Top Posts RSSSun, 04 Jan 2026 23:06:07 GMTIn Takenaka & Maddox [2025] FedCFamC1A 243, Justice Campton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) dismissed an appeal by a self-represented father who sought to overturn extensive parenting orders. The appeal arose from findings that the father engaged in a sustained, four-year campaign of intimidation, threats, and coercive control against the mother. Despite voluminous filings and claims of judicial error, the Court upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the father’s domineering behaviour and lack of insight rendered shared care unsafe. The decision underscores the judiciary’s increasing recognition of coercive control as family violence under s 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and its cumulative impact on parenting capacity and the child’s best interests.Facts and Issues:The parents separated in 2021 after the birth of their child, who suffers from selective mutism and anxiety.The father repeatedly accused the mother of mental illness, reporting her to hospitals, police, and child services despite clinical evidence that her postpartum depression had fully resolved.The father removed the child from the mother’s care without consent, made repeated false welfare calls, and attempted to isolate the mother from friends and supports.The primary judge found that the father’s conduct—through hundreds of messages, threats, and public disparagement—constituted a pattern of coercive control, satisfying the definition of family violence under s 4AB.Parenting orders granted the mother sole parental responsibility, imposed strict restraints on the father’s communications and access, and prohibited overnight stays in his “share house” until he obtained safe accommodation.On appeal, the father raised 11 grounds, including allegations of factual error, denial of procedural fairness, improper reliance on the Family Report, and overreach in orders restricting his access, travel, and communication.Issue:Whether the primary judge erred in law, fact, or discretion... Read more

]]>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 23:06:07 GMTFamily Court Rules in Favor of Restricting Father's Access Amid Allegations of Manipulative BehaviorCase CitationLavigne & Gavin (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 737IntroductionIn a recent decision by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Lavigne & Gavin (No 2) addressed significant issues regarding parental access and allegations of manipulative behavior. Judge Harland presided over the matter, focusing on the best interests of the children amidst a highly contentious dispute between the parents.FactsThe case involves Terry Robert Down (the father) seeking to review and alter the existing court orders regarding his access to his children. The mother, Anna Clare Cottrell, raised concerns about the father's behavior, alleging that his actions posed a psychological and emotional risk to the children. The court had previously made consent orders outlining the parents' responsibilities and time with the children.IssuesWhether the father's access to the children should be restricted based on the mother's allegations of manipulative and harmful behavior.The assessment of the psychological and emotional risks posed to the children by the father's involvement.Applicable Law and CasesThe court referred to the principles established in Rice & Asplund [1978] FamCA 84, which discuss the circumstances under which court orders can be reviewed and varied. Additionally, the court considered the provisions under Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which emphasizes the need to protect children from harm.AnalysisThe court's analysis focused on the detailed evidence presented by both parties. The mother's affidavits and supporting documents highlighted the father's manipulative behavior and its impact on the children. Dr. S's report emphasized the need for a structured and predictable environment for the children.Paragraph 16: "It is also clear from Dr. S's report that the parents have very different parenting styles, which is very common, but can be difficult ... Read more

]]>Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:00:00 GMTThis is the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book.This is a recognized legal resource recognized and used by the Australian Family Law Courts when dealing with matters concerning Domestic Violence and Family Violence.It covers issues such as :3.1. Understanding domestic and family violence 3.1.1. Physical violence and harm 3.1.2. Sexual and reproductive abuse 3.1.3. Economic abuse 3.1.4. Emotional and psychological abuse 3.1.5. Cultural and spiritual abuse 3.1.6. Following, harassing and monitoring 3.1.7. Social abuse 3.1.8. Exposing children to domestic and family violence 3.1.9. Damaging property 3.1.10. Animal abuse 3.1.11. Systems abuse 3.1.12. Forced marriage Click on this link to read more National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book.... Read more

]]>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 03:27:16 GMTSargent & Selwyn (No.3) [2018] FCCA 2836 (4 October 2018). The was a Final #parenting hearing to decide whether or not the parties should have equal shared parental responsibility.SummaryThe primary issue was the communication between the parties, with neither party prepared to give an inch and every little molehill becoming a mountain of communication to reach any sort of resolution created a situation where shared parental responsibility was unworkable. The Court was also asked to consider whether or not there should be an equal time arrangements, however that presumption was rebutted.Other aspects of the final hearing covered practice and procedure, interlocutory applications, s.67ZBA application and an application to transfer to Family Court and application for costs certificate. Issues The key issues in this case centre on the parties’ communication and their rigidity of approach and whether or not these difficulties are such that the mother should exercise sole parental responsibility and the father’s time during school terms should be reduced. The father seeks an order that the parties continue to exercise equal shared parental responsibility. The mother seeks sole parental responsibility for Thomas. The ICL supports the mother’s position. The father seeks that from 2019 he have equal time with during school terms as well as during school holidays. The mother seeks that the father’s time be reduced to two nights a fortnight during school terms and that the holidays be shared equally. In her written submissions she modified her position to the father spending time with [X] three nights a fortnight from Friday after school to before school on Monday on alternate weekends.EPIC The father’s trial affidavit is in four volumes. The annexures total 889 pages. They include several email exchanges and diary notes covering various topics dating back to 2012. The annexures also include extracts of transcripts from various court appearances in these proceedings a... Read more

]]>Tue, 22 Jan 2019 02:45:47 GMTFLAST CASE STUDY BRIEF -  #Appeals  CASE : Janos & AltonCITATION: [2018] FamCAFC 209 (2 November 2018) DETAILS : Where the respondent concedes error by the primary judge and where there was appealable error.  The Appeal was allowed and #ConsentOrders made (Note good example of consent orders within Judgement). #COSTS & COSTS CERTIFICATES – Whether costs certificates should be ordered.  The appeal succeeded upon questions of law and Costs certificates were ordered for both parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the appeal and rehearing.Key Issues (AT) :COSTS (7) The Court grants to the appellant a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 9 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by the appellant in relation to the appeal.(8) The Court grants to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer a costs certificate pursuant to the provisions of s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being a certificate that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in respect of the costs incurred by the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in relation to the appeal.(9) The Court grants to the appellant, the respondent and the Independent Children’s Lawyer costs certificates pursuant to the provisions of s 8 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) being certificates that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to each of the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer in respect of the costs incurred in relation to the rehearing.(7) (7) Subject to these Orders (or agreement in writing between the parties) the Mo... Read more

]]>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:48:45 GMTFLAST REVIEW :FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (FAMILY VIOLENCE AND OTHER MEASURES) ACT 2018 #FamilyViolence  OVERVIEW The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018 was passed by both houses of Parliament on 22 August 2018 and received royal assent on 31 August 2018. All amendments commenced on royal assent. JURISDICTION The Act makes two significant changes to the exercise of family law jurisdiction by state courts. First, by an amendment to Family Law Act 1975 s46, the monetary limit of state courts exercising family law jurisdiction can be raised by regulation. Previously, where the total property value exceeds $20,000 and the respondent seeks different orders, the court must transfer the proceeding to the Family Court, Federal Circuit Court or the Supreme Court unless both parties consent to the court hearing and determining the proceeding. Through the introduction of s 46A, this $20,000 limit can be raised by regulations. Magistrates will therefore need to stay informed about any exercise of this regulation power. This change applies to proceedings instituted after commencement. Second, the new s 69GA allows the Commonwealth to prescribe certain courts as courts that have family law jurisdiction. The purpose of this provision is to allow regulations to be made to remove the current uncertainty about whether the Children’s Court of Victoria has family law jurisdiction. Again, magistrates will need to keep watch for the relevant regulations. This change applies to decisions made after commencement, regardless of when the proceedings were instituted. INTERACTION BETWEEN FAMILY VIOLENCE INTERVENTION ORDERS AND FAMILY LAW ORDERS Under Family Law Act 1975 s 68R, a court that makes or varies a family violence intervention order has power to revive, vary, discharge or suspend certain family law orders. Section 68T provides that, where the order or variation is of an interim nature, the revival, variation or suspension ceases to have effect at the earl... Read more

]]>Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:34:20 GMTRe: John [2021] FedCFamC1F 169 (29 October 2021) The applicant seeks an order that the child is competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria.  The respondent does not consent to the treatment despite the child wishing to undergo the treatment.  The Court, in deciding whether or not to grant the application, considered how the medical experts are of the view that the child is Gillick competent and supports the treatment.  Facts: An application was made pursuant to s 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and by John's mother, that the Court authorise the administration of testosterone, known as “Stage 2” of the management of John’s gender dysphoria.  This is because the father, who has equal shared parental responsibility for him pursuant to orders made on 16 May 2019, declines to consent to that course despite an earlier consent to the administration of puberty blockers, known as “Stage 1” treatment.  John was born genetically as a female on 30 August 2004.  Since about December 2017, John has openly identified as male, changing his name to that effect and dressing as a male. John wishes to commence testosterone hormone treatment.  The mother filed an Initiating Application seeking the requisite orders on 11 August 2021.  The Department of Communities and Justice had indicated that it did not intend to take part despite being notified of the proceedings.  The father prepared a letter outlining his concerns as to the physical and psychological risks in some detail, which was then provided to John’s endocrinologist and psychiatrist. Each of those specialists produced a detailed response to the father’s queries. The father, not satisfied by the responses, continued to decline to authorise the treatment.  He made it clear that he did not wish to adduce any evidence in the proceedings or to cross-examine any witnesses including the doctors who have provided reports to the Court.  Dr B,  a child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist with extensive exper... Read more

]]>Thu, 04 Nov 2021 08:16:17 GMTLancefield & Lancefield (No 2) [2020] FamCAC 312 (22 December 2020).  This case concerned an appeal by the father after the court at first instance made orders for the children to live with the mother.  Prior to this, the father had been the primary carer of the parties 2 children since separation in 2017.  At the time of trial, the children were aged 11 and 9. At first instance, the Court found that the father was coercive and controlling which justified a change in residence. The Full Court (Ainslie-Wallace, Ryan & Aldridge JJ) upheld the father’s appeal in part and remitted the matter to be reheard by a different judge. The facts of this matter revolve around an incident that occurred on 19 February 2018 when the family iPad was activated and via family sharing, the father was able to access the mother’s internet search history which included “how to tie a hangman’s noose”; “how to disappear without a trace”; “how to completely change your appearance”; and “how to disappear from your husband” ([31]). Upon seeing the mother’s search history, the father contacted the mother’s brother on the same day to raise his concerns and a welfare check by police took place. The mother had been previously hospitalised in respect of her mental health issues but had “capacity to provide for the children’s physical, educational and general emotional needs”([5]).  In April 2018, the parties entered into a parenting plan which provided for the children to live with the father and spend time with the mother, one weekend per month under supervision. The parties were unable to reach agreement about the children’s long-term arrangements and in June 2018 the mother initiated proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court. Interim orders were made by consent providing that the children live with the father, the parents have equal shared parental responsibility and during school term the children would spend 2 weekends with their mother unsupervised.  Time was also made for the child... Read more

]]>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 04:16:22 GMTSealey & Allcorn [2020] FCCA 2567 (25 August 2020)   This case is about a mother asserting that her 3 year-old child is not coping well with the present shared care arrangement   Facts:   This is an interim parenting agreement concerning X who is three years and 10 months old.  He is presently in, effectively, a shared care arrangement with his parents on a week about arrangement. The mother who is the applicant, asserts that the child is not coping well with the week about arrangement.  The father says, on the contrary, that the child appears to be coping quite well.   Issue: Should the mother’s contention that “the child is not coping well” with the current parenting arrangements be considered by the court in making a new parenting arrangement?   Law:   S60 CC- How a court determines what is in a child’s best interest   (3) Additional considerations are:   (a) any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity level or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s views   Analysis:   Having regard to the matters in section 60CC (3), the child is too young to express a view.  There is no suggestion that the child does not have an excellent relationship with his parents and, indeed, probably, the paternal family who seem to be closely involved in his care.   However, the counsel of the respondent was instructed to propose that the child spend from Thursday 9 am to Sunday 4 pm on alternate weekends with the father on the proviso that the father was available to care for the child during that time.  By that it is meant that, essentially, the father is not in employment during that period, is not at work. It is not intended, of course, that he would be always present.  The court is aware that the paternal family play a part in the care of the child but what is really meant is that the father is not employed during those periods, or in paid employment. The mother, in ... Read more

]]>Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:35:54 GMTThe adversarial common law system in Australia, by its very definition, often delivers results that are far from what was expected, even to impartial third parties. The counter-balance to this uncertainty is the hierarchical layers of Courts, providing avenues for appeals. Sometimes however issues arise in family law proceedings in Australia with regard to the performance of the judicial officer or the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which cannot wait for the sometimes long-winded appeals process, and require immediate action or remedy. This paper will consider the procedure for removing a judge and an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) from proceedings. As the procedure for removing a judge varies considerably from removing an ICL, I will deal with them on a separate basis. Removing a judge from proceedings In certain cases a party to litigation might conclude that a judge is not fit to preside over proceedings and should be removed. The grounds for removing a judge from proceedings, however, are narrow and restrictive. A judge can only be disqualified from a matter on the grounds of bias. Governing Principle The principles of natural justice require that a decision maker, ie. a judge or a magistrate, must approach a matter with an open mind that is free from pre-judgment or prejudice. In other words, the decision maker must be free from bias. A party who suspects that a judge or a magistrate is biased may seek an application to have the decision maker removed from the proceedings. Types of Bias There are two types of bias, actual bias and apprehended bias. Actual bias is available only if a party can prove that the decision maker’s minds is closed and will not be swayed by the evidence in hand. On the other hand, apprehended bias (also known as apparent bias) only requires a finding that a fair minded and reasonably well informed observer might conclude that the decision-maker did not approach the issue with an open mind. Most cases concern apparent bi... Read more

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2020 04:23:30 GMT