Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Significant cases published April 2022

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction

Saunders & Yorke [2022] FedCFamC1A 54 (13 April 2022)

APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the father sought to challenge final orders that ceased the children’s time and contact with the father – Where the father is a part of a Community of people with similar proclivities – Where the primary judge found that the father posed a risk to the children and that restraints would not be sufficient in restraining the father – Where the father contended that the primary judge failed to balance the risks when making the final orders – Where the primary judge clearly balanced the risks and considered the primary and additional considerations under s60CC of the FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (Cth) – Adequacy of reasons – Where the reasons are clearly adequate – Where the father contended that the primary judge failed in considering that the risks were ameliorated by proposed restraints, which also addressed the concerns of the single expert – Where the primary judge’s findings were consistent with the single expert’s unchallenged evidence that the restraints were insufficient – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)

Nicoli & Jeryn [2022] FedCFamC1F 42 (4 February 2022)

ABDUCTION – where father obtained permission to take child on a holiday to Russia – where child wrongfully retained in Russia – where courts in Russia ordered that child be returned to Australia pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention – where taking parent has appealed return order and appeal is yet to be heard in Russia.

ABDUCTION – where father alleges that habitual residence of child changed when child made disclosures to him of inappropriate sexual conduct in mother’s household – where left behind parent (mother) is in long term same sex relationship.

JURISDICTION – where Australia retains primary jurisdiction pursuant to 1996 Child Protection Convention – where wrongful retention does not alter Australia’s primary jurisdiction.

ENFORCEMENT – where original parenting order made in Australia, by consent, in 2018 is to be recognised by operation of law in the Russian Federation and can be declared to be enforceable or registered for enforcement (as the case may be) in the Russian Federation.


Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 2)

Rusena & Rusena [2022] FedCFamC2F 472 (14 April 2022)

PARENTING – COVID-19 vaccinations – Where the mother seeks a restraint on the father from facilitating the children to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus without her consent – Where the father seeks sole parental responsibility with respect to having the children vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus – Where expert evidence informs risk-benefit analysis– Father allocated sole parental responsibility for discrete issue of children receiving COVID-19 vaccinations.


Nicholson & Andrews [2022] FedCFamC2F 76 (2 February 2022)

PARENTING – Relocation from NSW to Tasmania – where the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose relocation – admissibility of expert report due to bias and forensic prejudice – role of family report writer – when intimidating, monitoring and controlling behaviour induces fear – when need to protect from harm is prioritised over promotion of parental relationship – the state of the mother’s mental health and the impact on her parenting capacity – where articulating safety concerns is not evidence of a parents’ inability to promote a meaningful relationship – long term impact of exposure to parental conflict on the child – relocation permitted.


Cummings & Cummings [2022] FedCFamC2F 40 (27 January 2022)

FAMILY LAW – Parenting dispute about best interests of five year old boy – father convicted of sexual assault on 12 year old half-sibling – father pleading guilty and receiving community corrections order – whether father truly admitting the offence – whether father constitutes ongoing risk to the son – offending by the father having very serious effects on the mother and the 12 year old daughter – father’s simplistic assertions that offence irrelevant – mother seeking total excision of the father – Independent Children’s Lawyer supporting time with the father – Independent assessment concluding father a low risk of re-offending – interim orders for supervised time made.


Confirm Password