Regarding Megan Mitchell:
On 14 February 2020, in her verbal submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry on Family Law, Megan Mitchell asserted the following (refer at 2hr 24min here):

“parental alienation” is “kooky theory” that’s “been proven (to be) pretty much debunked”

 
“I’m a psychologist by trade, so I’ve looked at this issue and can see that this was something that didn’t have an evidence base behind it… so I think we really need to be careful when we’re thinking that this is a thing.”
She then went on to make highly defamatory and irrelevant accusations about one particular researcher who worked on parental alienation.
Then when pressed by Pauline Hanson with the question, “You don’t believe it’s happening at all?”, Megan reaffirmed,
“I just don’t believe it’s a real thing.  I don’t believe there’s any evidence to suggest in the psychological research that this is a real thing.”
Under further questioning Megan Mitchell said she did not think children were likely to mislead the courts, which directly contradicts the situation that exists in cases of parental alienation.  Megan advocated a greater voice for children in court, which in cases where they are manipulated by an alienating parent will actually increase the chances of them being further alienated from their other parent (who the child will say they don't want to see, with no appropriate reason).
An informed response to Megan’s inflammatory & disrespectful comments can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/eeny-meeny-miney-mo-foundation/response-to-megan-mitchell-national-childrens-commissioner-what-her-view-is-on-p/2651534298462578/

Parental alienation is a serious form of child abuse that was formally recognised by the World Health Authority in May 2019, supported by a large body of research, for which references can be found via: http://davidthorp.net/human-services/dv/children

 
Megan Mitchel’s experience and qualifications are listed here.  She is not a registered psychologist, has never worked as a clinical psychologist or child psychologist and also does not have justice system experience.  She clearly does not have the knowledge or experience to make the claims she did, either about the validity of “parental alienation” as a phenomenon or its prevalence in dispute cases that occur in the family courts (including listed supporters of this complaint).
 

As National Children’s Commissioner – appointed to represent the children of Australia – Megan’s comments may carry great weight in such an important Inquiry, but she clearly misled the Inquiry about her qualifications in order to give them the impression that her opinions were backed by professional authority and knowledge.  Denial of parental alienation by people such as Megan Mitchell already causes courts not to treat such cases with the seriousness they deserve.  Her comments to the Inquiry are likely to worsen that, to the detriment of hundreds or thousands of children and their alienated parents.
 
Megan's statements to the Inquiry demonstrate she is not fit to be representing children and should not be promoting herself as a “psychologist by trade”.

Also I think you only need the web links in section 11 of the Word document ("evidence of the offence").  I don't think the paragraph, "Family court process that is not allocating any family wealth directly to the children... " is relevant here, and I also don't understand it (especially the reference to "wealth").