In Partington & Partington [2025] FedCFamC1A 208, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a self-represented father’s bid to have the Court fund transcripts for his appeal — an appeal that related to an event already past. The father argued that earlier transcripts were essential to prove judicial bias, including claims that the trial judge mocked his faith, belittled his ADHD, and “tag-teamed” with opposing counsel. The Court, however, found no utility in the request, reiterating that litigants must bear the cost of their own appeals, and that transcripts are only funded in exceptional circumstances.🧾 Facts and IssuesOn 27 August 2025

In Warszawski & Warszawski (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 203, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) handed down a clear message about the consequences of unreasonable litigation conduct and rejected settlement offers. The Court awarded costs against the wife after finding she was wholly unsuccessful on her cross-appeal and had refused settlement offers that would have left her financially better off. The judgment underscores the discretionary yet principled approach to costs in family law appeals, particularly under s 114UB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which permits cost orders when “justifying circumstances” exist.🧾 Facts and IssuesThe husban

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) in Dever & Serano [2025] FedCFamC1A 202 overturned a decision that had transferred a 12-year-old child’s residence from the mother to the father after a 17-month judgment delay. The Court held that such delay caused procedural unfairness, as the primary judge based orders on materially outdated evidence that ignored the child’s evolving maturity, circumstances, and right to be heard. The case is now a leading reminder that timeliness is integral to fairness in family law.🧾 Facts and IssuesThe parents separated in 2018 and had one child, X, born 2013 ([7]).After consent orders in 2019 for shared parental resp

In Kotaro & Hersch [2025] FedCFamC2F 1442, Judge O’Shannessy of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) was asked to determine interim parenting orders for a young child, X, aged three. The case tested how far a court may go in altering living arrangements before trial — particularly when expert evidence suggests a child’s psychological and developmental needs outweigh the stability of the status quo. Central to the decision was whether the court should follow a family report recommending a gradual move toward shared care, despite the mother’s objections that the recommendation was premature, unsafe, and unrealistic for such a young child.🧾 Facts and IssuesThe pare

In Zan & Nimkar [2025] FedCFamC2F 1128, Judge Blake of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) grappled with urgent allegations of sexual abuse raised against a father during ongoing parenting proceedings.The mother sought to review interim orders allowing unsupervised contact between the father and their 11-year-old son, X. After the child made fresh disclosures prompting a Victoria Police SOCIT investigation, the Court faced the delicate question of whether to immediately suspend the father’s time or maintain contact under supervision. The decision underscores how courts apply the unacceptable risk test at the interim stage — cautiously balancing the presumption

In Voight & Zunino [2025] FedCFamC1A 201, the Full Court (Austin, Schonell & Curran JJ) delivered a crucial ruling that reshapes how just and equitable determinations are approached in de facto property settlements. The decision underscores that family law judges cannot treat financial claims as “all or nothing” disputes. Even if a party’s proposal is excessive, the Court must still assess whether some adjustment is fair — especially where there’s evidence of genuine contribution. This appeal arose from a farming partnership gone sour, where the trial judge had dismissed the woman’s claim outright. The Full Court found that reasoning legally flawed, re-exercised discretion, and order

In Deacon & Deacon [2025] FedCFamC2F 1066, Judge Obradovic delivered a meticulous and balanced judgment dealing with one of the most emotionally charged issues in family law—allegations of sexual misconduct and “grooming” behaviour by a parent. The Court found the mother’s claims unsubstantiated under the Briginshaw standard and reaffirmed that allegations of serious misconduct require clear, cogent evidence—not suspicion or discomfort. Ultimately, the Court reinstated the father’s time with the children, maintaining joint parental responsibility and preserving meaningful relationships on both sides.⚖️ Facts and IssuesFactsThe parents have three children, X (11), Y (9), and Z (6).After s

In Neman & Neman (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1056, Judge Cope of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) undertook a de novo review of a Senior Judicial Registrar’s interim parenting decision. The case centred on a four-year-old child, her parents’ competing proposals for contact, and allegations of family violence and past drug use. Both parents levelled accusations of risk and emotional harm against the other. The Court navigated these claims under the new Family Law Amendment Act 2023 reforms, emphasizing safety, gradual progression, and the child’s best interests.⚖️ Facts and Issues:Key Facts:The parents separated in March 2023 after an eight-year relationship.There is one chi

In Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 192, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Campton, Christie & Schonell JJ) dismissed a father’s appeal against parenting orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility and prohibiting him from spending time or communicating with the child. The case demonstrates how procedural fairness is not violated when a self-represented litigant chooses to abandon trial proceedings, and how unfounded allegations of bias, fraud, and constitutional issues fail to establish error on appeal. It also underscores the judiciary’s limited tolerance for repetitive, unsubstantiated appeals cloaked in allegations of

In Cherokee & Cherokee [2025] FedCFamC1A 191, Justice Christie of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate) overturned a trial decision that had wrongly excluded a Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) pension from the divisible property pool. The appeal clarified that even when a pension is non-commutable and in payment phase, it remains “property” under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and must be properly considered under s 79(4). The judgment reinforces the distinction between “property”, “income”, and “financial resources”, and provides a blueprint for handling complex defined-benefit superannuation interests in property settlements.Facts a

In Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1037, Judge Betts of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced a heartbreaking dilemma — two teenage sisters caught in a prolonged, toxic parental conflict. The Court found that both parents had significantly contributed to the children’s emotional harm, yet concluded that the children’s best interests required they remain living with their father. The case underscores the Court’s grim duty to choose the “least worst” option when no safe or ideal outcome exists.Facts and IssuesParties: Mr Galpin (Father) and Ms Varley (Mother)Children: X (14) and Y (13), both of Aboriginal descent through their maternal lineHistory:Parents separat

In Hallett & Hallett [2025] FedCFamC1A 188, Justice Schonell of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) overturned a decision that refused a wife leave to commence property proceedings out of time. The appeal succeeded because the primary judge mistakenly found that hardship “could” arise if leave were not granted — rather than determining, as required by law, that hardship “would” arise. This seemingly minor linguistic difference proved legally fatal, underscoring the precision demanded when assessing hardship under s 44(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).Facts and IssuesParties: Ms Hallett (Applicant/Wife) and Mr Hallett (Respondent/Husba