In Kunkle & Suss (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 346, Stewart J admitted a series of audio recordings made by the mother for use in parenting proceedings. The father did not expressly consent to being recorded, and the Court was not satisfied that his apparent awareness of some recordings amounted to implied consent. However, the Court accepted, on a prima facie basis, that the recordings were reasonably necessary for the mother’s protection in the context of alleged family violence. The recordings were therefore admitted under the exception in the Surveillance Devices Act 2016 (SA), and Stewart J added that, even if that conclusion were wrong, the recordings would have been admitted under s 13

In Bekker & Lantosca [2026] FedCFamC1F 344, Parker J determined parenting, property and de facto spousal maintenance issues after a short de facto relationship involving a young child, X, with significant special needs. The mother sought to exclude the father from X’s life. The Court rejected that position, finding that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk and that the evidence did not support the mother’s claim that X’s dysregulation was caused by time with the father. However, the Court also recognised X’s autism, sensory sensitivities, dysregulation and reliance on the mother as coregulator. The result was a cautious reintroduction regime: X lives with the mother in Adelaide,

In Potter (A Pseudonym) v The King [2026] HCA 25, the High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a covert audio recording made by a wife of a private conversation with her husband. In that recording, the husband admitted he had previously sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. The High Court held the recording was not unlawful because it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the complainant’s lawful interests, namely her right to bodily autonomy and integrity. This is a major authority for domestic and family violence contexts because it recognises that a victim-survivor may make a secret recording not merely to gather evidence, but to protect h

In Cowden & Walsman [2026] FedCFamC1A 129, Campton J dealt with a late Application in an Appeal filed by the mother shortly before the substantive parenting appeal was due to be heard. The mother sought to fundamentally recast her appeal grounds, rely on amended appeal documents, and adduce further evidence. The father opposed the application, arguing prejudice and delay. The Court accepted that the amended grounds changed the nature of the appeal and that the father was prejudiced, but held that the interests of justice required the appeal to be determined on its “true merits”. Leave was granted in part, the appeal was adjourned to 29 September 2026, and the mother was required to pay t

In Suss & Kunkle [2026] FedCFamC1A 127, the Full Court dismissed the father’s parenting appeal. The father argued he was denied procedural fairness because audio recordings were admitted despite late disclosure, and because he was forced to continue with a solicitor appointed shortly before trial under the legal aid scheme connected with s 102NA. The Court rejected both arguments. The decisive point was that the father had been given a reasonable opportunity to arrange representation well before trial, but his lack of preparation resulted from his own choices, repeated changes of solicitors and late legal aid arrangements — not from any denial of procedural fairness. The father was order

In Tiang & Pen [2026] FedCFamC1A 121, Schonell J allowed the mother’s appeal from final de facto property orders. The primary judge had assessed contributions at 98% to the father and only 2% to the mother, despite finding that the mother had been the children’s primary carer throughout their lives and had undertaken the substantial majority of parenting over approximately 13 years. The appeal succeeded because that assessment gave the mother’s parenting contributions only token weight. On re-exercise, the Court assessed contributions at 16.5% to the mother, added an 8.5% adjustment under s 90SM(5), and varied the orders to produce an overall division of 25% to the mother and 75% to the

In Pensak & Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety [2026] FedCFamC1A 117, Campton J dealt with an urgent Application in an Appeal arising from Hague Child Abduction Convention return orders requiring two children to be returned to Japan. The substantive appeal was listed one week later, on 3 July 2026. The applicant father was permitted to file an Amended Amended Notice of Appeal, an Amended Summary of Argument, and an Amended List of Authorities, narrowing the appeal to a procedural fairness ground. The request to adduce further evidence was deferred to the Full Court hearing, while the proposed subpoena to the father’s former solicitors was withdrawn on t

In Tschida & Tschida [2026] FedCFamC1A 114, the Full Court dismissed almost all of the husband’s property appeal. The husband tried to rely on fresh valuation evidence, complained about delay, addbacks, gambling findings, the wife retaining the former matrimonial home, treatment of alleged third-party funds, and capital gains tax protections. Nearly all grounds failed because the husband was trying to escape forensic positions he had taken at trial. The only successful point was a narrow correction under the slip rule: the primary judge had used $925,000 for the former matrimonial home when the parties had agreed on $975,000. That correction reduced the amount payable to the wife by $22,

In Charis & Charis [2026] FedCFamC1A 92, the Full Court dismissed the husband’s property appeal and upheld an equal division of a property pool exceeding $127 million. The major asset was the husband’s shares and options in D Company, a valuable United States technology company he co-founded. The husband argued that the company’s dramatic post-separation increase in value was attributable to his post-separation work and should have produced a 70/30 division in his favour. The Full Court rejected that argument, holding that the primary judge was entitled to assess contributions holistically over the whole relationship and was not required to quarantine the D Company interests into a separ

In Hong & Lai (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 125, Riethmuller J allowed the appellant’s appeal after finding that the refusal of an adjournment denied him a real opportunity to present his case. The appellant was part-way through a property trial when the matter was adjourned. On the resumed hearing date, his lawyers did not appear, his Legal Aid position was unresolved, and s 102NA prevented him from personally cross-examining the respondent. The primary judge refused an adjournment, proceeded with the hearing, and dismissed the appellant’s property application. On appeal, that refusal was found to have affected the final result and caused a miscarriage of justice.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The

In Pandeva & Pandeva [2026] FedCFamC2F 882, Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri made final parenting orders for a nine-year-old child conceived through egg donation. The central dispute was not risk in either parent’s household, but how the child should be supported to understand her donor conception, what language should be used around the donor and the donor’s children, and whether the father should be permitted to continue facilitating the child’s relationship with the donor’s children. The Court maintained the existing 5 nights per fortnight arrangement with the father, refused the father’s proposed progression to equal shared care, ordered joint decision-making, and required the parents to e

In Lawrence & Stephanidi [2026] FedCFamC1A 115, the Full Court allowed the mother’s appeal in part. The mother failed to overturn the orders restraining her from relocating internationally with the children and failed to disturb the broader interim parenting pathway increasing the father’s time. But she succeeded on an important point: the mandatory therapy orders and the automatic reversal-of-care order were set aside. The Court held that the self-executing change of care was unreasonable and plainly wrong, and that the therapy orders were impermissible stand-alone orders not properly tethered to a parenting order.🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties had two young children, aged five and