Father’s Self-Sabotage: Appeal Collapses After Claims of Bias, Conspiracy, and Constitutional Misfire in Parenting Battle

In Wojewodzka & Ibrahimov (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 192, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Campton, Christie & Schonell JJ) dismissed a father’s appeal against parenting orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility and prohibiting him from spending time or communicating with the child. The case demonstrates how procedural fairness is not violated when a self-represented litigant chooses to abandon trial proceedings, and how unfounded allegations of bias, fraud, and constitutional issues fail to establish error on appeal. It also underscores the judiciary’s limited tolerance for repetitive, unsubstantiated appeals cloaked in allegations of conspiracy or denial of justice.

⚖️ Facts and Issues:

Facts:

• The father, Mr Wojewodzka, appealed parenting orders made by the Family Court of Western Australia that:
• Granted the mother sole parental responsibility.
• Ordered the child live with the mother.
• Restrained the father from approaching within 50 metres of the child or the child’s residence/school.
• Allowed the mother to travel internationally with the child.
• The father had a history of family violence findings, contraventions of orders, and vexatious litigation.
• He filed numerous applications, including an adjournment based on a late-filed s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 “constitutional notice”.
• The father left the courtroom during trial after his application to vacate the hearing was refused and did not return.
• On appeal, he alleged actual and apprehended bias, denial of procedural fairness, fraudulent police evidence, breach of res judicata, and jurisdictional errors.

Issues:

1. Did the trial judge deny procedural fairness by continuing the trial in the father’s absence?
2. Was there actual or apprehended judicial bias?
3. Was the father entitled to an adjournment under s 78B Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for a purported constitutional issue?
4. Did the trial judge err in treating past allegations of family violence or in permitting international travel?
5. Was the father’s additional evidence admissible on appeal?

🧩 Law:

• Procedural fairness: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 – the right is to an opportunity to be heard, not a guarantee the outcome will favour one party.
• Bias test: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289 – whether a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend bias.
• Appellate review of discretion: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – appellate intervention only if discretion miscarried by legal, factual, or reasoning error.
• Constitutional notice requirements: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B – only applies when the case genuinely involves the application or interpretation of the Constitution.
• Further evidence on appeal: CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 – must show the evidence, if accepted, would demonstrate the order was erroneous.

🧠 Application of Law to Facts:

1. Procedural Fairness:
2. The father voluntarily exited the trial, knowing it would proceed in his absence. The Full Court held that he had every opportunity to participate; fairness does not require the Court to suspend proceedings because a party refuses to attend. (SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152 applied.)
3. Bias Claims:
4. The Court rejected assertions of both actual and apprehended bias. The father failed to identify any conduct or statements demonstrating prejudgment or partiality. Merely being dissatisfied with the outcome is not bias (Ebner at [6]; Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568).
5. Constitutional Notice (s 78B):
6. The father’s eleventh-hour filing of a “constitutional matter” lacked substance. He could not identify any constitutional provision genuinely in issue. The Court, citing ACCC v Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (1999) 167 ALR 303, confirmed that trivial or unarguable constitutional points do not require adjournment.
7. Re-litigation and Family Violence Findings:
8. The Court upheld the trial judge’s reliance on s 69ZX(3)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) allowing reference to previous transcripts and judgments. The earlier cancellation of an FVRO did not amount to a legal finding of “no family violence” and therefore did not preclude consideration of those facts in parenting proceedings.
9. Further Evidence:
10. The Court refused to admit the father’s “new” affidavit material, which merely reiterated claims of conspiracy and fraud. The evidence was available earlier and irrelevant to the trial outcome (CDJ v VAJ applied).

🏛️ Judgment and Reasoning:

• Appeal Dismissed.
• The Full Court found no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion or procedure.
• The appeal grounds were “repetitive and conflated disparate categories of asserted error.”
• The allegations of fraud, bias, and denial of fairness lacked evidentiary foundation.
• Procedural fairness was not breached — the father had been afforded full opportunity to present his case.
• The s 78B notice was baseless and served no purpose.
• No constitutional issue was involved.
• The parenting orders were within a reasonable discretionary range and properly based on the child’s emotional and psychological safety.

“Masking dissatisfaction with intermediate determinations and an ultimate discretionary determination as an apprehended bias complaint has no value on appeal.” – [para 83–84]

📚 Precedents Relied Upon:

• House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 – limits of appellate interference with discretion.
• Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 – bias test.
• Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 – procedural fairness principles.
• CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172 – further evidence on appeal.
• Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design & Developments Pty Ltd (2006) 229 CLR 577 – necessity of addressing bias before substantive issues.
• Line & Line (1997) FLC 92-729 – relevant to international travel and best interests.

🧩 Analysis of Judicial Reasoning:

The Full Court’s reasoning emphasised procedural discipline and the integrity of judicial process over litigant conduct. The Court made it clear that self-representation does not excuse procedural non-compliance or allow litigants to convert dissatisfaction into grounds for appeal.

The judges found the father’s arguments speculative, conspiratorial, and unsupported by the record. His failure to participate in the trial, coupled with baseless constitutional and fraud claims, fatally undermined his appeal.

The Court reinforced that appellate intervention requires demonstrated legal error — not disagreement with factual findings. The best interests of the child and the mother’s protection were paramount, especially given evidence of the father’s threatening, controlling behaviour and refusal to adhere to orders.

🧭 Take-Home Lesson:

Courts protect due process, not defiance.

Litigants cannot claim bias or unfairness when they choose to abandon proceedings or base appeals on unsubstantiated conspiracy. Procedural fairness requires only an opportunity to be heard — and when a party refuses it, the law moves on. Parenting disputes hinge on the child’s safety and stability, not on a parent’s grievances against the system.