Judgments

FAMILY LAW – MARRIAGE - Nullity – Where the applicant’s domicile was determined by her parent’s domicile -Domiciled in Australia – Applicant under the age of 18 at time of marriage – Marriage void.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Trial commenced prior to and concluded after commencement of Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) on 6 May 2024 – Parental responsibility - With whom young child lives and spends time – Best interests of child – Where proceedings have been pending since 2019 – Where proceedings have been pending for majority of child’s life – Where interim orders made in early 2021 for mother to spend professionally supervised time with child weekly– Where mother has not availed herself of that opportunity since late 2022 / early 2023 – Where trial commenced in August 2022 – Where mother lost her s 102NA representation – Where trial adjourned to April 2023 – Where order made in March 2023 for appointment of litigation guardian for mother – Where, at resumption of trial in September 2023, litigation guardian appeared unrepresented and sought and was granted leave to withdraw – Where proceedings struck-out with a right of re-instatement within 12 months – Where, on application by mother, proceedings reinstated in December 2024 – Where trial listed to resume and conclude in July 2025 – Where mother sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders made in February 2025 – Where application for leave to appeal dismissed – Where, at resumption of trial, mother appeared as litigant in person and repeatedly refused or failed to prosecute her case –– Where mother failed to make her witnesses available for cross examination or to identify which witnesses of father and Independent Children’s Lawyer she wished to cross-examine – Where mother failed to make her treating psychologist available for cross-examination, notwithstanding his availability – Where mother otherwise refused or failed to participate in resumed trial, save for filing written closing submissions – Where mother’s untested evidence given no weight – Where unchallenged evidence adduced by father and Independent Children’s Lawyer accepted - Where mother seeks equal shared responsibility and for child to live with her and spend time with father – Where child has been living with father since early 2021 – Where, since late 2022 / early 2023, child has primarily communicated with mother by video calls – Where interim intervention order prevents mother from approaching child’s home or school or father’s work – Where evidence, including expert evidence adduced by Independent Children’s Lawyer Order, gives rise to unacceptable risk of harm posed by mother to child - Where order made for father to have sole parental responsibility for child – Where order made for child to live with father and to spend no time and have no ongoing communication with mother – Where order made for cards and gifts to be sent by mother at Christmas and Easter and on child’s birthday.

FINANCIAL –Where mother seeks alteration of interests in property in proportions of 25 / 75 per cent in favour of father – Where father seeks no alteration of interests in property– Where liabilities exceed assets - Where no alteration of interests in property ordered – Where interim order made in 2019 for payment spousal maintenance by father to mother suspended in 2021 discharged.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Harmful proceedings order – Where Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the father and/or child would suffer harm if the mother instituted further proceedings against him – Order made pursuant to s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where subpoenaed party seeks order that their compliance costs are paid for by the applicant wife – Where wife seeks that this application be dismissed or, alternatively, that the husband pay the costs – Where subpoenaed party seeking costs has been found not to have complied with the notice requirements set out in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) – Application for costs dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – EX-TEMPORE – PARENTING – Jurisdiction – Child is an Australian citizen – Child taken to Lebanon contrary to wishes of the applicant – Applicant has established prima facie case that child is habitually resident in Australia.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Practice and Procedure – Where the Court determines a contested interim application for valuation – Where the Respondent concedes that a valuation should occur – Where the Respondent suggests that her safety is at risk if the Applicant were to attend the former matrimonial home with the proposed expert valuer – Where the Respondent does not lead sufficient evidence to validate her allegations of safety risk at an interim stage –Where the Court makes consent orders permitting valuation to occur – Where the Court makes contested orders permitting the Applicant to attend the former matrimonial home with the proposed expert valuer.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Assessment of contributions – relatively short relationship – Where the husband had intermingled/messy financial transactions with family members in business ventures – Final property adjustment orders made that achieve justice and equity to both parties.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Application made for the parents to contribute to the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the mother would suffer financial hardship – Orders made for the father to pay half of the costs of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by the applicant for an adjournment of the trial – adjournment application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto relationship – Where the applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 44(6) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to commence proceedings out of time for financial adjustment – Where applicant filed over 10 years out of time – Where respondent opposed the application – Where hardship is established – Leave granted to the applicant to commence proceedings out of time – Where it is just and equitable to make orders adjusting the parties’ property interests –Where the applicant’s financial contributions at the commencement of the relationship were vastly superior – Where a two pools approach is appropriate – Where the parties’ contributions were equivalent during the relationship – Where the applicant’s contributions to the care and welfare of the children outstripped those of the respondent since separation in 2011 and continues – Contributions entitlement in respect of the first pool assessed as 73/27 – Where the respondent contended he failed to pay taxation liabilities due to paying mortgage – Where the applicant and respondent have significant and comparable earnings as a specialised professional advisor and principal of a professional advisory service – Where adjustment is made of the first pool and no adjustment of the second pool is warranted – where modest adjustment of two per cent in the favour of the applicant in circumstances where she continues to have the primary care of the children who both have special needs – Where no order adjusting superannuation is sought – Where orders are made for applicant to receive 75 per cent of the first pool and no adjustment on the second pool and the respondent to receive 25 per cent of the first pool and no adjustment of the second pool.

FAMILY LAW – NULLITY – Where the parties jointly make application for a decree of nullity of marriage – Where the Second Applicant was married to another person at the time of the purported marriage – Where a divorce order in respect of the Second Applicant’s first marriage was obtained after the Applicants’ purported marriage – Where the marriage between the Applicants is void – Decree of nullity made – Where referral made to Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of whether the Second Applicant should be prosecuted for bigamy or other offences.

FAMILY LAW – COURT AND JUDGES – Where a retired judge of this Court proposed to appear as Counsel in the proceedings – Where a reasonable fair-minded lay observer, cognisant of all relevant facts, might reasonably apprehend the current judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the hearing of the proceedings by dint of Counsel’s former judicial status – Recusal by current judge.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Settlement in relation to marriage – Where it is just and equitable to make an order – Where the transfer of shares in companies controlled by the husband to a third party are set aside – Where it is accepted that loans between the husband and the third party are outstanding – Where the third party will be repaid the outstanding loans including interest – Where an order is made for businesses and real property to be sold – Where an inference can be drawn that family violence had an adverse effect on the mother’s ability to make contributions – Where the overall property distribution is to be divided 65/35 in the wife’s favour – Where documents are forwarded to the Attorney-General’s Department for investigation – Where referrals are made to the Queensland Legal Services Commission and the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner.

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – De facto relationship – where the parties to a de facto relationship seek alteration of interests in property pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – where it is just and equitable that an adjustment to property interests be made – respondent made greater initial contributions to the property pool – non-financial contributions of the applicant – where the respondent had reduced the pool post separation – treatment of partial property distributions – where the applicant suffers from poor physical and mental health limiting employment opportunities – where the respondent to pay to the applicant a lump sum by way of final property settlement.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the final hearing is part-heard and adjourned until 2026 – where the children currently live with the father and spend time with the mother - interim parenting order – short form reasons provided pursuant to section 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment of final hearing – Where the parties to the proceedings were the husband, wife, and the husband’s father as a second respondent – Where the second respondent had been joined as a consequence of his and the husband’s assertion that he had a right to occupy a property – Where the husband’s case changed such that he advised the Court the second respondent was not asserting any right or interest in any property of the parties that is the subject of these proceedings – Where the wife’s final relief seeks an immediate sale of the property – Where if the Court finds that the second respondent has a right to occupy, the relief the wife seeks cannot be made – Where the second respondent is an 86-year-old man who is not legally qualified and is self-represented – Where the second respondent has consistently maintained ever since his joinder as a party to the proceedings that he has a right to occupy the property – Where a party must be given notice of and sufficient opportunity to be heard where an order is sought that would deprive them of a right or interest – Where the hearing could not proceed and the Court vacated the final hearing dates.

FAMILY LAW – HARMFUL PROCEEDINGS ORDER – Where the Court placed the parties on notice of its intention to consider making an order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) – Where the respondent sought a harmful proceedings order against the applicant – Where the applicant declined the opportunity to advance a formal position in relation to the exercise of the Court’s authority under the Act – Where the applicant’s conduct and constant filing of applications in this Court, and in other jurisdictions, caused the Court to find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent and the children would suffer ‘harm’ if the respondent was allowed to instituted further proceedings without leave of the Court – Where the Court makes an order under s 102QAC of the Act – Where the respondent’s position was that he wished to be notified in the event of the applicant seeking to file any further application – Where the respondent also sought to be notified by the Court where any application sought to be filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Court – Where the Court made orders in the terms sought by the respondent.

 COSTS – Where the respondent sought an order that the applicant pay his costs incurred, on an indemnity basis, of and incidental to four applications commenced and later discontinued by the applicant – Where the applicant was ordered to file a Response to an Application in a Proceeding, and to file necessary accompanying documents in relation to the respondent’s application for costs – Where the applicant elected not to comply with the Orders of the Court – Where the applicant failed to attend the hearing– Where the Court made an order for the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where each of the parties to a de facto relationship sought orders for costs of and incidental to a raft of interlocutory determinations – Where each opposed the costs orders sought by the other – Where the de facto husband additionally sought that the de facto wife’s solicitor pay his costs – Orders made that the de facto husband pay 50 per cent of the de facto wife’s costs in a fixed sum – Where the de facto husband’s application for costs is dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – Where the applicant sought a declaration pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that the parties were in a de facto relationship – Where the parties lived together part time – Where the respondent claimed the parties were only casual sexual contacts – Where the respondent’s evidence was inconsistent and fanciful – Discussion of factors in s 4AA(2) – Where the parties had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis – Declaration that the parties were in a de facto relationship for 20 years.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final parenting orders – Where the matter was remitted for re-hearing following appeal – Where the mother suffered from acute mental health episode at first trial – Numerous unfounded allegations by mother – Where the child was diagnosed with Level 2 autism spectrum disorder – Where the mother’s mental health is a matter of concern – Where there is a risk of psychological harm to the child in the mother’s household – Orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother on a fortnightly basis.

PROPERTY – De facto relationship – ,Long relationship – one child living with father – previous property settlement orders set aside.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Summary Dismissal – Where the applicant filed an Initiating Application which sought orders in almost identical terms to the applicant in Vasquez & Vasquez [2026] FedCFamC1F 16 (“Vasquez & Vasquez”) – Where the Court made an order under s 102QAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in Vasquez & Vasquez – Where the respondent in this matter was also the respondent in Vasquez & Vasquez – Where the respondent asserted that present application is a “front” pursued by the applicant in Vasquez & Vasquez – Where the respondent sought that the applicant’s case be summarily dismissed – Where the respondent sought that a costs order be made against the applicant– Where the Court finds that the application is frivolous – Where the Court finds that the application is doomed to fail – Where the Court summarily dismisses the application – Where the Court makes an order for costs against the applicant on an indemnity basis.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – where the child lives with the Paternal Grandmother – where the Father seeks the child live with him – where the Mother alleges that the Father has sexually abused the child and poses a risk to the child – where the Mother has a history of drug and alcohol dependency – where the Mother has not completed a hair follicle test during the course of the proceedings – where the Mother shall undertake hair follicle testing as a condition of the child spending time with her – where the child will live with the Father – where the child will spend time with the Maternal and Paternal Grandmother’s as agreed – where the Father does not pose any risk to the child.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Decision-making – where both parents allege the other committed family violence throughout relationship – finding made of mutual family violence – where not satisfied parents have capacity to communicate with respect to child – where joint-decision making not appropriate in the circumstances.

CHILDREN – With whom a child lives – best interests of child – child aged nine living with mother – where mother alleges child historically enmeshed with father –where father has engaged in psychological support to address concerns of alignment / enmeshment– where mother does not allege unacceptable risk – where substantial time with father appropriate.

FAMILY LAW – CHILD SUPPORT – Where final orders were made in 2018 for a departure from administrative assessment of child support in respect of three children – Where there is now only one child under the age of 18 years – Whether the child support departure orders made in 2018 should be varied or discharged – Where the applicant contends a change in circumstances means he cannot pay child support – Order made varying the amount of child support to be paid by the applicant.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim relocation – Where the father seeks to relocate the children’s primary place of residence to Region RR – Where the proceedings have a protracted and complex history – Where two of the parties’ three children require a change of school – Where the children live primarily with the father – Orders made for the parties’ youngest child to spend supervised time with the mother – Orders made permitting the father to relocate the children’s primary place of residence on an interim basis.

FAMILY LAW – ENFORCEMENT – Where long-running enforcement proceedings ultimately resolved by consent after declarations made as to amounts owing at separate hearing – Where court is called upon to determine the question of interest arising from extended non-compliance with orders.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where indemnity costs sought arising from persistent non-compliance with orders and obligations giving rise to protracted enforcement proceedings.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – Parenting – Review Application – Where the applicant seeks a review of interim parenting orders made by a Senior Judicial Registrar – Where the applicant’s mental health was a significant issue in dispute – Where the application for review was dismissed – Where the current state of the applicant’s mental health poses an unacceptable risk to the child – Where the respondent was found to be a safe and stable caregiver – Where the Court found that it was in the child’s best interests for the interim parenting orders to remain in place while the applicant’s mental health continued to be monitored.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the children have lived with the father for the last two years and have spent limited and contained time with the mother – Where the father alleges that the mother’s previous drug use, mental health vulnerabilities, parenting capacity and itinerant lifestyle poses an unacceptable risk of harm – Where the court is not satisfied that the children are at an unacceptable risk of harm in the unsupervised care of the mother – Orders made which provide for the children to live with the father and to spend substantial unsupervised time with the mother – Orders made for the father to have sole decision making responsibility for long term decisions regarding the children but is to consult the mother prior to making any such decision.

FAMILY LAW  – PARENTING – final hearing – serious long term family violence admitted by father – father says he has changed after reading single expert report – mother disputes father has changed. Finding: Father has not changed – father presents unacceptable risk of any time or communication with the children.

Orders: Children live with mother who is to have sole long term decision making responsibility. Children to spend no time and have no communication with father. Protective injunctions.

FAMILY LAW – HAGUE CONVENTION – CHILD ABDUCTION – Return application to United States of America – Where mother raised equitable principles arising from an asserted agreement between the parents – Agreement not found as asserted by the mother – Matter considered in the context of orthodox Hague principles – Where jurisdictional facts are contested by the mother – Held children habitually resident in the USA and requesting parent was exercising rights of custody – Wrongful repudiatory retention found – Regulatory exceptions to return of consent and grave risk of harm and intolerable situation raised by the mother – Grave risk of harm and intolerable situation found.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Where the mother seeks sole decision-making responsibility for all major long term issues for the children – Where the father seeks shared decision-making responsibility by the father and the mother – Where the issue of the progress of the children’s spend time with the father is in dispute – Where the mother and father seek differing commencement dates for overnight time spent by the children with the father – Where the children are very young – Where the parties have a hostile co-parenting relationship – Where the father contends he cannot care for the children during the week – The mother to have sole decision-making responsibility – The children to spend overnight time with the father earlier than that sought by the mother.

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – International relocation – Where the parties and children were born in the USA – Where the father relocated to Australia permanently but the mother considers her relocation and that of the children was temporary – Where the children have now lived in Australia for five years and are settled – Where the parties acknowledge the children have a meaningful relationship with each parent – Consideration of the psychological impact on the mother staying in Australia – Travel costs – Where the father has greater financial resources than the mother – Consideration of the mother’s visa – Where the parties have a dysfunctional co-parenting relationship – Both children have the “resilience” to manage any relocation to the USA – Where the youngest child would not manage being separated from the mother - Where the Court orders that the mother be permitted to relocate the children back to the USA.

FAMILY LAW – FAMILY LAW – INTERIM PARENTING – Where final parenting orders were made on 8 August 2025 following a contested final hearing – Where the Court placed a moratorium on time between the children and the mother for a short period – Where the father re-opened proceedings – Where the father seeks interim parenting orders suspending provisions of the Orders made on 8 August 2025 – Where the Court finds that the mother breach injunctive orders preventing her from communicating with the children during the moratorium period either directly or through third parties – Where the father seeks interim parenting orders – Where the Court suspends certain Orders made on 8 August 2025 as a consequence of the mother’s conduct.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Whether one child of the parties should be permitted to attend a sports camp in Country T for a period of three months – Where the travel is permitted – Where the two remaining children are permitted to travel for no more than three weeks between 25 January 2026 to 15 February 2026.

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – Where the father seeks injunctions restraining the mother and a third party from publishing information relating to these proceedings – Where the father alleges that the mother and the third party have made social media posts identifying the mother, the father and the children – Where the father asserts that the publications have been damaging to the children and to him, his reputation and his business – Where injunctions were previously made restraining the mother from publication of information relating to the proceedings – Where the previous injunctions directed to the mother have been effective – Injunction granted restraining the third party from communicating to the public any account of the proceedings – Mandatory injunctions made for the mother and the third party to remove material published in relation to these proceedings – Request for the Marshal of this Court and the Australian Federal Police to investigate any breach of s 121 and/or s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Where the third party identifies herself as an “advocate” for the mother – Where the third party was a solicitor but has not held a practising certificate since 2021 – Where the third party has communicated with the Court and others on behalf of the mother – Where the third party is holding herself out to be a legal practitioner and as the mother’s legal representative – Referral of the third party to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner.
 

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Dispute as to number of days and progression of time – Where the mother alleges family violence and coercive and controlling conduct by the father – Where the mother has a diagnosis of PTSD – Where the mother seeks a slower progression of time due to her mental health and the impact of family violence – Where the father seeks a quicker progression of time to equal time – Where the father has demonstrated parental insight into past conduct – Where equal time is not in the children’s best interests – Where it is in the children’s best interests for a progression of time with the father increasing to five nights per fortnight during school terms and half school holidays in block time.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Where respondents’ solicitor-advocate confirmed to the Court that written submissions signed by him were his own work, he had found the cases relied upon, that they stood for what he submitted and could provide hard copies – Where solicitor-advocate unable to provide hard copies – Where solicitor-advocate subsequently said the submissions were generated by Artificial Intelligence – Where Artificial Intelligence citations were hallucinated – Where trial adjourned – Where show cause hearing held – Referral of solicitor-advocate to Legal Services Commissioner.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Where respondents’ solicitor-advocate had proposed to be both solicitor-advocate and a material witness in his client’s case contrary to r 27 of the Australian Solicitor Conduct Rules.

COSTS – Where applicant sought costs thrown away on an indemnity basis to be personally paid by the respondents’ solicitor-advocate – Where solicitor-advocate given a reasonable opportunity to be heard per r 12.16 – Where solicitor-advocate’s conduct was improper per r 12.15(1)(c) – Where costs Order made against solicitor-advocate on an indemnity basis in a fixed sum.
 

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to use documents filed and produced in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the purpose of related proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia – Harman obligation – Restrictions on use of documents contained with Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021(Cth).

FAMILY LAW – LIQUIDATOR – Where the wife sought to discharge orders appointing receivers to a group of companies – Where the wife sought the appointment of liquidators and the consequent winding up of the companies – Where the husband opposed the application citing issues of costs – Where the third respondent proposed that the current receiver be appointed the liquidator – Where potential issues as to conflict of interest arise if the current receiver is appointed liquidator – Orders made terminating the appointment of receiver, the winding up of the companies, and the appointment of a liquidator.

FAMILY LAW – EX TEMPORE – Where the wife failed to comply with an order of the Court – Where the husband filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking leave to amend his Amended Response to Initiating Application – Leave granted.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the wife seeks leave to read and rely upon adversarial expert evidence – Where a single expert witness had been appointed under the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“Rules”) – Where the Court is not satisfied the evidence should be allowed under r 7.08(2) of the Rules – Application dismissed with costs reserved.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – abuse of process – attempt to relitigate issue determined by earlier consent order – application by beneficiary of deceased estate of husband to intervene in property proceedings – application for substitution of legal personal representative of deceased husband – discovery sought against non-party – request for leave to issue subpoena.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Interim hearing – Where the matter is part-heard – Where the applicant sought to remove the requirement for professionally supervised time – Where the applicant failed to disclose mental health concerns – Where the respondent contended that professionally supervised time is still warranted – Where the applicant proposed the two paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the paternal aunts fail to address or acknowledge the father’s mental health conditions – Where the respondent opposed the paternal aunts as alternate private supervisors – Where the applicant sought a video communication order – Where the Court made orders for video communication between the applicant and the child – Where the Court otherwise dismissed the applicant’s interim application.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Final orders proposed with consent of all parties – Proposed orders suitable to ameliorate the risk to the children associated with the father in circumstances where the mother’s parental capacity is compromised – Final orders made in line with the terms provided by the parties.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – where the wife seeks an order for costs on an indemnity basis – where the husband filed no response to the wife’s submissions – where the husband has not complied with previous court orders – where the husband’s conduct has delayed court proceedings – where the husband has been wholly unsuccessful in the proceedings – consideration of s 117(2A) factors – costs ordered on an indemnity basis in the wife’s favour.

FAMILY LAW – CONTEMPT – Sentencing – Respondent pleaded guilty to ten charges of contempt – Seriousness of contempt – Desirability of determining appropriate sentence for each charge – Totality of sentence should not exceed totality of offending – Imprisonment as sentence of last resort – Circumstances warrant imprisonment – Concurrency and cumulation - Part suspension of imprisonment – Good behaviour bond.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the child lives and spends time with – Where the parties are unable to agree parenting arrangements for a nine year old child – Where the child currently lives with the respondent and spends five nights per fortnight with the applicant – Where the applicant seeks a change of primary care – Where the respondent seeks to reduce the child’s current time with the applicant to three nights per fortnight – Where the child experiences high levels of anxiety – Consideration of best interests – Where a change in primary care is likely to cause the child extreme distress and anxiety – Where the evidence supports a reduction in time from five nights to three nights per fortnight with the applicant – Sole parental responsibility for decision-making to the respondent – Orders.

FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – With whom the children live – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend that the risk of harm arising from psychological abuse perpetrated by the mother is so high that it requires limitation ad supervision of the children’s time with the mother into the future – Where the father proposes orders in terms similar to the orders promoted by the Independent Children’s Lawyer – Where the Court finds that there is unacceptable risk that the children will suffer psychological harm in the mother’s care – Where the evidence supports the making of an order that the father have sole parental responsibility for the children.

PARENTING – Where the mother amended her application on the first morning of trial - Where the mother promotes unsupervised time between the children and the father – Where the Court finds that the mother will never voluntarily facilitate time between the children and their father.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the mother filed an Application in a Proceeding in the evening prior to the competing applications being listed for Closing Submissions – Where the application was dismissed – Where the mother filed a further Application in a Proceeding subsequent to Judgment being reserved – Where the mother seeks a variety of orders including to adduce further evidence – Where the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer oppose the application – application refused.

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where the de facto wife seeks to join the de facto husband’s mother and other corporate and trust entities in which she contends the husband controls as additional respondents to the proceeding – Where the proposed additional respondents oppose the joinder – Where the de facto wife abandoned or withdrew her contentions of sham – Where she instead contends control – Consideration of whether to refuse an application for joinder if there is no merit – Where the de facto wife’s claim could not be said to be unsuccessful – Where r 3.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) mandates the joinder of the additional respondents as necessary parties to the proceeding – Order for the joinder of the proposed additional respondents.

FAMILY LAW – FINAL PARENTING ORDERS – Allegations of family violence – Mother’s allegations accepted in part – Where the children live with the mother – Where the children have not spent any time with the father for in excess of four years – Consideration of the impact on the mother in the event of any order for time between the children and their father - Children to live with the mother – No orders for time between the children and their father.

APPLICATION FOR DISQUALIFICATON – Apprehended bias – Where an application for disqualification is made during contested final parenting proceedings – Whether comments from the bench and/or the conduct of the judicial officer with respect to the use of an interpreter for the father might cause a fair-minded lay observer to conclude that the Court will decide the competing parenting applications other than on its legal and factual merit – All grounds fail – application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Conduct of solicitor – Where the legal practitioner has failed to comply with orders for the filing of documents – Where the legal practitioner has failed to attend three Court hearings – Where the legal practitioner has breached the South Australian Legal Practitioners Conduct Rules – Referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.