Prolix Grounds, No Appellate Error: Father’s Parenting Appeal Dismissed After Court Refuses to Re-run the Trial

In Rocchi & Hadak [2026] FedCFamC1A 100, Williams J dismissed the father’s appeal from final parenting orders that provided for the children to live with the mother, the mother to have sole decision-making responsibility except as to the children’s names, and the father to spend initially supervised time with the children after family therapy, progressing later to unsupervised time. The appeal failed because the father’s grounds and Summary of Argument did not properly identify appealable error. Instead, they were dense, repetitive, overlapping and largely attempted to re-agitate the case he had run unsuccessfully at trial.

🧩 Facts and Issues

Facts:

The parties had two children. After separation, the children spent time with the father for a period, but that time ceased in May 2023. The parenting dispute then proceeded to a contested trial.

The final orders provided that:

• the children live with the mother;
• the mother have sole long-term decision-making responsibility, except for changing the children’s names;
• the children spend time with the father, initially through a contact centre;
• the family attend family therapy;
• the father’s time progress gradually to unsupervised time, ultimately reaching three nights a fortnight during term time, holidays and special occasions.

The father appealed, alleging procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, misapprehension of evidence, improper reliance on expert evidence, misapplication of the best-interests framework, risk assessment errors, factual findings not open on the evidence, and discretionary error.

He also filed an Application in an Appeal seeking to adduce further evidence, issue subpoenas to police officers, rely on subpoena material from District Court proceedings, and rely on amended orders if the appeal succeeded. That application was dismissed.

Issues:

1. Should the father be permitted to adduce further evidence on appeal?
2. Were the father’s appeal grounds properly framed and compliant with the Rules?
3. Did the primary judge deny the father procedural fairness?
4. Were the reasons inadequate?
5. Did the primary judge misapply the statutory best-interests framework or risk principles?
6. Were any findings not open on the evidence?
7. Was the parenting outcome outside the proper discretionary range?

⚖️ Applicable Law – Legislation, Regulations, Rules

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

• Part VII — parenting orders.
• s 60CC — best-interests considerations.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)

• s 35 — further evidence on appeal.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)

• r 13.23 — requirements for a Summary of Argument in an appeal.
• r 13.23(3) — specific requirements where a party challenges findings of fact.
• r 13.39 — applications in an appeal, including the timing issue raised by the father.

📌 Precedents Relied On

• House v The King — appellate intervention in discretionary decisions requires identifiable error or a plainly unjust result.
• CDJ v VAJ and Hsiao v Fazzari — further evidence on appeal is not an opportunity to run a different case.
• Re F: Litigants in Person Guidelines — self-represented parties are disadvantaged but still must present their case properly.
• Aslett & Coren — self-representation is no defence to defective appeal documents.
• Bahonko v Sterjov and Newett & Newett (No 2) — appellate courts are not required to hunt through broad submissions to find appealable error.
• Kioa v West and Stead v SGIC — procedural fairness and materiality.
• Fowles & Fowles (No 2) — adequacy of reasons.
• Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon — judges need not mention every fact or argument.
• Robinson Helicopter — factual findings are not overturned unless glaringly improbable, contrary to compelling inferences, or demonstrably wrong.
• Isles & Nelissen and Pickford & Pickford — risk assessment and family violence findings in parenting cases.
• Kennedy v Kennedy — family report evidence is important, but the judicial officer remains the ultimate decision-maker.
• Metwally v University of Wollongong — parties are bound by how they conducted their case at trial.

🧠 Analysis

Issue

Did the father establish appealable error in the parenting orders, or was the appeal an attempt to re-run the trial through prolix, overlapping and non-compliant grounds?

Rule

An appeal is not a second trial. A party must identify legal, factual, procedural or discretionary error. It is not enough to disagree with the result, complain that evidence was not weighed differently, or argue that the trial judge should have preferred different inferences.

Where a party challenges findings of fact, the challenge must be precise. The appellant must identify the finding, the alleged error, the finding that should have been made, and the evidence relied on.

Further evidence on appeal is only admitted where it has utility in demonstrating error, supporting the challenged reasons, or assisting a re-exercise of discretion. Evidence that was available at trial will generally not be admitted merely because the appellant now wants to run the case differently.

Application

Where the appellant’s grounds of appeal are misconstrued – why the judge found this

Williams J found the father’s grounds were not properly directed to appealable error. The grounds were described as prolix, almost impenetrable, and cast as ten grounds, each with numerous particulars. They failed to set out a specific and concise point to be argued.

The real problem was that many grounds were framed as legal or procedural complaints, but in substance they were dissatisfaction with the outcome. For example:

• “failure to properly evaluate evidence” was really a complaint about weight;
• “misapprehension of evidence” was not tied to findings that were demonstrably wrong;
• “improper reliance on expert evidence” was really disagreement with the primary judge accepting the Panel Family Consultant;
• “misapplication of best interests” was really disagreement with how the statutory factors were balanced; and
• “parenting orders not supported by evidence” largely repeated earlier factual and discretionary complaints.

The judge found this was a problem because an appeal court is not required to fossick through broad contentions to construct a valid appeal ground for the appellant. The burden was on the father to identify the error. He did not do so.

Where the appellant’s Summary of Argument is dense, prolix – why this was a problem

The father’s Summary of Argument was described as dense, repetitive and difficult to comprehend. It did not properly address the grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal. Instead, it repeated submissions and points that had already failed at trial.

That mattered because appellate advocacy requires discipline. The appeal court needs to know:

• what exact error is alleged;
• where the error appears in the reasons;
• why it matters; and
• how the result could realistically have been different.

The father’s Summary did not do that. It overlapped grounds, conflated complaints, and blurred factual error, discretionary error, procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons and dissatisfaction with the final orders. Williams J also observed that the grounds seemed to have been drafted with the assistance of generative AI. The point was not that AI use itself was improper, but that the product was repetitive, over-expanded, and failed to identify appealable error with precision.

The father’s oral submissions did not fix the problem. They were also lengthy, repetitive, and did little to identify actual error by the primary judge.

Where the appellant is non-compliant with the relevant Rules – what rules were not complied with

The key rule was r 13.23 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. Williams J found the Summary of Argument did not comply with that rule.

The most specific non-compliance arose under r 13.23(3), which applies where a party challenges findings of fact. That rule requires the Summary of Argument to:

• identify the error, including any failure to make a finding;
• identify the finding the party says should have been made;
• state concisely why the finding, or failure to make a finding, was erroneous; and
• refer to the evidence relied on, including appeal book and transcript references.

The father failed to do this. His challenges to factual findings were broad, general and confusing. The judge could not discern which particular findings were said to be unavailable on the evidence, or why. This was fatal to grounds alleging findings were not open on the evidence.

The father also relied on r 13.39 in his Application in an Appeal, seeking leave to extend time for filing. But because the further evidence application itself was rejected, there was no utility in extending time.

1. Further evidence application failed

The father sought to adduce police evidence, historical audio/video recordings, material from District Court proceedings, and a revised allegations schedule. Williams J dismissed the application.

The evidence was available to the father and his lawyers at trial. He did not satisfactorily explain why it was not used then, nor how it would demonstrate error or show that the result would have been different. The appeal was not a chance to run a different case after forensic decisions had already been made.

2. Procedural fairness ground failed

The father argued that the proceedings were not managed fairly or promptly, and that the Court failed to preserve the children’s relationship with him after time ceased in May 2023.

Williams J rejected this. The father had filed numerous Applications in a Proceeding and a Contravention Application. They were dealt with by registrars in a timely way. Some were withdrawn or discontinued by the father. He was legally represented before and during trial and had every opportunity to meet the mother’s case.

There was no denial of procedural fairness. The father had the opportunity to be heard; he simply did not obtain the outcome he wanted.

3. Inadequate reasons ground failed

The primary judge had clearly identified five central issues:

1. whether the father perpetrated family violence;
2. whether he posed an unacceptable risk;
3. whether the mother attempted to disrupt or obstruct the father-child relationship;
4. whether the mother posed psychological or emotional risk; and
5. what arrangements should be made if either parent posed risk.

Williams J held the reasons then addressed those issues at length. The primary judge considered the competing allegations, the children’s needs, parental capacity, expert evidence, the children’s relationship with both parents, and why a change of residence would be too disruptive. The reasons were comprehensive and well-structured.

4. Evidence evaluation and factual challenges failed

The father argued the primary judge selectively accepted the mother’s evidence and failed to evaluate competing evidence. Williams J rejected that.

The primary judge had concerns about both parents’ credibility and sought independent corroboration where possible. The judge did not simply prefer the mother’s evidence wholesale. She made adverse findings about both parents, including that both had contributed to family violence dynamics and conflict.

The father did not show that any finding was glaringly improbable, contrary to compelling inferences, or demonstrably wrong. His complaints were really weight challenges, not proper factual error appeals.

5. Expert evidence ground failed

The father complained the primary judge improperly relied on the Panel Family Consultant. Williams J held there was no impropriety.

The Panel Family Consultant’s qualifications and credibility were not challenged. Counsel for all parties cross-examined her. The primary judge asked questions herself and undertook her own evaluation. The judge was entitled to accept the expert’s evidence that a change of residence would likely be devastating for the children and that a supported process of reintroduction with the father was preferable.

The father was also bound by trial forensic decisions about what subpoena documents were put to the expert. He could not use the appeal to complain that other material should have been deployed differently.

6. Best-interests framework was properly applied

The father argued that the primary judge misapplied s 60CC. Williams J rejected that.

The reasons expressly addressed the relevant statutory factors, including:

• safety and risk;
• children’s views;
• developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
• parental capacity; and
• the benefit of relationships with parents and significant people.

The primary judge found that the children had been exposed to conflict and family violence behaviours, but also that the father did not pose an unacceptable risk. The judge accepted that the children would benefit from a relationship with him. However, because they had not spent time with him since May 2023 and were neurodivergent, a careful therapeutic reintroduction was required.

7. Parenting orders were open on the evidence

The father argued the orders were inconsistent because he was found not to pose an unacceptable risk, yet his time was delayed and initially supervised. Williams J rejected that.

A finding of “no unacceptable risk” does not automatically require immediate unsupervised time. The children had been estranged from the father for nearly two years. The primary judge accepted expert evidence that reintroduction should be supported, gradual and therapeutic. The orders for therapy followed by supervised and then unsupervised time were therefore open on the evidence.

The judge was also not required to make punitive orders against the mother or compensatory time orders for the father. Parenting orders are made to promote the children’s best interests, not to punish a parent.

Conclusion

The father’s Application in an Appeal was dismissed. His Amended Notice of Appeal was also dismissed.

The Court found no procedural unfairness, no inadequate reasons, no improper reliance on expert evidence, no misapplication of the best-interests framework, no factual findings shown to be unavailable, and no discretionary error.

No costs order was made because the mother did not file a Schedule of Costs and her counsel confirmed she did not seek costs.

🧠 Take-Home Lesson

This case is a strong appellate drafting warning. A parenting appeal must identify legal error, not simply repackage disappointment with the result. Dense, repetitive, AI-looking grounds can actively hurt an appeal if they obscure rather than sharpen the complaint.

The practical lesson is simple: specificity wins appeals; prolixity loses them. If challenging factual findings, comply with r 13.23(3). Identify the exact finding, the exact error, the finding that should have been made, and the evidence supporting it. If challenging discretion, identify the House error. If challenging expert evidence, explain why reliance on it was legally wrong, not merely why another view was preferred.

The parenting lesson is also important: “no unacceptable risk” does not automatically mean immediate unsupervised time. Where children are vulnerable, neurodivergent, and estranged from a parent, the Court may still require therapy, supervision and gradual reintroduction if that best protects their emotional needs.