Donalds & Donalds (No.2) [2021] FCCA 667 (11  March 2021) In this matter, the court made interim orders that the Mother has appealed. The Mother now seeks a stay of the court’s orders, pending that appeal. Facts: The parties have two children, X, who will be two years old and Y, who has very recently been born in 2021, since these proceedings were issued. The parties separated late last year while the Mother was still pregnant. The Mother left the parties’ home in Melbourne and unilaterally relocated to New South Wales. It is her case that she was fleeing family violence and seeking the support of her family. The Father strenuously denies the allegations of family violence. On 21 Decembe

Earnhart & Earnhart [2019] FCCA 2501  (7 October 2019) This is a parenting dispute about the best interests of a child, X, born in 2005.  The applicant father seeks that he has sole parental responsibility, that the child lives with him and spends no time at all with her mother since the father is concerned about mother’s mental health. The respondent-mother seeks that there be orders for supervised time at a contact centre and thereafter a review. Facts: Dr C has filed an affidavit which annexes his report on the mother whom he assessed in July 2018. Dr C diagnosed the mother as suffering from social and generalized anxiety disorder, schizoaffective disorder and differential diagnosis b

Lacefield & Algrim [2021] FCCA 681 (7 April 2021) These reasons for judgment are directed to resolving controversies arising between Mr. Lacefield and Ms. Algrim (de facto partners), in respect of a final de facto property orders, ostensibly consensually made between them, by this court, on  14 August 2019, which factored in contribution issues relating to the win. The respondent-wife seeks to vary the orders such that she is able to sell chattels belonging to the husband still on her property as he has failed to collect them as envisaged by the final orders. Facts: Court orders provided for Ms Algrim to retain the parties’ former family home and for Mr Lacefield to retain a number of de

Mercer & Hatfield [2021] FCCA 593 (4 March 2021) This is a parenting dispute where the mother proposes that the children should spend no time with the father alleging that the father perpetrated severe family violence during the relationship and has a lengthy criminal record Facts: This is a parenting application  filed by the mother. She sought orders that the children, who are X (who is seven) and Y (who is six), live with her, that she have sole parental responsibility, and that the father spends no time with and have no communication with the children. The father filed a response in which he sought parenting orders which would mean that he had involvement in the children's lives.  No

MacDougal & Benson [2020] FCCA 3641  (2 October 2020) This is an Application filed by the Applicant. The Applicant seeks orders under S.111(1A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 granting leave to the Child Support Registrar to amend the administrative assessment and issue a departure order pursuant to part 6A of the Assessment Act. Facts: Prior to separation, the parties owned and operated a child care centre and ownership of that entity was divided between two companies. The Respondent was the Director and Shareholder of the company that owned the freehold and the Applicant was the Sole Director and Shareholder of the company that owned and ran the business. That business and f

Sturm & Orlando [2021] FCCA 623 (1 April 2021)) This is a parenting application where the father is seeking that mother be ordered to return to Suburb C and live in a home he will pay for until the youngest child turns 18. Facts: The applicant father seeks that the children and their mother relocate from B City, where they presently live, to a house in Suburb C, which he proposes to provide for them until the children are 18.  He seeks that time spent by the children should progressively increase with him as recommended by the family report writer, Ms D. The respondent mother seeks to remain in B City and seeks time as sought by the independent children’s lawyer.  Clearly, if she remains

Labeck & Calandros (No 2) [2021] FCCA 542 (19 February 2021) This is a parenting application where the father seeks  increased time with the children in order to decrease the number of changeovers since the children are showing signs of distress during changeovers due to the mother’s behavior during such changeovers. Facts: This is an application concerning two children, X and Y, who are four years and ten months and three years and eight months old respectively. The father’s application in a case seeks to vary the existing time orders to provide for the children to spend three nights a week with the father, namely from Friday to Sunday night. The existing time orders provide for the two

Childers & Childers [2021] FCCA 581 (17 March 2021) This is an application to restrain the wife’s solicitor from continuing to act for the wife in the present property proceeding since the paralegal, formerly employed by the husband’s legal firm, has moved to the wife’s legal firm. Facts: These are property settlement proceedings between Ms Childers (“the wife”) and Mr Childers (“the husband”). The proceedings have not progressed very far because an issue has arisen concerning the wife’s solicitors. In particular, the husband has filed an application in which he seeks that That C Law Firm be restrained from continuing to act for the Applicant wife in the property settlement proceedings.

Murgia & Padovan [2019] FCCA 2090 (21 May 2019) This is a Contravention Application where the applicants contend that the maternal grandmother of child X  contravened with the court order when the latter failed to submit to the applicants a list of therapists for the child. Facts: The proceedings are between Ms Murgia, the biological mother of the child whose interests are the subject of the proceedings, X, who has recently turned 16. The Respondent to the Application is Ms Padovan, who is the child’s maternal grandmother and the person with whom X lives. X has lived, for a further period of her life, a fairly substantial period it would seem, commencing early in her life, with Ms Murgia

Bau & Algren [2021] FCCA 365 (2 March 2021) This is a property proceeding wherein the wife filed the proceedings out of time, alleging that she will suffer hardship if the leave to file the proceedings out of time is not granted. Facts: The parties purchased the former matrimonial property in November 2007 and although the property is in the husband’s sole name the parties are jointly liable for the mortgage over the property.  The property was purchased for the sum of $299,000 with each party contributing $40,000 towards the deposit and the remainder of the purchase price being is by way of mortgage. The wife in her evidence asserts that she is jointly liable for the mortgage over the f

Fairfax & Fairfax [2021] FCCA 636 (30 March 2021) This is an application for stay of parenting orders filed by the mother so that she could spend supervised time with her children. Facts: The court made orders on 27 January 2021 for a recovery order, confirmed the order for the children to live with their father, and suspended the order for the children to spend time with their mother. The order for the children to communicate with the mother remained in place. The mother sought to stay the orders made on 27 January 2021. She alleged that the father had left the children unsupervised. That matter had been raised by the mother in previous interim proceedings where she argued that the chil

Balsam & Lackner (No.2) [2021] FCCA 585 (30 March 2021) This is a parenting dispute where the mother is seeking to relocate her child to Queensland where she bought a property after an unsatisfactory conclusion of a bitter property proceeding. The father opposes the relocation contending that there will be a very significant risk to the child’s relationship with the father if relocation is permitted. Facts: The applicant-mother seeks to relocate to Queensland together with her child X born in 2011.  She has bought a property up there. The respondent-father opposes relocation and seeks an order that the mother not be permitted to relocate any greater distance than 50 kilometers from where