ABBEY & SEYMOUR FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 112   This case is about a father who filed an application in relation to traveling with his child overseas. Facts: Mr. Abbey (Father and Applicant) sought that he be permitted to take the parties' child to Country A for three weeks during the long school holiday period at the end of each year.  He stated that he has plans of traveling to Country A with his new wife and the child, once he has the funds, to introduce them to his family there.   Ms. Seymour (Mother and Respondent) opposed the application, alleging that the child's anxiety and attachment issues raise great concern on how he will not cope being that far away from

OWEN & OWEN FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCA 90   This case involves Court’s exercise of discretion to apply s102NA of the Family Law Act 1975. Facts: Ms. Owen (Wife and Applicant) applied for the discretionary application of the provisions of s102NA of the Family Law Act 1975, which provides a statutory scheme for dealing with cross-examination by unrepresented litigants in the context of a party to party family violence allegations.  She alleged that she, being the subject of family violence, would be re-traumatized, and her capacity to give clear evidence would be compromised if directly cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator of family violence. Mr. Owen (Husband and Responde

HIRSCH & HIRSCH (No.2) FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 18   This case discusses what the Court considers in matters pertaining to relocation. Facts: The primary judge made orders for the introduction of a 10/4 spend time regime in favor of Ms. Hirsch (Mother and Appellant) to be introduced over time.   Neither party objected to the order.  Thereafter, Mr. Hirsch (Father and Respondent) sought for the mother to be compelled by court order to relocate from City K, where she presently lives, to the Suburb O/Suburb L area.  Also, the father sought that the spend time regime previously in place before the mother moved to City K be reinstated.  The mother’s position is that she

PHILLIPS & HANSFORD FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCAFC 28   In this case, the father appealed the interim orders concerning the parties’ two children.  The mother, in response, filed sought for Costs Orders for the costs of the appeal and the application for costs. Facts: In 21 January 2015, a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in Canberra made orders, which provided for the children to relocate with Ms. Hansford (mother and respondent) to Adelaide; and in the event that the father also moved to Adelaide, which he did, the children were to spend equal time with each of the parents.  In November 2018, the younger child, due to return to the care of the father, remained

Naparus & Frankham FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FamCAFC 32 (18 February 2020)   This is an appeal from all orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia determining the parties’ dispute over their child.  The appeal was granted because of procedural unfairness. Facts: Ms. Naparus (Mother and Appellant) filed an Amended Notice of Appeal against the orders of the primary judge that was made in reliance upon a psychiatric assessment of Mr. Frankham (Father and Respondent) presented by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), which had neither been filed or served upon the mother.  It was her case that the father suffered from some form of psychological or psychiatric

GABALIS & AKULA FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 71   This case involves a parenting order application filed by the mother concerning parties’ child, X. Facts: Parties sought parenting orders be made by the Court concerning their child, X, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (level 2), and Sensory Processing Disorder. The Court had to decide whether X should spend time with her father. Ms. Gabalis (Mother and Applicant) commenced the proceeding in 2016. Orders were made, among others, for the parties not to denigrate, belittle and/or insult each other, or persons the other party is in a domestic relationship with or members of the other party’s family in the presence o

SAYER & CABELLO FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 104   This case involves an application that relates to both parenting and property matters following the breakdown of the parties’ 10-year relationship. Facts: Parties have a four-year-old son (X) who has special needs.  He has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), global developmental delay, sensory processing issues and severe language disorder.  In relation to parenting matters, Mr. Sayer (Father and Applicant) sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility for X, that X live with Ms. Cabello (Mother and Respondent) and spend unsupervised time with him for two nights per week.  On the other hand, Ms.

PALMA & MURPHEY FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 120   This is the determination of the father’s application for costs, seeking an order for the maternal grandmother to pay his costs in responding to her Contravention Application. Facts: Ms. A Murphey (Maternal Grandmother and Respondent) filed a Contravention Application against Mr. Palma (Father and Applicant) as the latter had not been willing to negotiate a change in the orders of the Family Court of Australia.  The Contravention Application was dismissed after the Court determined that the paternal grandmother’s evidence in support of the filed application did not prove alleged contraventions.  Mr. Palma then filed an

CHAU & CAO (NO. 2) FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2019] FamCAFC 254   This is an appeal filed by the wife from orders made by the primary judge dismissing her application for property settlement. Facts: Ms. Chau (Wife and Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal[1] against final property settlement orders made by the primary judge that dismissed her application for property settlement orders filed in 2014 and discharged an order made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia restraining Mr. Cao (Husband and Respondent) from selling or otherwise dealing with real property and any of his investment shares.  Ms. Chau’s appeal was based on the grounds that the primary judge gave too little

In this case, the Court is asked to make orders for the parties’ younger children’s time with the father to gradually increase to equal time. Facts Ms. Crisp (mother and applicant) and Mr. Crisp (father and respondent) come to Court seeking parenting arrangement, particularly for Y and Z.  Parties have very poor capacity to communicate.  They have negative and adverse view of each other, both as parents and as people, and their children have been caught up in a high conflict matter.  W and X do not spend time with their father.  Y and Z spend time with their father for four nights per fortnight.  The father seeks an order for equal time. The Court ordered that the parents have equal shared p

MOLKENS & ANSELL FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 37   This case involves the alienation of children by one parent against the other. Facts: In this case, the Court is asked to make parenting orders concerning their four children: Z, 15 years old, W, 13 years old, Y, 12 years old, and X, 10 years old.  Ms. Molken (Mother and Applicant) was concerned that Mr. Ansell (Father and Respondent) was alienating all the children from her.  On the other hand, Mr. Ansell was concerned about Ms. Molken's husband and the quality of housing provided to the children.  Issue: Whether or not the presumption of equal share parental responsibility is in the best interests of the children.

SOTTO & HENSLEY FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA [2020] FCCA 32   This case involves an Application to stay the operation of an order allowing the change of name of the child. Facts: Mr. Sotto (Father and Applicant) filed an application before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to stay the change of name order that allowed Ms. Hensley (Mother and Respondent) to seek a change of name on behalf of their daughter.  Mr. Sotto was concerned that if the orders are not stayed, the change of name will be implemented, and it will significantly prejudice his case in the appeal, making it nugatory. Issue: Whether or not the Application for stay of name change orders should be granted. Held: T