Fitzroy & Oliversen [2021] FedCFamC1F 4 (2 September 2021) The father applied to increase time with children after interim care arrangements provided for the parties to have an equally shared parental responsibility over their children.  The mother opposes the father's application to provide stability for the COVID-19 crisis. The Court, in adjudicating this dispute relied upon the benefits of a meaningful relationship as well as the evidence sought to be tendered by the father.  Facts: Interim care arrangements for the parties' children provided for equally shared parental responsibility, and that the children live with the mother, spending each Wednesday overnight with the father, along

Daymond & Joslyn [2021] FedCFamC1F 2 (1 September 2021) The father filed a Contravention Application alleging that the mother contravened interim parenting orders by not facilitating the children to spend time with him.  The mother acknowledges the contravention and accepts it was without reasonable excuse.  The Court, in deciding whether or not to grant the father's application, took into consideration the appropriate penalty and the fact that the mother was forewarned of contravention and was put on notice by the father of his opposition. Facts: On 12 February 2021, Rees J made the interim orders by consent of the parties which provide that the children of the parties spend supervised

Gillen & Lindo [2021] FedCFamC1F 7 (2 September 2021) On 15 March 2021, the ICL articulated a conclusion in her submissions, incorporating orders that provided for the father to immediately transition from supervised to unsupervised time.  The mother sought the removal of the ICL alleging that such conclusion is violative of s 68LA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).  The Court, in deciding whether or not a removal is justified, relied upon relevant jurisprudence and the Act.  Facts: The mother seeks the removal of the current Independent Children's Lawyer (the ICL) in this matter, Ms Cruise.  The mother's application is opposed by both the father and the ICL.  The mother asser

Suris & Suris [2021] FedCFamC1F 1 (2 September 2021) The parties are in dispute over parenting orders for their three children.  The mother asserts that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.  The father alleges the same against the mother.  The court, in adjudicating this dispute, assessed the impact of the father's conduct on the children. Facts: The parties married in 2003 and separated in 2017.  The parents have three children together. X was born in 2004, Y was born in 2006 and Z was born in 2008.  Upon joining the Australian Defence Force in 2019, there was almost no contact between the father and his family for about three months and then minimal contact fo

Beckstead & Beckstead [2021] FedCFamC2F 136 (6 October 2021)  The parties entered into a financial agreement stating that if both parties acquire an asset jointly then both parties have agreed to either liquidate the asset or offer each other the option to buy out the other party.  However, the wife seeks a declaration that such agreement is not binding as she did not receive requisite legal advice.  The husband seeks a declaration that the agreement is a binding financial agreement.  The Court, in ruling on whether or not the agreement is binding, assessed whether it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not declared binding. Facts: The parties met in June 2000, shortly

Welter & Welter [2021] FedCFamC2F 11 (15 September 2021) The parties are in dispute over final orders made in 2019 entailing equal shared parental responsibility for X.  The mother asserts that her co-parenting relationship with the father is extremely toxic. On the other hand, the father asserts that the mother would breach earlier final orders, alienating X from him.  The Court, in adjudicating this dispute, relied largely upon principles relevant to Rice & Asplund.  Facts: The parties are the parents of X born in 2016.  The parties married in 2014 and separated in 2017, when X was approximately 13 months old.  The mother commenced proceedings, in relation to both property and pare

Zamir & Zamir [2021] FedCFamC1F 9 (2 September 2021)  The wife seeks a broad injunction restraining her husband from disposing, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets held in his sole name.  She further seeks that the husband repay $1.9 million withdrawn from the offset account secured over the former family home.  The Court, in deciding whether or not injunctions sought are proper, relied upon applicable principles as well as the husband's multiple bank transactions.  Facts: The parties, both 45 years old, were born in an overseas country.  They married in 1997 in the overseas country and shortly thereafter, the wife returned to Australia.  In the early months of 1998 the husba

Newett & Newett [2021] FedCFamC1F 11 (3 September 2021) The applicant filed charges of contempt against the respondent.  The respondent disputes the same asserting that the applicant failed to distinctly state the specific charges against the respondent.  The Court, in rendering a decision, relied upon section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975. Facts: Ms Newett is a party in proceedings in the Family Court of Australia file number BRC2179/2018.  Mr Armstrong is a solicitor working at the firm AZ Lawyers.  AZ Lawyers are the lawyers on the record for Ms Newett’s former husband in the same mentioned Family Court proceedings.  On 9 February 2021, the applicant (Ms Newett) filed an Application

Quinlan & Ware [2021] FCCA 1767 (2 August 2021) The mother alleges that the father poses an unacceptable risk because of allegations of family violence.  The father alleges that the mother is merely motivated to relocate and homeschool X in order to be with Mr R, her new partner.  The Court, in deciding on this dispute, assessed whether or not home schooling or mainstream schooling would fulfill X's educational needs.  Facts: The parties commenced living together in 2010. During the same year, the mother discovered that she was pregnant with child X who was born in 2011, now 10 years old, and is in year 4 at school.  The parties separated in late 2011.  The mother asserts that they separ

Barton & Haselwood [2021] FCCA 1770 (3 August 2021) The mother seeks to relocate to City B, Queensland with the children to be with her partner who she is in an open relationship with.  The father opposes the relocation.  The Court, in deciding whether or not to grant a relocation order, relied upon the evidence of the family consultant and the clear views expressed by children against relocation. Facts: The Applicant Mother wishes to relocate to City B in far north Queensland to be with her “primary partner”, Mr C.  The Father opposes the relocation.  The Mother and Mr C contend that they are in an open relationship.  While they profess to be in a committed relationship with each other,

Chesterman & Royston [2021] FCCA 1908 (18 August 2021) The parties are parents to eight year old twins. Both parents have re-partnered and have other children.  The mother seeks for the twins to live with her in City B.  She alleges that the father stalks her on Facebook.  The father, on the other hand, alleges that the mother is in contact with his present partner's ex on Facebook despite the intervention order against the latter. Facts: Y and X, who are 8-year old twins, have lived in their father’s primary care in City C since December 2019.  The parties separated in August 2015.  From that time until December 2019, the twins lived in the mother’s primary care and spent alternate week

Many 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