Posts of Danny Jovica RSSMon, 29 Sep 2025 03:14:29 GMTPierce & Pierce (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 162 (12 September 2025)🔹 IntroductionIn Pierce & Pierce (No 2), the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed a father’s appeal against interim parenting orders that gave the mother sole parental responsibility, ordered the children to live with her, and restrained the father from contact. The case highlights the paramountcy of children’s safety under Pt VII Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Court’s intolerance for prolix, unsupported appeals.🔹 Facts and IssuesParties & children: Three children aged 5, nearly 4, and 2.Father’s background: History of mental health issues (bipolar and borderline personality disorder diagnoses), involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation, erratic behaviour, and repeated breaches of an ADVO (including abusive texts and unapproved visits).Mother’s background: Primary carer; caring for eldest child with serious medical condition requiring specialist treatment.Father’s conduct: Disputed medical treatments, threatened doctors, secretly recorded consultations, and disrupted medical care. Supervised contact at a centre ceased due to his non-compliance.Orders under appeal: Children to live with the mother, no time or communication with the father, and sole parental responsibility to the mother.Appeal grounds: The father raised 28 grounds, alleging misdiagnosis, judicial dishonesty, failure to consider his evidence, and misconduct by police and the mother.Issues:Did the primary judge err in assessing risk and mental health evidence?Were findings about the father’s behaviour and ADVO breaches erroneous?Did the appeal establish grounds under House v The King for appellate intervention?🔹 Rule (Law)Best interests & safety: s 60CC requires consideration of children’s safety and wellbeing. s 60CG prohibits parenting orders that expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.Family violence orders: s 60CC(2A) requires the Court to consider any ADVOs and family violence h... Read more

]]>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 03:14:29 GMTThis should be active since explicitly set

]]>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:07:00 GMTThis should default to hidden since no status specified

]]>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:06:59 GMTThis post should now default to hidden status

]]>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:06:45 GMTJustice at Heart: Upholding Fairness in Family Law## IntroductionThe case **Jeanes & Gustafsson [2024] FedCFamC1A 101** involves an appeal by Mr. Jeanes (the appellant) against a decision made by a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia, which dismissed his application in a proceeding without a hearing or the opportunity to make submissions. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that the primary judge denied procedural fairness to the appellant, leading to the appeal's success.## Facts of the Case- **Background**: - The parties were married and cohabitated for approximately 16 years before separating in 2019, with a divorce finalized in July 2020. - There are three children from the marriage, aged 20, 16, and 14. - Proceedings began in 2019, with various interim orders and case management developments occurring over the years.- **Initial Orders**:  - An interim order for equal shared parental responsibility was made in 2019, and further orders regarding the living arrangements of the children were established over the years. - By 2023, significant changes occurred, including injunctions against the appellant and further parenting arrangements.- **Application in a Proceeding**: - On 15 March 2024, Mr. Jeanes filed an application requesting that one of the children, X, live with him, among other requests related to safety concerns involving the first respondent's new partner, Mr. D. - On 3 April 2024, the primary judge dismissed this application without a hearing, leading to the appeal.## Issues1. **Did the primary judge deny Mr. Jeanes procedural fairness by dismissing his application without providing him an opportunity to make submissions or present evidence?**2. **Should the appeal against the dismissal of the application be allowed based on the denial of procedural fairness?**## Applicable Legislation, Regulations, and Rules Considered.- **Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)**: - **Section 68B**: Related to the welfare of children and parental res... Read more

]]>Wed, 02 Oct 2024 01:00:00 GMTIn my capacity as a Mediator a mother approached me for assistance to seek resolution in her matter some weeks before final trial.She wanted to consider her position and see if she could resolve the dispute with the father by accepting consent orders drafted by the father’s lawyers prior to trial. The consent orders would provide the children live with the mother and spend time with the father alternate week-ends and half the holidays, common orders you would see. BACKGROUNDShe has been the primary carer of two children aged 10 and 11 who have special needs being assessed at level 3 on the spectrum, still requiring nappies at this age to give you indication of the severity of their condition and level of care they require.Aside from a period of a month some 4 years ago (when the parties first separated and the father refused to return the kids), which resulted in immediate recovery orders being granted in the mother’s favour, the children have never lived with the father.  PRE-TRIALThe first 3 weeks (out of 4) prior to trial the mother was ordered to facilitate time with the father for week-ends (after previously being supervised time). The three week-ends with the father went reasonably well with only minor issues experienced by the children at change-over.The mother was self-representing at that time, however orders were in place that pursuant to s.102NA she had to have a lawyer represent her for the final hearing. Although 102NA is about the mother not being able to cross-examine the father due to allegations of domestic violence, the Court Orders were for the lawyers and a Barrister to represent her at trial. This was about a week prior to final hearing.The mother and father had agreed in that week prior to trial verbally to the consent orders, with the father encouraging her by saying what a good mother she has been for the children all these years (the mother had a recording of the conversation). The mother accepted the ... Read more

]]>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:33:46 GMTMany people say that "Lawyers should offer services based on results with conditional cost agreements (no win, no fee) in Family Law matters" however what you may not realise in Family Law matters that is prohibited under the legal profession uniform law and would constitute either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the part of any principal of the law practice or any legal practitioner associate. LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW (NSW) - SECT 181 (7) A conditional costs agreement may relate to any matter, except a matter that involves--     proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 of the Commonwealth; or     proceedings under legislation specified in the Uniform Rules for the purposes of this section. (8) A contravention of provisions of this Law or the Uniform Rules relating to conditional costs agreements by a law practice is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the part of any principal of the law practice or any legal practitioner associate or foreign lawyer associate involved in the contravention.

]]>Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:39:44 GMTThis is a case involving a Parenting dispute over a 6 year old girl (born 2013), she has not been able to see her father for significant periods of time, causing the father to withdraw from time with the child for various reasons resulting fracture of child’s relationship with him.  The court recognised the mother alienates the relationship between father and child, with the family report recommending no time with the father as the least unsatisfactory outcome for the child. The Court decided orders to be made as sought by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.Orders Sought :The mother seeks that the child live with her and spend no time with the father, with her to have sole parental responsibility. The father’s position is that the child should live with the mother but spend each alternate weekend from Friday to Sunday (or Monday) with him and that there be joint parental responsibility. FACTS: The parties met in 2011, were married in 2012 and separated on 16 October 2015. Following the father’s first application made in October 2015, consent orders were entered into on 2 September 2016, pursuant to which the child was to live with the mother but spend time with the father increasing to alternate weekend time. The father spent time with X until August 2017 when the mother unilaterally suspended his time following alleged revelations of assault by the father which the father denied. The mother applied for an Intervention Order against the respondent and an interim one was granted. On 28 August 2017, the parties divorced and in March 2018 the father issued proceedings again in this court. Interim orders were made for supervised time on 1 May 2018, supervised by Contact Service A. Supervised time continued largely in accordance with those orders but, towards the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019, the father’s attendance became less constant. On 19 March 2019, orders were made for X to spend gradually increasing time with the father up to an eventual outco... Read more

]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 01:45:30 GMTThis is a Property dispute involving a de facto relationship of 10 years.  The Court recognised that the Husband had significantly greater initial contributions.  The case involved a very large number of disputes about the valuation of various property including a company used by the Husband.  There was a consistent lack of reference to authority by the Respondent de facto Wife to support her multiple claims most of which were also unsupported by evidence.  There is a significant age difference between the parties but both with significant assets and income prospects notably the Respondent.  The trial was unnecessarily protracted due to the conduct of the litigation by the Respondent and considerations regarding case and trial management. Background Facts: The parties were in a de facto relationship between 2006 and September 2016. The Applicant Husband is aged 59 years; the Wife is aged 43 years. There is one child of the relationship, X, who will turn 11 in 2020. Final parenting Orders were made by consent on 2nd May 2019. X lives nine nights per fortnight with the Mother and five nights per fortnight with the Father. Those Orders also provide for shared, equal time in the school holidays. Financial Statements According to their respective Financial Statements, the Husband’s income is significant, and significantly more than the Wife. From his Financial Statement filed 21st March 2018, the Husband’s average weekly income was $2,676.09. The value of his property at the time was $3,052,006. His self-managed superannuation was $613,055. Orders Sought At the commencement of the trial, in general terms, the Husband sought Orders for there to be a percentage split of the net asset pool 65% to him and 35% to the Wife. Through her Counsel, the Wife indicated that she was seeking “something closer to a 50%:50% split” of the net assets. At the second day of trial on 2nd May 2019, the Wife’s Counsel advised the Court that his client was “now” seeking s... Read more

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2020 03:12:07 GMTThis matter involved Interim proceedings covering parenting issues and the question whether the father is an unacceptable risk to child, and if so whether that risk can be mitigated by orders.  In a case where presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does not apply but parties have consented for numerous orders to be made and where orders can mitigate risk to child, can overnight time with father ordered? FACTS: The parents migrated to Australia in 2007 and formed a cohabitive relationship. X was born in 2012, 5 years old when her parents separated and 8 years old now. The parties separated on 3 June 2017 and divorced on 7 August 2018. The mother in property settlement by consent owns and occupies the matrimonial home. The father lives in a two-bedroom leased flat, one bedroom is set up for use by his daughter if she is in the father’s care overnight. The father is employed as a professional. The mother is a self-employed trades-person. The mother employs a nanny to assist her with the care of X while the mother is at work. Neither parent has re-partnered. Prior to separation positive and cooperative co-parenting. POST Separation Due to the anxiety of the separation the father developed low moods for which he was provided by his general practitioner a ‘GP mental healthcare plan’ and referral to a psychologist for treatment.  The medical records were subpoenaed and make it patently obvious that the father’s low mood and anxiety was related to the breakdown of his marital relationship and that there was a steady improvement in his presentation since his first consultation. The father mainly spent time with his daughter by coming to the former matrimonial home, with the father spending significant time with his daughter until the mother changed the locks in the house in August 2018 when the divorce was granted. In October 2018, the mother arranged for her daughter to have sessions with her school counselor (without informing the father) t... Read more

]]>Thu, 20 Aug 2020 04:41:40 GMT