuring that relevant evidence is properly submitted and his position is accurately conveyed within the legal process.
Avatar
On 31/03/2026, Safe’n’SOUND Self Storage notified Stephen Cooke that his unit faced disposal on 06/04/2026 due to overdue payments. On 10/04/2026, Stephen requested the payout amount and asked for more time. Later that day, he was informed the unit had already been auctioned, clearing the debt. Any surplus funds were sent via cheque, and remaining paperwork and keys can be collected with ID.
Avatar
On 15 July 2025, Revolut requested verification of my identity and source of funds, with a deadline of 5 August 2025. My account was subsequently restricted on that date, with Revolut stating the requested information had not been received. I later submitted all required documentation in-app on 1 April 2026. This included a Federal Circuit and Family Court consent order dated 13 September 2024 confirming a $250,306.00 divorce settlement in my favour, a solicitor-issued confirmation dated 11 September 2024, and a Westpac bank statement in my name. These documents clearly identify me and establish a legitimate, court-recognised source of funds. The submission was accepted and moved into review, with Revolut indicating a decision would be provided by 11 April 2026. Despite this, I was later informed that the information had not been provided and/or was inadequate, which is inconsistent with the documented submission and review process. The reasons given for rejection—missing name and invalid or expired date—do not align with the court and legal documents supplied, which clearly contain my full name and valid dates. The only potential issue is the age of the bank statement, which does not undermine the primary court-issued evidence. Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the requested information was provided in full, accepted for review, and sufficient to verify the source of funds. The rejection and subsequent claim that information was not provided appear inconsistent with the factual record and suggest a technical or procedural error rather than any deficiency in the documentation.
11:24 AM
Avatar
During mid-2025, while travelling abroad and relying heavily on Airbnb as my primary source of accommodation, I stayed at a property in Bulgaria (June 12–17, 2025). Upon checkout, the host confirmed the apartment was in great condition and indicated a 5-star review, with no damage reported. Approximately 13 days later, a claim was submitted alleging wardrobe damage. During that period, multiple intervening guests stayed at the property and publicly described it as “impeccable,” “very clean,” and in “pristine condition,” with everything functioning properly. None reported any issues. Despite this, Airbnb concluded the damage was “timely reported” and attributed liability to me. This contradicts both the delay in reporting and the uninterrupted, positive use of the property by subsequent guests, creating a clear break in accountability and making attribution of responsibility unsupported by the available evidence. This incident reflected a broader pattern of issues I experienced over preceding months and became a catalyst for my decision to purchase a campervan, as I anticipated ongoing accommodation instability and the loss of Airbnb as a viable option.
Exported 219 message(s)
Timezone: UTC+4