Mother seeks expedited appeal, Court Says 3 months is an Expedited Appeal!

In Conner & Conner (No.3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 235, Justice Schonell of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 1) was asked to expedite an appeal concerning interim parenting orders. The mother (appellant) alleged that the child was at risk of harm in the father’s care and sought urgent consideration of her appeal. The Court, however, refused to grant expedition, finding that the appeal—already listed within three months—was effectively being fast-tracked and that no compelling basis existed to prioritise it over other pending appeals.

Facts and Issues:

• The parties were engaged in protracted and highly conflictual parenting litigation under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• The father had been granted sole parental responsibility and the child was ordered to live with him following the mother’s repeated frustration of prior orders.
• The mother sought to expedite her appeal against these interim parenting orders, asserting that the child was at risk of harm in the father’s care.
• The appeal was already listed for hearing in February 2026, less than three months away.
• The central issue was whether the circumstances justified expedition — i.e., should this appeal take precedence over others awaiting hearing.

Issue:

Whether the Court should expedite the appeal under s 94(2D)(j) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), given the appellant’s assertion that the child was at risk of harm in the respondent’s care.

Rule (Law):

• Under s 94(2D)(j) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and r 15.06 of the Family Law Rules 2021 (Cth), the Court has discretion to expedite an appeal where circumstances justify priority over others.
• Justice Schonell adopted the criteria set out in Villa & Villa [2025] FedCFamC1A 214, which itself applied Aldridge J’s summary in Gallea & Gallea [2020] FamCAFC 322 [6]:

Factors include whether the applicant has acted promptly, whether expedition would prejudice the respondent, and whether there are circumstances warranting priority to the possible detriment of other cases.

• The ultimate question: Should this appeal be heard before others already waiting?

Application (Analysis):

• Promptness:
• The appellant acted quickly—filing her notice of appeal within four days of the original order and her application for expedition within three more days.
• Urgency:
• Despite the appellant’s claims of risk to the child, she had previously consented to orders for unsupervised time and had unsuccessfully appealed similar interim decisions. Justice Schonell noted that the allegations did not introduce any new or compelling evidence.
• Prejudice and Priority:
• The appeal was already listed for February 2026, which the Court regarded as a de facto expedition. Granting further priority would unfairly delay other litigants also seeking urgent relief.
• Best Interests Context:
• While parenting matters are inherently urgent, the Court reaffirmed that procedural fairness and judicial efficiency require a balance between urgency and the orderly progression of appeals.

Judgment:

The Court dismissed the Application in an Appeal. Justice Schonell held that there was no extraordinary urgency or fresh evidence of risk justifying further acceleration. The February hearing date already constituted sufficient expedition.

“There is nothing in the appellant’s affidavit or submissions that is so compelling as to call for this appeal to be heard in preference to that of others.”

Reasoning:

Justice Schonell’s reasoning centered on judicial economy and proportionality:

1. The appeal was already being heard within an expedited timeframe.
2. No new evidence supported the mother’s claims of imminent risk.
3. The Court must avoid queue-jumping, where one party’s anxiety or repeated filings displace other urgent family matters.
4. The mother’s history of non-compliance and litigation escalation (three appeals over interim orders) undermined claims of genuine urgency.

Precedents Relied On:

• Villa & Villa [2025] FedCFamC1A 214
• Gallea & Gallea [2020] FamCAFC 322

These decisions clarified the threshold for expedition and guided the Court’s balancing of urgency against procedural fairness to other parties.

Take-Home Lesson:

Even in emotionally charged parenting disputes, urgency must be demonstrated, not declared. The Court will not grant priority without clear, objective evidence of imminent harm or injustice. Filing quickly is commendable—but without new or exceptional circumstances, an appeal already listed within a few months will not be “re-expedited.”