In her own declaration, filed on the same day, the Cheap Thrills hitmaker asked the court to turn down her estranged husband’s request for sole custody and denied his allegations of drug abuse as she insisted Daniel – who she previously alleged was under investigation for child sexual abuse materials – had “zero evidence” their son was in danger with her.

Sia insisted the allegations about her substance abuse were “entirely unfounded and misleading” and that although she had struggled with drug and alcohol issues over 15 years ago, she had been sober for more than six months.

While Bernad’s filing requested that Sia be ordered to submit to random drug testing three times a month and regular testing once a week, she said she is currently part of a programme that includes weekly testing and a sober companion, and alleged that while she has repeatedly agreed to the checks, her estranged husband had “refused” to do the same.

She wrote: “My recovery has been a cornerstone of my life and one of the primary reasons I chose to separate from Dan, whose ongoing engagement in a nightlife and recreational drug-use lifestyle is incompatible with a healthy environment for our child.

“Dan’s attempt to weaponise my past sobriety journey – an issue long resolved and well-documented – serves no legitimate purpose and is intended only to distort the facts and undermine my credibility before this Court. His willingness to dredge up decades-old history to serve his own financial and strategic interests demonstrates the extent to which he will go, even at the expense of his child and the child’s mother.”

Sia claimed she is worried about her son spending unsupervised time with his father because shortly after they separated, she was told he was being investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Department of Child and Family Services over allegations of child pornography on his computer hard drive, though the investigation was “inconclusive”.

She wrote: “While I understand the investigations of LAPD and DCFS have been inconclusive and now closed, this does not appease my concerns of Summi spending unsupervised time with Dan.”

Sia accused Bernad – who previously requested $250,000 a month in spousal support – of being financially motivated in his request, despite her having already paid him $300,000 since they split.

She wrote: “To date, every request by Dan for additional custodial time has been directly tied to financial gain rather than a genuine effort to foster a meaningful parental relationship with Summi.”