Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
Sofia & Treacy (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 10 (5 February 2025)
PARENTING – Where the child was conceived by the respondent as a result of an artificial conception procedure – Where an earlier judgment found the parties were not in a de facto relationship at time of child’s conception such that the appellant was not a parent pursuant to s60H of the FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (Cth) – Where the appellant’s application for parenting orders was subsequently dismissed by a later judgment– Where the appellant’s 16 grounds of appeal are entirely misconceived – Appellant appealed later judgment on numerous grounds – Appellant challenged the threshold parentage finding in the earlier judgment which was adopted by the later judgment – Where none of the grounds of appeal are found to have merit – Appeal dismissed.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)
Durante & Durante [2024] FedCFamC1F 794 (25 November 2024)
PARENTING – Allegations of parental alienation – Where the Court finds that the father does not have any desire to support the children’s relationship with the mother - Finding that the father and the paternal grandparents have psychologically abused the children and caused them serious psychological harm – Where the children are aligned with the father’s views – Likelihood of long-term psychological consequences for the children - Order for the children to spend no time with the mother notwithstanding the findings made in respect of the father’s conduct.
Savage & Haines [2024] FedCFamC1F 656 (26 September 2024)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objections to subpoenas – Where the mother seeks to redact her address on documents produced under subpoena – Where the father submits the mother’s fears in relation to him knowing her address are unfounded – Where the mother’s address is not currently relevant to an issue in the proceedings – Order for first access made – Subpoena to mobile company not relevant to an issue in the proceedings – Subpoena to the mother’s workplace for documents pertaining to her work performance not relevant to an issue in the proceedings – Subpoenas dismissed.
Bourreau & Ivers [2024] FedCFamC1F 807 (23 October 2024)
PARENTING – Review of decision by Senior Judicial Registrar – ex tempore - father seeks supervised communication transitioning to unsupervised communication – father seeks professionally supervised time –mother and Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the father’s application –father has an acquired brain injury – evidence of father’s difficulty regulating his emotions and behaviours – evidence of family violence – risk of psychological harm from presentation – possibility of no time no communication order at trial – where the court must balance the risks and benefits – where the court must consider the views of the children – where the risks can be adequately ameliorated through supervision – benefit of information for final hearing - orders for supervised communication and time.
Hannigan & Hannigan [2024] FedCFamC1F 806 (27 November 2024)
PARENTING – Interim orders – Where both parties agreed the children should live with the mother – Where the father sought to spend time with the children – Where there is an unacceptable risk to the children in spending unsupervised time with the father – Where the risk cannot be managed by supervised time – Interim orders made for no time with the father.
Tilmund & Tilmund (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 673 (26 September 2024)
PARENTING – Best Interests – Where the operation of interim orders by this Court were interrupted due to State Court proceedings resulting in an Apprehended Violence Order being ordered, naming the father as the Respondent and the children as the aggrieved parties, following an allegation of the children being reported by a third party – Where the children were ordinarily living with the father by consent on an interim basis – Where the State Court proceedings are yet to be finalised – Where the nature of such allegations are yet to be particularised or available to the Court.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the father sought leave to dispense with the Harman undertaking.