LEVY & MOLLISON FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 582   This case is an application to review the decision of the Senior Registrar when orders were made for the father’s time with his child to be supervised. FACTS: Mr. Levy (the father) filed an Application in a Case in which he seeks to vary the orders made on 22 November 2019 by dispensing with the requirement for supervision and allowing him to spend unsupervised time with X (the child). Ms. Mollison (the mother) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer opposed the application. The mother alleged that the father is unable to contain his hostility towards her in his dealing with the child. The father sent offensive or threatening mes

PARISI & ZEIN FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 587   This case is an application for an #Interim parenting order concerning the children of the parties. FACTS: Mr Parisi (the father) lives on the outskirts of metropolitan Melbourne whereas Ms Zein (the mother) and the two children live in an inner suburb. Also, the eldest child, who is currently 13 years of age is exhibiting concerning behavioral traits creating for each parent major problems when that child is in his or her care. Mr Finn, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, sought professional advice from an experienced clinical psychologist, Dr B, who provided a report dated 14 July 2020, recommending the separation of the two sib

HEATLEY & HEATLEY FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 592   This case is an interim application that concerns two children, X aged four years and Y aged nineteen months.  FACTS: During the parties’ relationship, they lived in Brisbane. They separated on 3 February 2020 when Mr. Heatley (the father) took up employment in Sydney, and Ms. Heatley (the mother) and the children remained in Brisbane. The father instituted the proceedings seeking orders which would require the mother to return the children to Sydney, that the children live with and spend time with him, initially not overnight for a short period but then graduating to an equal time arrangement.  The father alleged that the mo

CHAMBERLIN & FALLOW FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 555   This case is an application for the reopening of parenting proceedings. FACTS: Ms Chamberlin (the mother) and Mr Fallow (the father) are the parents of X, who was born in 2013 and is presently seven years of age. On 11 May 2015 the parties consented to final parenting orders which provided for a gradual increase in time with the father such that the child commenced to live with each parent in a week-about arrangement in January 2019. On 18 October 2019, the mother filed an Initiating Application seeking to discharge certain orders made by consent on 11 May 2015 and to reduce the child's time with the father to five nights p

MARTYN & MARTYN FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 526   This case is an Application for orders to set aside the binding child support agreement and to extinguish arrears of child support. FACTS: Mr. Martyn (the father) filed an Initiating Application seeking an order setting aside the binding child support agreement between Ms. Martyn (the mother) and him under s136 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the CSA Act). In addition to the order sought in the Application filed 13 January 2020, the father sought an order extinguishing the arrears owing as a result of the reduced amount of child support paid since September 2016. The father filed the Application as the busines

MUSCAT & MUSCAT FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 572   FACTS: Mr Muscat (the father) and Ms Muscat (the mother) are the parents of X who was born in 2013 and Y who was born in 2017 (the children).  The parents separated on 26 September 2019. After separation, the children remained living with the mother.  However, the children want to spend time with the father. The parties filed competing #Parenting applications that were heard and orders were made by the Senior Registrar.  The father seeks for the review of the orders made by the Senior Registrar for time with the children.  The father seeks graduated orders for time with the children, supervised by the paternal grandmother, for

WEN & JONGFEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA[2020] FCCA 749   This case concerns an interim application for parenting orders. FACTS: Mr. Wen (father) filed an urgent application to have X and Y (children), who are currently living with Ms. Jong (mother), live with him. The essence of the father’s case is that the threatened suicide attempt and the knife incident, which demonstrates the mother’s poor mental health. The father alleged that the mother, due to poor mental health and inability to control herself, poses a risk to the children. The father also sought urgent change of supervision. The mother, although she admitted that she had had some issues, said that these arose particularly

FATISI & HASILA FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 209   These proceedings involve an application by Ms Fatisi (the Applicant), made in the context of Mr. Hasila’s (the Respondent) application for divorce. FACTS: Applicant sought a decree of nullity pursuant to s 51 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (the Family Law Act) on the basis that the marriage is void, or a declaration of invalidity of the marriage pursuant to s 113 of the Family Law Act, if such a decree is not available. The Applicant was twelve years old when she married the Respondent in Country T in 2005.  On returning from school one day, the Applicant was told by her family that she would marry the respondent that evenin

This contract is referred to as a Cohabitation or more accurately a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA). Cohabitation Agreements are made between people who are living together or intending to live together but not intending to get married. Couples intending to get married should define their relationship with a Prenuptial Agreement under section 90B of the family law act. Your Cohabitation agreement becomes a legal expression of your intent as de facto partners – you can define how you intend to divide your assets and maintain any children you may have. Download File Disclaimer The following sample legal document is provided by Family Law Express for informational purposes only. It is intende

TRAGER & TRAGER FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 1297   This is an application for a contravention order by the mother. FACTS: Ms. Trager (the mother) filed an application for contravention of orders.  The alleged #contravention, which was admitted by Mr. Tragger (the father), was against an interim order wherein the parties are required to ensure that medication was taken without relying on the children in any way.  The breach committed by the father was not ensuring that the antidepressant medication was taken by X (the child) when with him. The father was asked by the Court to make an undertaking that he would, in the future, ensure strict compliance with that order.  Th

BALSOM & HAGERMAN FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 1820   This is an interim application seeking the sale of the former matrimonial home of the parties FACTS: Mr. Balsom (the husband) filed an interim application seeking the sale of the former matrimonial home of the parties, which is in the sole name of Ms. Hagerman (the wife).  The property secures two mortgages or two sets of borrowings: one for $133,000, which seems to be a conventional home mortgage, and further borrowings of about $51,000, which were business borrowings related to the wife’s business, which has ceased trading in recent months. The wife vacated the property on separation, leaving the husband as the occ

BACKEN & WOLLAM FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 338   In this case, the father seeks costs for the applications he filed due to the mother’s non-compliance of the parenting orders. FACTS: Parenting orders were made for Mr. Backen (the father) and Ms Wollam (the mother), providing for their six children to live with the father and for the mother to return the three youngest children to the father.  The mother did not comply with those orders. The father filed an application seeking recovery orders and the mother filed an application for a stay of the orders pending appeal, which was dismissed.  The father thereafter sought costs in relation to the applications. ISSUE: Whether or no