Verissimus & Polycarpe [2026] FedCFamC1A 166

Summary

The parties began living together in about 2002, married in 2004 and separated in July 2024, after a relationship of some 22 years. They have three children together. Following a five-day final hearing in March 2026, the primary judge ordered that the two younger children, who had not seen their father in 16 months, since November 2024, live with him, with the eldest remaining with the mother. On property, his Honour found a net pool of $978,993, assessed contributions as equal, made a 5% adjustment in the wife’s favour and declared the parties jointly and severally liable for a judgment debt of about $857,671 secured by a writ over the former matrimonial home. The wife, self-represented on appeal, challenged both the parenting and property orders.

The Full Court allowed the property appeal on two grounds. The evidence about the wife’s initial contributions and inheritances was in clear conflict, ranging from about $613,000 on the husband’s own affidavit to nearly $1 million on the wife’s account, yet the primary judge recorded the competing versions without resolving them or explaining why findings could not be made. Applying Greer & Mackintosh and Storie v Storie, the Court held that this was an error of law and a House v The King error ([45]–[49]). The wife’s claim for ongoing spousal maintenance had also been raised and joined but never determined, which the husband’s solicitor conceded was an error ([51]–[53]). The parenting appeal was dismissed: having found that the mother posed an unacceptable risk through coaching and alienation that could not be ameliorated while the children remained in her care, the primary judge was not required to consider alternatives that no party had proposed ([68]–[71]).

The decision is a reminder that a judgment which merely recites competing assertions on a material contributions issue is exposed on appeal, and that key claims squarely raised must be determined, if only by dismissal with reasons. It also contains the Full Court’s pointed observations on self-represented parties using artificial intelligence to prepare appeal documents. While there is no prohibition on its use, the Court observed that such documents too often contain non-existent or irrelevant legal propositions, cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition cited, and language so confused that it obscures any real error, describing the appellant’s material as a salutary example ([30]–[32]).

The property proceedings were remitted for rehearing, with the balance of the sale proceeds preserved on trust in the meantime.