Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction
Kuang & Kuang [2025] FedCFamC1A 31 (5 March 2025)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal against dismissal of an application for release from the implied undertaking – Where appellant is facing criminal charges in District Court of New South Wales – Where appellant sought to use a redacted version of the single expert report prepared in the course of the parenting proceedings to defend the criminal charges – Where there is a real possibility that release of the report from the implied undertaking may contribute to the administration of justice in the appellant’s criminal proceedings – All grounds of appeal established – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Costs certificates issued.
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE – Where evidence relates to the attitude of the single expert report writer in relation to use of the report in the criminal proceedings – Where attitude of the expert found to be of limited relevance – Leave granted to adduce further evidence.
Moroz & Moroz [2025] FedCFamC1A 41 (14 March 2025)
CHILD ABDUCTION – Hague Convention – Where the father appeals against a refusal to make a return order – Whether the primary judge erred in assessing the existence of a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation – Where the primary judge applied the correct principles – Appeal dismissed.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 1)
Fletcher & Henderson (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 843 (6 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where the father sought that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and that the child spend time with him on a gradually increasing basis until she attains eight years of age, at which time she live in an equal time parenting regime – Where the mother sought sole parental responsibility and that the child live with her and spend no time with the father – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the mother’s proposed orders – Where the child has not seen the father since October 2021 when she was an infant – Where the mother’s eldest daughter had made disclosures of sexual assault at the hands of the father – Where the eldest daughter has a fear of the father – Where orders are made for the child to live with the mother and spend no time with the father.
Veda & Harendra [2024] FedCFamC1F 846 (9 December 2024)
PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Where the children have been exposed to parental conflict and family violence – Where younger child is experiencing school refusal – Where older child has rejected maternal family – Where Court finds father poses a psychological risk of harm to children – Children to live with mother and spend supervised time with father graduating upon condition to unsupervised time – Injunctions granted.
Kyler & Riber [2024] FedCFamC1F 847 (11 December 2024)
PROPERTY – Alteration of property interests – Where parties had 23 year relationship – Where wife asserts that her contributions were superior to the financial and non-financial contributions of the husband – Where the wife asserts that but for the financial assistance of her family members the parties would not have been able to establish a service business – Where husband made no financial contribution to the children of the relationship in the four years subsequent to separation – No matters of principle.
Savage & Haines (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 864 (13 December 2024)
PARENTING – International relocation – Where the parties agree the child will relocate with the mother to the USA – Where the father seeks to delay the relocation to July – Child has a good relationship with the father – Disadvantages of delay outweigh the advantages – Relocation to occur in February – Where it is desirable for the father’s time with the child to increase in manageable increments – Father has a history of drug and alcohol abuse – Father falsified drug test results – Father has not acted on single expert’s recommendation for changes to his therapeutic engagements – Where it is in the child’s best interest for testing to continue until the child is 10 years of age.
PROPERTY – Balance sheet items – Add backs – Where the parties agree their contributions were equal – Where the mother will retain primary care of the child – Consideration of the mother’s student loans – Where the father has significant capacity for employment but is currently unemployed – Consideration of the father’s expenditure on drugs and alcohol – Property to be divided 65 per cent to the mother and 35 per cent to the father.
Daughty & Fairhall (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 869 (19 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where the mother was the child’s primary carer – Where interim orders were made in 2023 for the reversal of primary care – Where the Court ordered nominal time between the mother and the child – Where the mother was considered to be a psychological risk and unable to support a relationship between the child and the father – Where the mother now seeks orders for primary care – Consideration of risk – Consideration of whether the mother would adversely impact the child’s relationship with the father – Where the evidence suggests that the mother has gained insight into her behaviour and supports the relationship – Consideration of whether the father can promote a relationship between the child and the mother – Where the father concedes he did not facilitate or promote the relationship between the child and the mother as an act of retribution – Consideration of best interests – where the child is settled at her school – Consideration of the geographical distance between the parties – Consideration of impact of the child changing schools – Where the child’s needs are being appropriately met in the father’s primary care – Where the evidence supports a finding that the child’s best interests are supported by the child spending as much time as is possible in the care of the time spending parent – orders for the child to remain living with the father.
DECISION MAKING – where the father seeks sole decision-making responsibility – where the mother promotes equal decision making responsibility – Consideration of the child’s autism diagnosis – Where the mother asserts the father does not accept the diagnosis – where the father asserts the mother takes the child to unnecessary medical appointments – where the father now concedes the child’s autism diagnosis – Consideration of whether the father can accept the child’s autism diagnosis and appropriately support her – where the father may lack the diligence and vigilance necessary to best promote the child’s development – Orders made for joint decision making.
Green & Green [2024] FedCFamC1F 896 (19 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where the father seeks that the child live with him and spend no time with the mother for an indeterminate period– Where the mother seeks that the child spend supervised time with the father in accordance with the child’s wishes – Where the father’s criminal proceedings are outstanding – Where allegations of parental alienation are a live issue and require determination at final hearing – Where an order changing the child’s place of residence has the potential to cause significant emotional distress – Application of Banks & Banks [2015] FamCAFC 36; (2015) FLC 93-637 – Where there is no evidence that the child is at an ongoing risk in respect to his physical safety in the father’s care – Orders made for the child to spend unsupervised time with the father in accordance with his wishes.
Gallo & Ruiz [2024] FedCFamC1F 893 (20 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where the children were born pursuant to a commercial surrogacy arrangement – Where the biological and birth mother are different – Where the birth mother resides overseas and has no relationship with the children – Where the father is the biological father – Where the matter proceeded undefended – Where the father seeks final parenting orders and a declaration of parentage – The father have sole parental responsibility for the children – The children live with the father – The father be declared the father of the children pursuant to s69VA of the Act – The father be at liberty to obtain an Australian Passport for the children – Application dismissed.
Asturias & Nasir [2024] FedCFamC1F 829 (29 November 2024)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Ex parte – Where the Independent Children’s Lawyer made an urgent request to manage the release of a psychiatric report – Where leave was given to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make an oral application – Where a psychiatric report of the parties raised the risk of kidnapping and fleeing, as well as filicide-suicide by the mother if she perceived the child was at undue risk or any threat to her current relationship with the child – Where the Court has to balance protection of the child from a possible adverse reaction of the mother and ensuring fairness and transparency of the process to the parents – Where the Court will bring forward the next appearance and order that the child be brought in for a meeting with the Independent Children’s Lawyer to allow an opportunity for the parties to be heard on the appropriate course of action – Where the order made and reasons are suppressed until the next appearance or earlier order.
Arundell & Skewes [2024] FedCFamC1F 895 (20 December 2024)
PARENTING – s65DAAA – Threshold issue of whether final parenting orders should be reconsidered – Where the applicant seeks the reconsideration of final parenting orders made by consent – Application of Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 – Prima facie significant change in circumstances necessary for reconsideration – s65DAAA a manifestation of the best interests principle – s65DAAA may allow the reconsideration of only part of a suite of final orders – Change in circumstances evidenced in breakdown of mutuality and cooperation in coparenting relationship
Austin & Austin [2024] FedCFamC1F 664 (2 September 2024)
PARENTING – Final Orders made by consent on first day of final hearing, allowing the children to relocate to the United Kingdom with the mother.
Kristiansen & Kristiansen [2024] FedCFamC1F 827 (6 December 2024)
PARENTING – Contested residence – Where the mother is neurodivergent and receives significant assistance from the National Disability Insurance Scheme (“NDIS”) within her household – Where the mother utilises such assistance for tasks relating to the care of the children – Where the children are also in receipt of NDIS funding – Where such funding is not conditional on the children living with the mother – Where the mother believes the father does not accept the children are neurodiverse nor does he accept the children require additional care in relation to their respective diagnosis – Where the father seeks further involvement within the therapeutic management of the children – Orders made for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother
Mahoney & Dieter (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 813 (28 November 2024)
PARENTING – Parenting orders – where mother and stepfather seek parenting orders for child now aged 13 years – where child has been subject of proceedings in New Zealand prior to relocation to Australia with father – where child was removed from mother and stepfather mid-way through New Zealand proceedings and placed in foster care – where comprehensive findings were made by New Zealand trial judge – where this court can adopt findings and evidence before the New Zealand court and does so – where issue estoppel is available but not binding.
PARENTING – Emotional and psychological risk to child – where mother makes allegations of rape by the father – where mother is unreliable witness – where rape allegations were comprehensively litigated in New Zealand – where New Zealand court did not accept the mother’s evidence – where New Zealand court did not accept rape allegations – where evidence of fixed belief is relevant to risk currently posed to the child – where litigation upon relocation of child to Australia continued –where it would be damaging of the child to learn of these allegations outside of a controlled therapeutic space – where face to face tie and communication must be supervised.
PARENTING – Parenting orders – where mother and stepfather have always sought relocation of child to New Zealand to live with them – where mother and stepfather currently only have supervised time – where current interim orders from 2020 require mother and stepfather to pay for travel due to outstanding costs order–where mother and stepfather altered position in last days of 27 day parenting trial – where mother and stepfather now seek modest increase in supervised time and no longer pursue a relocation or unsupervised time proposal – where mother and stepfather have not established that there should be relaxed supervision.
PARENTING – Meaningful relationship – where there is an existing relationship between child and mother – where risk posed by mother’s fixed belief outweighs any benefit to the child of expanding that relationship – where child has ASD diagnosis – where child has anxiety diagnosis.
PARENTING – Sole parental responsibility – high conflict– where father currently only communicating with mother through paternal grandmother – where both mother and father are unable to communicate with each other – where mother is ‘triggered’ by father – where father views mother and stepfather as ‘evil’ – where equal shared parental responsibility impractical – where mother and stepfather have previously interfered with medical treatment for the child recommended by experts – where mother and stepfather have threatened medical experts with litigation.
EVIDENCE – Expert evidence – where there is a private Single Expert Report and Court Preliminary Family Report– where Expert is in favour of increased time for mother with child – where evidence of Report Writers is substantial and very helpful to the Court – Reeves & Grinte – where there were 27 days of trial – where Court can make own observations of behaviour of parties during the course of the trial – where court does not follow all recommendations of expert witness.
SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS – Evidence – where while questions asked are not in themselves evidence they can form part of Court’s impression of the character of the self-represented litigant – where mother was represented by stepfather – where stepfather was bullish, intemperate and rude – where stepfather was a professional in New Zealand– where stepfather resigned his professional qualifications – where stepfather has represented himself and the mother since at least 2017 – where stepfather has said he will exhaust every avenue – where stepfather and mother seek ‘atonement’ – where ‘atonement’ included a four stage program of repentance.
VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS – Where there are two previous vexatious proceedings orders – where mother and stepfather brought contravention applications regarding time not spent due to the COVID-19 pandemic – where contravention applications subject to security for costs not paid – where contravention applications withdrawn late in the proceedings following days of evidence – vexatious proceeding order made – costs reserved.
Hinrichs & Hinrichs [2024] FedCFamC1F 870 (17 December 2024)
PARENTING – Relocation – Where the father seeks sole decision making responsibility – Where the mother seeks joint parental decision-making responsibility – Where the father seeks relocation of the children to Region B as opposed by the mother – Where the mother spends substantial attendance time with the children – Where the mother experiences mental health difficulties – The father have sole decision making responsibility of the children – Relocation be permitted – The children live with the father – The children communicate and spend time with the mother – The mother continue to attend upon a psychologist and receive treatment.
Re: Morgan [2025] FedCFamC1F 33 (28 January 2025)
MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Gender Dysphoria – Where the mother seeks an order that the child is competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Where the father did not consent to the child undergoing Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Where the child wishes to undergo Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Where the father conceded only during closing submissions that the child has Gender Dysphoria and was Gillick competent – Where the father opposed the mother’s application on religious grounds - Where the child’s medical experts expressed an opinion that the child is Gillick Competent – Where it is in the best interests of the child to undergo Stage 2 treatment – where orders as to confidentiality are made
PARENTING – Where the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the child for the mother to have sole parental responsibility and for the child’s name to be changed
PARENTING – Consideration of s65DAAA of the FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (Cth) – Where the parties consent to a reconsideration of final parenting order.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – (Division 2)
Butler & Wanzel [2024] FedCFamC2F 1207 (12 September 2024)
PARENTING – Where the parties agree that the mother should hold sole parental responsibility for the child and that the child should live with the mother – Whether the child should spend time with the father – Where the child has never met the father – Where there are allegations by the mother of significant family violence perpetrated by the father, including coercive and controlling family violence – Where findings are made that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and the mother as a result of family violence – Where the father has long-term mental health issues – Where findings are made that the father’s mental health presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the child’s safety – Where the Court cannot be satisfied that the father is drug-free – Where the child is vulnerable due to developmental delays – Where orders are made that the child shall spend no time with nor communicate with the father – Where injunctive orders are made pursuant to s68B of the FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (Cth).
Hearst & Cagley (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1763 (2 December 2024)
PARENTING – Adjournment granted 7 December 2023 – Social media post by suggesting he had manipulated the Court - application for disqualification by the father’s Counsel on the grounds of alleged apprehended bias - fair-minded lay observer – oral application for recusal dismissed.
Hearst & Cagley (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1799 (3 December 2024)
PARENTING – Adjournment application - promote cooperative and child focused parenting by the parties - advance a meaningful relationship between the father and the children – permitting the father to address the significant evidentiary shortcomings – adjournment granted with condition imposed – interim parenting orders.
Haughton & Brickley (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1721 (3 December 2024)
PARENTING – Three children, aged 15, and two twins aged 10 – extremely high conflict – where the siblings are separated – where both parents have engaged in “psychological warfare against their ex-partner at the detriment of their children” – where both parents have involved the children in adult issues and the Court proceedings, engaged in open denigration of the other in front of the children, attempted alienation/alignment of one or more of the children, verbal and psychical abuse on one another, emotional neglect of the children – where the Court holds concerns about both parents and their attitude – where the Court considers that the mother should be allowed to relocate – where the Court considers that the twin girls should remain living with the mother and only have electronic communication with the father – where the Court considers that the eldest boy should continue to live with the father and spend time with the mother in accordance with his wishes – electronic communication between all three children – best interests.
PROPERTY – Where the parties were together for 22 years – where the matrimonial assets are modest – jointly owned home with modest equity – where there are various items and vehicles – superannuation splitting order – just and equitable.
Gerardo & Gerardo (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1802 (13 December 2024)
PARENTING – Where the mother seeks a suite of interim parenting orders including that the children live with her, that she is granted sole parental responsibility and that the father is restrained from contacting the mother or children – Where allegations of parental alienation are a live issue and require determination at final hearing – Where the father challenges the opinions of the single expert – Where an order changing the children’s place of residence has the potential to cause significant emotional distress – Where there is no evidence that the children are at an ongoing risk in respect to their physical safety in the mother’s care – Where the supervision reports are overwhelmingly positive – Orders made allowing the children to spend additional time with the mother on an unsupervised basis.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harman undertaking – Where criminal proceedings are on foot – Where the mother sought to be released from the Harman undertaking in respect of material filed in proceedings before this Court – Where the application is opposed by the father – Where the mother seeks to use the documents in aid of her defence in criminal proceedings – Consideration of r 6.04 of the FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FAMILY LAW) RULES 2021 (Cth) – Where the Court is satisfied that special circumstances exist – Order releasing parties from Harman undertaking.