In Kesselman & Brimble [2025], the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) tackled a high-conflict parenting dispute involving children with significant behavioural needs and a mother living with PTSD. At the core of the dispute was the issue of parental responsibility: should it be shared, or should the mother—who alleged coercive and violent behaviour from the father—have sole authority over major decisions? Justice Boyle’s detailed judgment offers a nuanced and trauma-informed approach to family violence, shared parenting, and the realities of co-parenting in complex circumstances.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:The parties have two children: X (9) and Y (7), both diagno

In Re: Morgan, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was asked to determine whether a 16-year-old transgender girl, Morgan, was Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 gender-affirming hormone therapy, despite her father's religious objections. The judgment of Anderson J addresses pressing issues at the intersection of family law, gender identity, medical ethics, and children's rights. The Court’s ruling underscores the primacy of a child’s best interests and autonomy in such deeply personal decisions.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:Morgan, born in 2008, identifies as female and has been receiving Stage 1 treatment (puberty blockers) since 2019.The mother sought orders confirming Morgan's capacity

📘 Introduction:In Abramsson & Abramsson (No 3), the Family Court was confronted with a procedural challenge following final parenting orders. The mother, having launched an appeal against those orders, filed a further application seeking not only a stay but also an interim reversal of the children’s living arrangements. Justice Carew’s brief but decisive judgment focused squarely on the question of jurisdiction, highlighting the procedural missteps litigants must avoid post-final orders.📋 Facts and Issues:🧾 Facts:Final parenting orders were made on 6 December 2024, granting the father sole parental responsibility and residence of the children.The mother appealed the decision and sought a

Introduction:The case of Morcos & Lindon (No 3) demonstrates the complexities that arise when family law intersects with estate disputes, trust structures, and alleged fraud. Justice Bennett was tasked with adjudicating post-final-order applications, including requests for joinder, substitution, a stay pending appeal, and clarifications under the slip rule. The judgment sheds light on the fine line between legitimate litigation steps and attempts to re-litigate substantive issues after finality.Facts and Issues:Facts:Mr. Morcos (husband) and Ms. Lindon (wife) were parties in property settlement proceedings.The key property at D Street, Suburb E, was legally in the name of the husband’s l

IntroductionThe case of Donovan & Bath [2024] FedCFamC1F 867 highlights the legal complexities that arise when enforcing foreign divorce agreements in Australia. Despite the husband's initial consent to transfer a property to the wife as part of an overseas divorce agreement, he repeatedly failed to comply. This case examines how the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia exercised its authority under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to enforce foreign obligations and ensure compliance with property orders.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, both originally from Country D, married in 1996 and divorced in late 2018.During their marriage, they acquired property in Country D, the United

IntroductionThe case of Vernick & Bayley [2024] FedCFamC1F 888 highlights the enforcement of final property orders in family law, particularly concerning the sale of a matrimonial home. The dispute centers on whether the husband, Mr. Vernick, contravened court orders by delaying the auction of the former marital home, despite a final order requiring its sale. Justice Altobelli was tasked with determining whether the husband's failure to comply constituted an enforceable breach and what remedies were available.Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant (Ms. Bayley) and the respondent (Mr. Vernick) were subject to final property orders made on 10 October 2024.These orders required the sale of the

IntroductionIn Engberg [2024] FedCFamC1F 871, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced a heart-wrenching case involving a five-year-old child, X, who lost her mother in an accident. With no known father or other parental figure, X’s maternal grandparents sought full parental responsibility to make critical decisions regarding her welfare. This case underscores the court’s paramount concern for a child’s best interests, particularly in urgent situations requiring stability and continuity of care.Facts and IssuesFactsX was born in 2019 through IVF using an anonymous sperm donor.X’s mother, Ms. D, tragically passed away in 2024.X had always lived with her maternal grandparents, M

IntroductionThe case of Nakahara & Nakahara [2024] FedCFamC1F 875 highlights the consequences of unnecessarily prolonging family law proceedings and rejecting reasonable settlement offers. The central issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the husband should bear the wife's legal costs following the final property settlement orders. The Court ultimately ruled against the husband, ordering him to pay the wife’s legal costs on a party-party basis from 4 August 2023, primarily due to his conduct during the proceedings, including his refusal to accept a reasonable settlement offer and his unsuccessful pursuit of an add-back claim.Facts and IssuesFactsThe w

IntroductionThe case Berfield & Berfield (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 881 presents a cautionary tale of how unsuccessful litigation can lead to significant financial consequences. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ruled on a costs dispute following an unsuccessful equitable claim made by the wife against her husband's siblings. The judgment highlights the importance of well-founded claims, judicial discretion in cost orders, and the implications of unsuccessful litigation on parties' financial standing.Facts and IssuesFactsThe applicant, Ms. B Berfield ("the wife"), initiated property proceedings against her former husband, Mr. C Berfield ("the husband"), under Part VIII of t

IntroductionThe case of Fowles & Fowles (No 7) [2024] FedCFamC1F 880 is a significant decision from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1), dealing with the enforcement of property orders in family law. This case highlights the challenges in ensuring compliance with court orders and the complexities of jurisdictional authority when enforcement applications are contested. Justice Hartnett’s ruling provides insight into the legal mechanisms available to prevent a party from evading their obligations, particularly when international travel is a concern.Facts and IssuesFacts:The applicant wife filed an Enforcement Application on 8 August 2024, seeking to enforce final

IntroductionThe case of Daily & Daily (No 6) [2024] FedCFamC1F 889 underscores the significant financial and emotional toll of prolonged family law litigation. The judgment, delivered by Berman J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, addresses the issue of legal costs following a contentious dispute over property settlement and the enforceability of a Binding Financial Agreement (BFA). This decision ultimately determines the extent to which one party should bear the legal costs of the other, considering financial hardship, litigation conduct, and prior settlement offers.Facts and IssuesFacts:The parties, Ms. Daily (applicant) and Mr. Daily (respondent), began cohabiting i

IntroductionThe Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently ruled in Ongaro & Abadzhiev (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F 878, a case concerning legal costs following a contentious property settlement. The case revolved around Mr. Ongaro’s application seeking costs from Ms. Abadzhiev, arguing that she unreasonably rejected a settlement offer. Justice Berman’s judgment examined whether an order for costs was justified under section 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ultimately ruling that no order for costs should be made, leaving both parties responsible for their own legal expenses.Facts and IssuesFacts:The case followed property settlement proceedings concluded in Ongaro & Aba