Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101 (8 July 2022) The primary judge found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children and made orders providing for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for and residence of the children, with the children spending no time nor communicating with the father.  The father appeals from the parenting orders and asserts that the primary judge's reasons were inadequate.  The Court, in resolving this dispute, relied upon the evidence by the father.  Facts: The parties commenced cohabitation in 2011, married in 2013, and finally separated in 2020. The two children were born in 2017 and 2019. They were respectively aged four a

Jennings & Jennings [2022] FedCFamC1A 104 (12 July 2022) The primary judge made orders permitting the mother to relocate the child’s residence to New Zealand.The father asserts that the primary judge failed to properly consider how the facts raised an unacceptable risk of harm to the child. The Court, in determining whether the appeal should be granted, relied upon Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Facts: The parties commenced their relationship in 2011, were married in 2015, and finally separated in July 2018. Their child, X ("the child") was born in 2015 and is presently seven years old. The mother has another child to a previous relationship, Y, who is 13 years old, and who lives with the

Hernandez & Cranage (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 103 (12 July 2022) The mother seeks a coercive order to join the Minister for Home Affairs in the proceedings and to restrain the Minister from cancelling her and her child's bridging visa. The court stated that it is not empowered to compel a party’s joinder to proceedings, either in its appellate or original jurisdiction.  The mother now appeals from a single final order dismissing her application to join the Minister for Home Affairs as a party to the proceedings and leave to amend to seek an injunction against the Minister from cancelling or revoking the mother and her two children’s visas.  The Minister seeks costs of the appeal.  The Co

Barlow & Sellers (No 3) [2022] FedCFamC1A 105 (13 July 2022) The mother appeals from final parenting orders.  The primary judge did not accept the mother’s evidence and found the issue was not relevant.  The Court, in deciding whether to grant the appeal, considered how the Independent Children’s Lawyer was under the obligation to tender only material they reasonably believed to be relevant. Facts: Ms. Barlow (“the mother”) and Mr. Sellers (“the father”) have two children who were born in 2010 and 2012. The orders provided for both children to live with the father who was to have sole parental responsibility for them. The children were to have limited time via Skype with the mother and

Carson & Colt [2022] FedCFamC1A 106 (14 July 2022) The wife appeals from final property settlement orders, most of which were made by consent, with both parties legally represented.  The wife alleges incompetence on the part of the appointed counsel. The Court, in determining whether to grant the appeal,  assessed whether the primary judge considered the justice and equity of the orders. Facts: The parties commenced cohabitation in 2001, married in 2004, and separated in February 2019. Two children were born into the relationship, who are presently aged 17 years and 9 years respectively.  Parenting and property proceedings were commenced by the wife in April 2019. Both aspects of the

Hakim & Salim (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 56 (11 May 2022) On 28 February 2022, the Court granted the appellant leave to appeal property orders made by the primary judge.  The appellant and the first respondent sought that they each be granted cost certificates.  The Court, in determining whether it is appropriate for the appellant to be granted a costs certificate, considered the preconditions for a grant of a cost certificate. Facts: On 28 February 2022 the Court granted the appellant leave to appeal Orders 2 and 8 of orders made by the primary judge on 9 July 2021 and allowed the appeal in respect of the same by: (a) amending Order 2 – by striking out the words “with the categorisation o

Eastley & Eastley [2022] FedCFamC1A 101 (8 July 2022)   The primary judge found that the father posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children and made orders providing for the mother to have sole parental responsibility for and residence of the children, with the children spending no time nor communicating with the father.  The father appealed to such orders.  The Court, in determining whether the appeal should be granted, assessed whether the elder child would be at risk of emotional harm due to fear and trauma he would likely endure if he were to spend any time with the father. Facts: The parties commenced cohabitation in 2011, married in 2013 and finally separated in 2020. The t

Fierro & Fierro [2022] FedCFamC1A 72 (8 July 2022)   The applicant, who is the brother of the child, seeks leave to appeal out of time against an order dismissing his application for the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”).  The ICL sought the costs of opposing the application.  The Court, in adjudicating this dispute, relied upon procedural fairness.  Facts: The applicant in these proceedings is the same applicant in the underlying parenting proceedings, which commenced in October 2021 under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”), which concerns a child who is now 14 years of age.  The applicant is the child’s adult brother.  The respondents joined t

Lewis & Mitchell [2022] FedCFamC2F 771 (16 June 2022) Final parenting orders provided for the children to spend time with the mother.  After certain communications, one of the children no longer spent time with the mother. The mother alleges contravention of final orders against the father.  The Court, in determining whether there was a reasonable excuse for the contravention, relied upon Family Law Act 1975.  Facts: On 15 April 2021, final parenting orders were made by consent (“the final orders”) in proceedings between the father Mr. Lewis (“the father”), and the mother Ms. Mitchell (“the mother”).  The final parenting orders concerned X born in 2006 and Y born in 2007 (collectively

Bakshi & Mahanta (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 90 (17 June 2022) The primary judge granted a divorce order between the parties.  The wife challenges the divorce order on appeal.  The Court, in determining whether to grant the appeal, considered that the expert evidence provided had limited weight.  Facts: The parties were both born in India, however, they met and commenced a relationship in Adelaide, Australia.  In September 2006, they were married by Hindu rite in City E, India.  In October 2006, they were married by Christian rite in City D, India.  The parties’ child was born in Australia in 2008.  In 2009, the husband became a permanent resident of Australia, whilst the wife obtained ci

Qian & Xue [2022] FedCFamC1A 93 (21 June 2022) An order was made which required the wife to pay a sum of money to the trust account of the solicitors for the respondent and an indemnity costs order.  The wife received a sum of money and transferred the majority of it to her family members.  The wife applied for leave to appeal and if leave be granted, the wife applied for an appeal against the primary judge's orders. Facts: The parties met in 2012 and lived together for a short period in 2013.  The parties were married in late 2015 and separated in early September 2017 (according to the husband) or in early October 2017 (according to the wife).  Neither party had any significant assets

Kingston & Field (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1A 87 (30 June 2022) The husband filed an appeal against the primary judge’s decision to summarily dismiss his 79A application.  The husband complains about original orders made pursuant to s 79 (Alteration of property interests).  In making final orders, the Court considered how the husband has already appealed against the original orders. Facts: The parties were married for 14 years and, at the time of final orders, there were three children of the marriage under the age of 18.  On 21 November 2019, the primary judge made the final orders, the effect of which was to divide the property of the parties such that the wife received 47.5 percent of t