Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Cases published October 2018

Family Court of Australia

Adel & Banes [2018] FamCA 821 (10 October 2018)

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – where mother seeks parenting orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that she have sole parental responsibility and the child live with her and the father spend time with the child – where the father seeks a recovery order by way of enforcement of an order of a court in the United States of America which provides that the child live with him and be returned forthwith to the United States of America which has been registered by this Court pursuant to r. 23 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth).
FAMILY LAW – REGISTERED OVERSEAS CHILD ORDER – effect of registration of overseas order – court’s jurisdiction to make parenting orders whilst registration persists – where this court can only vary a registered overseas child order with either the consent of the parties or if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that a child’s welfare requires the court to exercise jurisdiction in the proceedings – necessity to demonstrate that the welfare of the child is likely to be adversely affected if a subsequent parenting order is not made or there has been such a change in circumstances for the child since the making of the overseas order that a subsequent parenting order ought be made.
FAMILY LAW – INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER – role of independent children’s lawyer – where independent children’s lawyer to investigate preliminary mediation in accordance with Victoria Legal Aid’s Hague Mediation Model – independent children’s lawyer to oversee implementation of order for communication by telephone between father and the child.
FAMILY LAW – DIRECT JUDICIAL COMMUNICATION – the International Hague Network of Judges – direct judicial communication only by consent.


Gissing & Fuller [2018] FamCA 809 (8 October 2018)

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – Subpoena – where the self-represented father had the court issue subpoenae to produce documents where he could not explain apparent relevance – where his trial evidence was the basis to judge relevance – where there was no relevance shown and as such, the subpoenae were an abuse of process and struck out.

FAMILY LAW – INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER – where the father sought discharge of the appointment on the ground of bias – where the language in an outline of case of the Independent Children’s Lawyer was infelicitous, it was still robust and the advocacy role did not mean that the lawyer had not contemplated the positions of each parents and adopted the one that he thought best met the needs of the children – where there was no basis to discharge the law.


State Central Authority & Muteki (No. 3) [2018] FamCA 820 (1 October 2018)

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – Wrongful removal conceded – exception of consent found not to apply – exception of grave risk of harm not accepted – child ordered returned.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – purpose of mediation – conditions to return having regard to mother’s care of young child (eight months).

FAMILY LAW – CHILD ABDUCTION – role of independent children’s lawyer


Masson & Parsons and Anor [2018] FamCA 823 (18 September 2018)

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interim proceedings – Where the respondents contend the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s appointment has ceased due to the determination of the respondents’ appeal to the Full Court, even though matter remitted for re-trial – Where the Court considers rule 8.02(5) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer has standing.




Confirm Password