In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478, Judge Suthers delivered a decisive ruling in a highly contentious second tranche of parenting proceedings. The mother, who initiated the case, alleged the father had sexually abused their six-year-old son. However, after multiple investigations by police and child protection authorities found no evidence, the Court determined that the mother’s persistent and unsubstantiated allegations caused emotional harm to the child. In a rare but clear outcome, the Court found the mother — not the father — posed an unacceptable risk to the child’s psychological wellbeing, granting the father sole parental responsibility and ordering that the child live wi

In Willis & Mulder [2025] FedCFamC1A 217, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) overturned a property settlement after the wife uncovered explosive new evidence — her husband, who claimed to be a pensioner with no income, had secretly declared a $176,000 annual salary to a lender just months later. The appellate court found that while the trial judge made no legal errors based on the original evidence, the husband’s post-trial loan documents “collided violently” with his sworn testimony. This new evidence fatally undermined the trial findings under s 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), leading the Court to set aside the orders and

In Barnabas & Phineus [2025] FedCFamC1A 215, Justice Campton of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate Jurisdiction) dealt with a father’s appeal against supervised contact orders. The father alleged his trial counsel’s incompetence led to an unfair trial and that the primary judge gave insufficient weight to his medical evidence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that not every alleged forensic mistake by counsel amounts to a miscarriage of justice, and that appellate intervention is reserved for errors that materially affect the result. The judgment underscores the high threshold for appeals based on alleged incompetence of counsel and

In Mayfield & Mayfield [2025] FedCFamC2F 1227, Judge Turnbull of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2, Hobart) reaffirmed the strict operation of section 60I of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — the rule that parties must first attempt Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) or obtain an appropriate section 60I certificate before filing parenting proceedings. The applicant mother argued her case should proceed because the father’s refusal to attend mediation made FDR impossible. However, the Court held that even in such situations, the proper process is to obtain a practitioner’s certificate reflecting that refusal — not to bypass the system entirely. The decision reinforces that proce

In Villa & Villa [2025] FedCFamC1A 214, Justice Austin of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1, Appellate) dismissed the husband’s urgent application to expedite an appeal concerning his failed bid to force his former wife to swear an affidavit about her alleged access to his privileged communications. The husband claimed his legal professional privilege had been breached, fearing the wife might use undisclosed documents in the ongoing financial proceedings. Justice Austin found there was no factual basis for the husband’s suspicions, no urgent need for appeal, and that the issue could be addressed in the ordinary course of the part-heard trial or in a future app

In Nootkamp & Brulja (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1A 210, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) dismissed a husband’s fourth attempt to overturn enforcement orders made to implement final property settlement orders from 2024. The self-represented appellant alleged judicial bias, procedural unfairness, and discretionary error, but the Full Court (Austin, Sutherland & Riethmuller JJ) found that he was simply re-litigating issues already determined and had been given ample opportunity to comply with the original orders. The Court reinforced the narrow grounds for alleging bias and the high threshold for obtaining leave to appeal interlocutory property

In Van Wyk & Van Wyk [2025] FedCFamC1A 209, the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) grappled with one of family law’s hardest dilemmas — how to protect children from the corrosive effects of chronic parental conflict while respecting the importance of both parents in their lives. The father’s appeal challenged final parenting orders that allocated the mother sole parental responsibility for most decisions, while granting him limited authority over the younger child’s psychological and educational care. Deputy Chief Justice McClelland dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that judicial discretion will rarely be disturbed where the trial judge has reasonably balanced risk, evidence,

In Ramirus & Hendrika [2025] FedCFamC1A 204, Justice Strum of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) delivered a strong rebuke to judicial conduct that compromised procedural fairness. The case involved a self-represented father who was excluded from the courtroom while the trial judge held private discussions with the mother’s counsel and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) — conversations that included adverse commentary about the father’s mental health and personality. The Full Court ruled this was a clear denial of procedural fairness, rendering the trial invalid. The parenting orders preventing the father from seeing his children were set aside and the matter remitted

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