Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
Brauner & Brauner (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 67 (16 April 2025)
PARENTING – Appeal from parenting orders – Where the appellant submits the primary judge has misrepresented facts in direct bias, wilfully misapplied evidence, wilfully ignored objections to evidence, intentionally misrepresented facts in favour of the other party, and intentionally misrepresented facts against the children – Dissatisfaction with outcomes does not amount to bias – Where none of the appeal grounds have been established – Appeal dismissed.
Lehtinen & Lehtinen [2025] FedCFamC1A 69 (17 April 2025)
PARENTING – Where the primary judge made an order that final parenting orders be reconsidered – Where the primary judge found s65DAAA did not require a change in circumstances for the reconsideration of final parents order – Where the subsequent Full Court decision in Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 ("Radecki") rendered the primary judge's construction of s65DAAA erroneous – Where the respondent contended Radecki should not be followed – Where the Full Court decision is binding – Discussion of Radecki and the codification of Rice and Asplund [1978] FamCAFC 128; (1979) FLC 90-725 – Where the appeal is flawed as the order is not a judgement from which an appeal lies – Appeal dismissed.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)
Wedekind & Nakano (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 5 (17 January 2025)
PARENTING – Internation relocation – Where the mother seeks to relocate the children’s primary residence to New Zealand – Where the father seeks for the children to remain in Australia – Where the mother is the primary carer and the children spend three nights a fortnight with the father – Consideration of best interests – Where the children have a close and secure attachment with both parents – Where the evidence suggests the children would be distressed at separating from the father – Consideration of risk – Where the mother has significant mental health issues including psychosis – Consideration of the impact to the mother’s mental health and the impact on her ability to properly parent the children if relocation is not permitted – Consideration on how the children’s relationship with the father will diminish if relocation permitted – Where the single expert opined that relocation should be permitted as a matter of urgency – Where the evidence supports a finding the mother’s mental health would improve upon relocation – Where the children’s relationship with the father must be tempered by the risk posed to the mother if relocation not permitted – Where the children’s best interest will be served by relocating – orders for the children to relocate to New Zealand – Where the father should spend as much time as practicable with the children.
Lloyd & Compton [2025] FedCFamC1F 28 (28 January 2025)
PARENTING – Parenting orders – Surrogacy – Where an overseas commercial surrogacy arrangement has been entered – Where applicants are resident in Queensland – Where commercial surrogacy is prohibited in Queensland – Where the SURROGACY ACT 2010 (Qld) applies extraterritorially – Where consideration is given to best practice principles – Where one of the applicants is the biological father of the child – Whether a parenting order is ‘proper’ –Where the proposed order is not in the best interests of the child – Where to make an order would circumvent the law in Queensland where commercial surrogacy is a criminal offence - Whether referral should be made to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner – Whether referral should be made to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland.
PARENTING – Where the father seeks the return of the child to the Netherlands pursuant to the Hague Convention – Where the mother asserts grave risk of harm – Where the mother asserts intolerable situation – Where the mother may not accompany the child back to the Netherlands in the event that a return order is made – Where the exception is not made out – order for return made.
Rothman & Rothman [2025] FedCFamC1F 40 (30 January 2025)
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Parenting – Jurisdiction – Where the mother challenges the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the parenting dispute between the parties – Where there are current divorce and parenting proceedings in Country B commenced by the mother – Where the Court finds that the children are habitually resident in Australia – Where the Court is satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the parenting dispute.
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Parenting – Where the mother has retained the children in Country B without the consent of the father – Where the father seeks the return of the children to Australia and an order placing the children on the Family Law Watchlist – Where the mother informs the Court that she will not return the children to Australia – Orders made for the return of the children to Australia and thereafter the mother and children to have exclusive occupancy of the former matrimonial home – Orders made for the children to live with the mother and spend time with the father each alternate weekend on their return to Australia – Orders made for the children to be placed on the Family Law Watchlist.
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Financial – Where the mother seeks orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home and the payment to her of $100,000 by way of partial property order – Where the mother seeks in addition the sum of $2,736 per month by way of child maintenance –Where the mother contends that she is not eligible for government financial assistance from either Country B or Australia – Where the mother’s application is opposed by the father – Orders made to adjourn the mother’s application for financial orders to a date after that provided for the children’s return.
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – Anti-suit injunction – Where the father seeks orders for an anti-suit injunction in relation to the mother’s proceedings in Country B – Where no application is filed with the Court and the father has been on notice of the proceedings in Country B since October 2024 – Where the mother is self-represented and had no notice of the application – Application not heard.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 2)
Malek & Kambar [2024] FedCFamC2F 1519 (29 October 2024)
PARENTING – Where the biological father of the child is not known to the child – where the mother had an extramarital affair with the biological father for many years – history of abuse alleged by the mother during her relationship with the biological father – whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in being told about her biology and being introduced to the biological father at this stage of her life – biological father found to have engaged in family violence against the mother – finding that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child – orders that the biological father spend no time and have no communication with the child.
Tong & Gill (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1887 (3 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where final orders were made in 2020 – where the matter was reopen by the consent of both parties – where the judgment of 2020 made findings of family violence – whether those determinations bind these proceedings – decision of these proceedings bound by the 2020 judgment.
Sipos & Hidalgo [2024] FedCFamC2F 1814 (19 December 2024)
PARENTING – Whether hearsay allegations of intimate partner violence from three partners of Father indicate substantial risk to the children – whether father had been violent to Mother – where psychometric tests relied upon by single expert witness – where expert witness refuses to make all data available for examination by Father’s lawyers – where parents not informed that some data from psychometric tests would not be available for examination by parties lawyers – whether diagnosis of Father should have any weight in circumstances – whether alleged psychological impact on Mother of any time with parents’ two children means only limited 4 times each year professionally supervised – assessment of risk of unsupervised time – whether Father has “evolved”, progressed or rehabilitated himself – examination of extent of “criminality” of the Father – whether Paternal Grandparents suitable supervisors of any time – or whether they are “enablers” of Father’s violence – where Mother relies on advice from service that has not met the Paternal Grandparents – whether all overnight time should be at the Paternal Grandparents’ home – whether all time with children should be tethered to involvement of Grandparents – final orders for time gradually moving from supervised time to substantial attendance to unsupervised time but all overtime time and police station changeovers to involve Paternal Grandparents.