Jurisdiction Denied: Mother’s Interim Parenting Bid Collapses After Appeal Stay Dismissed

📘 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 stay of the final orders on 20 December 2024, along with interim orders seeking to reverse the children’s living arrangements.
• The stay application was dismissed on 29 January 2025.
• Despite the dismissal, the mother's application for interim parenting orders continued.
• The father filed his own stay application, set for hearing before the original trial judge.
• The Court dismissed the remainder of the mother’s application for lack of jurisdiction.

❓ Issues:

1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim parenting orders after final orders have been made and while an appeal is on foot?
2. Is the mother entitled to a reversal of parenting arrangements through her existing application?
3. Should costs be awarded against the mother?

⚖️ Application of Law:

🔹 Jurisdiction and Final Orders:

Justice Carew emphasized that once final parenting orders are made, interim orders cannot be issued unless:

• A new Initiating Application is filed; and
• The applicant satisfies s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which requires a significant change in circumstances to justify reopening parenting proceedings ([6]).

Since the mother had neither filed a new initiating application nor demonstrated any change in circumstances, her application was outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

🔹 Appeal and Procedure:

• The appeal proceedings are separate from the original parenting proceedings ([6]).
• A stay application must be heard by the original trial judge, which in this case was Justice Baumann ([8]).

🔹 Costs:

• The Court awarded costs of $321 to the father, as the mother was entirely unsuccessful, and the only relevant costs were those incurred at the hearing ([9]–[10]).

🧠 Judgment Analysis and Reasoning:

Justice Carew’s reasoning hinged on procedural integrity and judicial economy:

• Jurisdiction was clearly lacking: Without a fresh initiating application and proof of a material change in circumstances post-final orders, the Court had no authority to make interim orders ([6]).
• The mother’s procedural approach was flawed, seeking to re-argue the living arrangements outside the proper legal avenue.
• The judgment also clarified that appellate and original parenting proceedings are legally distinct, preventing re-litigation under the guise of interim relief ([6]).
• The Judge took a measured approach to costs, awarding only those relevant to the unnecessary hearing.

📚 Cited Legislation and Authority:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 65DAAA – Requirement of significant change in circumstances for initiating new parenting proceedings after final orders.
• No additional cases were directly cited due to the brevity and procedural nature of the ruling.

🎓 Take-Home Lesson:

Procedural correctness is paramount in post-final order parenting disputes. Once final orders are made, attempts to alter them through interim applications—without establishing a significant change or following proper procedures—are likely to fail. Litigants must respect jurisdictional limits and seek variation only through valid, legally recognised avenues.