In Good & Good [2025] FedCFamC1F 930, Strum J dealt with an awkward (but increasingly common) post-FCFCOA Act problem: two non-party respondents sought review of a Division 2 Senior Judicial Registrar’s decision, but the matter had been transferred into Division 1—creating a jurisdictional “dead end”. His Honour held a Division 1 judge lacked jurisdiction to determine a review of a registrar decision made under Division 2 powers, and therefore requested the Chief Justice transfer the proceedings back to Division 2 so the review applications could actually be heard. ([10], [19]–[21])🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The wife commenced property settlement and spousal maintenance proceedings in Divi

In Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 (Carew J, 17 December 2025), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) determined final parenting arrangements on a rehearing after a successful appeal. It was common ground that it was not in the children’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents, so the case turned into a stark “which home is safest” decision. The Court ordered the children live with the father, with the mother to have no time and no communication (absent written agreement), aside from limited gifts/cards and information-sharing. ([23], [334], [352]–[353])🧩 Facts and IssuesFacts: The parties have two young children. The reasons d

In Arata & Rex (No 9) [2025] FedCFamC1F 920, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) refused the wife’s attempt to stay enforcement of final property orders while she pursued a s 79A application (and pointed to an ASIC referral). The Court treated the stay bid as another effort to delay the “fruits of litigation” where the wife’s “new” material was largely old ground, her prospects under s 79A were poor, and sale of the home was the predictable consequence of her non-payment under the final orders.Facts:Final parenting and property orders were made on 1 November 2024 (“2024 Final Orders”). The property orders required the wife to pay the husband $1,043,248 within 3

When “Pulling a Sickie” Backfires: $6,555 Costs — and Your Appeal on the LineIn Sum & Lam (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1A 16, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) refused a self-represented appellant’s second attempt to adjourn an appeal hearing—after medical letters claimed she lacked capacity, but her conduct in the appeal showed the opposite. The day ended with the appeal briefly adjourned only for procedural fairness, a clear warning that the appeal may proceed without her next time, and a fixed “costs thrown away” order of $6,555 payable within 28 days.Facts:The appellant appealed property orders made under Pt VIII of the Family Law Act 197

In Dalal & Bunha [2026] FedCFamC1A 13, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) dismissed a property appeal where the self-represented appellant alleged procedural unfairness, lack of transparency, bias/recusal error, erroneous fact-finding, and inadequate reasons . Deputy Chief Justice McClelland held the primary hearing was conducted fairly, the challenged rulings were within discretion, the bias allegations were unfounded, and the key findings (including foreign-asset ownership) were reasonably open on the evidence .🧩 Facts and IssuesKey factsThe appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal (15 August 2025) challenging property and ancillar

Nicolescu & Umar [2026] FedCFamC1A 15: The Family Report Fight That Went NowhereWhat Was the Appellant Trying to Achieve — and Why?The Appellant’s ObjectiveThe appellant (the mother) was attempting to stop the Family Report from being used and to force the appointment of a new single expert.Specifically, she sought to appeal interlocutory orders made on 15 December 2025 which:Refused to exclude the existing Family Report from evidence; andAllowed the parties to instead conference with the single expert and put written questions to clarify the report (Orders 3 and 8).📍 Paras [4]–[6]Why She Tried to AppealThe appellant was dissatisfied with the content and conclusions of the Family Report

🧭 Introductory ParagraphIn Ritter & Hermann (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC1F 19, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) exercised its powers under the Australian Passports Act 2005 (Cth) to authorise the issue of a child’s passport without maternal consent, following clear and unexplained non-compliance with earlier court orders. The case is a sharp reminder that parenting disputes about international travel are not determined by obstruction, delay, or opposition in principle—particularly where a party has already agreed to comply and then failed to do so. The Court also imposed fixed costs against the non-compliant parent, reinforcing the consequences of disregarding int

In Fierro & Bien [2026] FedCFamC1A 14, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) considered whether an appeal hearing should be adjourned for one day due to the appellant’s unavoidable attendance at a Tribunal-ordered mediation. Although modest in scope, the decision is a useful illustration of appellate case-management discretion, the operation of s 32 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), and the Court’s pragmatic approach to procedural fairness—particularly where the appellant is self-represented.🧩 Facts and IssuesKey FactsThe appellant, Mr Fierro, was self-represented (litigant in person).He filed an Amended

Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 is one of the most confronting parenting judgments of 2025. After an appeal and rehearing, the Court made the rare and extreme order that two very young children live with their father and spend no time with their mother, despite evidence of mutual conflict and acknowledged love between the children and the mother.The decision is a stark illustration of how persistent emotional abuse of a child, lack of insight, and refusal to accept responsibility can ultimately outweigh biological attachment, history of primary care, and even a parent’s genuine love.FACTSThe FamilyTwo children: X (born 2018) and Y (born 2021) (¶1, ¶11)Parents married i

In Jefford & Kaluza [2026] FedCFamC1A 6, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Hogan, Altobelli & Jarrett JJ) overturned draconian parenting orders that completely severed a father’s contact with his two children. The appellate judges found that the trial judge had failed to consider crucial prior findings, ignored credibility evidence, and misapplied the principles governing unacceptable risk and evidentiary assessment under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The decision is a powerful reminder that risk assessments in child protection cases must be evidence-based, holistic, and procedurally fair.Facts and IssuesFactsThe parties, Mr Jefford (father) and Ms

The Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller & Kari JJ) in Arrighetti & Qodirova [2026] FedCFamC1A 1 delivered a landmark appellate judgment clarifying the scope of judicial discretion in cases involving emotional and psychological harm to children. The Court dismissed a mother’s appeal challenging draconian parenting orders that imposed a six-month moratorium on contact with her daughter, indefinite supervision thereafter, and a total prohibition on contact between the child and the maternal grandmother. The case underscores the balance courts must strike between protecting children from emotional harm and preserving their right to

The appellate judgment in Leena & Leena [2025] FedCFamC1A 241 (Hogan, Altobelli & McNab JJ) serves as a critical reminder that judicial neutrality must not only exist but must be seen to exist. The Court partially allowed an appeal from parenting and property orders after finding that the trial judge’s premature comments and conduct during the hearing gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The case further addressed errors in the trial judge’s approach to contributions in the property settlement, setting aside those orders and remitting the matter for rehearing before a different judge.Facts and IssuesThe appellant (mother) and respondent (father) disputed both parenting arr