Litigants often feel deflated, that the Judge didn’t like them, that it’s just not fair! Unfortunately, sometimes they are correct but when is it appropriate to make an application for a Judge to recuse him/herself?
In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478 Her Honour, Judge Suthers, determined an application brought by the Father for essentially a reverse of primary residence. There were existing final parenting Orders made in 2023 providing for the child to live with the Mother and spend time with the Father. The Mother subsequently withheld the child from the Father alleging that he perpetrated sexual abuse upon the child and posed an unacceptable risk. That unilateral suspension of time continued for a period of around 10 months.
In Bello & Opeyemi [2025] FedCFamC1A 179, the Father sought to appeal final parenting Orders made in December 2021 in respect of a then five-year-old child. The Orders provided for only supervised time between the child and the Father on four occasions each year. Those earlier Orders included a notation that if the Father completed three set courses, then he would not be precluded from revisiting the Orders in the future. That notation was, of course, not binding in any future proceedings and not indicative of success in respect of any future application to vary those Orders.
What is the correct venue? For most disputes involving parenting arrangements or property proceedings the correct venue will be the FCFCoA in either Division 1 or 2 however, in some circumstances that may not be the case. In the decision of His Honour, Reithmuller J, in Berglund & Ungureanu [2025] FedCFamC1F 666, the correct venue was the Supreme Court of NSW (“Supreme Court”) and the proceedings were therefore transferred.
Limitation dates in property matters
Missing a limitation date can be fatal and such enquiries should be foremost in one’s mind when taking initial instructions. If the parties were married then whether or not they are divorced is important but the length of the separation not so much. However, if the parties were in a de facto relationship the date of separation is most important. If the client is close to, or even later than, the two-year separation period then it is
With the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on the rise it is imperative that if is used in proceedings it is so used with great caution. Although the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 relates to the use of AI by a self-represented party, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale.
Harmful Proceedings Orders are being made more often it would seem and also in property proceedings, as opposed to parenting matters. In the case of Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159 His Honour, Schonell J, determined an attempt by the applicant to cross-appeal from a decision in Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531.
When entering into Consent Orders it is important to consider those Orders very carefully, especially any flow on effects. In Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166, a decision of His Honour, Austin J, considered an appeal filed by the father in respect of Consent Orders made by a Division 2 Judge, on 20 August 2025.
Parties in property proceedings often have difficulty in taking a commercial approach to those proceedings. Unfortunately, that failure can often result in a significant costs order. In the Division 2 decision of His Honour, Judge Shoebridge, Sprule & Mollis [2025] FedCFamC2F 458 the parties reached agreement
The decision of Anderson v Child Support Registrar [2025] FCA 1022 was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia, it is relevant to the practise of family law as it relates to both Child Support and the Harman Obligation.
These proceedings involved an attempt by the applicant mother to obtain documents by way of discovery, in long running associated proceedings relating to child support. The specific Order was sought against the Child Support Registrar.
Litigants often feel deflated, that the Judge didn’t like them, that it’s just not fair! Unfortunately, sometimes they are correct but when is it appropriate to make an application for a Judge to recuse him/herself?
In Joustra & Schuman [2025] FedCFamC2F 1478 Her Honour, Judge Suthers, determined an application brought by the Father for essentially a reverse of primary residence. There were existing final parenting Orders made in 2023 providing for the child to live with the Mother and spend time with the Father. The Mother subsequently withheld the child from the Father alleging that he perpetrated sexual abuse upon the child and posed an unacceptable risk. That unilateral suspension of time continued for a period of around 10 months.
In Bello & Opeyemi [2025] FedCFamC1A 179, the Father sought to appeal final parenting Orders made in December 2021 in respect of a then five-year-old child. The Orders provided for only supervised time between the child and the Father on four occasions each year. Those earlier Orders included a notation that if the Father completed three set courses, then he would not be precluded from revisiting the Orders in the future. That notation was, of course, not binding in any future proceedings and not indicative of success in respect of any future application to vary those Orders.
What is the correct venue? For most disputes involving parenting arrangements or property proceedings the correct venue will be the FCFCoA in either Division 1 or 2 however, in some circumstances that may not be the case. In the decision of His Honour, Reithmuller J, in Berglund & Ungureanu [2025] FedCFamC1F 666, the correct venue was the Supreme Court of NSW (“Supreme Court”) and the proceedings were therefore transferred.
Limitation dates in property matters
Missing a limitation date can be fatal and such enquiries should be foremost in one’s mind when taking initial instructions. If the parties were married then whether or not they are divorced is important but the length of the separation not so much. However, if the parties were in a de facto relationship the date of separation is most important. If the client is close to, or even later than, the two-year separation period then it is
With the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on the rise it is imperative that if is used in proceedings it is so used with great caution. Although the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 relates to the use of AI by a self-represented party, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale.
Harmful Proceedings Orders are being made more often it would seem and also in property proceedings, as opposed to parenting matters. In the case of Vaughan (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 159 His Honour, Schonell J, determined an attempt by the applicant to cross-appeal from a decision in Vaughan & Vaughan (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC1F 531.
When entering into Consent Orders it is important to consider those Orders very carefully, especially any flow on effects. In Palmisano & Angelov [2025] FedCFamC1A 166, a decision of His Honour, Austin J, considered an appeal filed by the father in respect of Consent Orders made by a Division 2 Judge, on 20 August 2025.
Parties in property proceedings often have difficulty in taking a commercial approach to those proceedings. Unfortunately, that failure can often result in a significant costs order. In the Division 2 decision of His Honour, Judge Shoebridge, Sprule & Mollis [2025] FedCFamC2F 458 the parties reached agreement
The decision of Anderson v Child Support Registrar [2025] FCA 1022 was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia, it is relevant to the practise of family law as it relates to both Child Support and the Harman Obligation.
These proceedings involved an attempt by the applicant mother to obtain documents by way of discovery, in long running associated proceedings relating to child support. The specific Order was sought against the Child Support Registrar.
