26 Jan 2023
The Central Authority lawfully and reasonably declined to proceed with the Article 21 access application because it properly treated the child's welfare and expressed views as relevant and paramount in the access context, concluded the application lacked reasonable prospects of success and alternative domestic remedies were available, and any delay was justified and not prejudicial.
9 Dec 2021
The High Court upheld the Family Court decision because the Family Court, supported by expert evidence, reasonably concluded the situation was multifactorial (contributions from father, mother and children), that forced removal or compelled contact posed significant risk of harm and likely resistance, that the children's views warranted weight under s6, and there was no evidential basis to conclude predetermination; therefore declining to make guardianship or compulsory contact orders was open on the evidence and not plainly wrong.
23 Nov 2021
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's decision that shared week‑on/week‑off care, subject to immediate therapeutic safeguards and monitoring, best promoted the child's welfare because reinstating sole care was not shown to better protect the child's safety or advance her recovery from prolonged relational trauma and the Family Court's findings of alienating conduct and proportional remedial orders were open on the evidence.
22 Jul 2021
The stay was granted because, on balance and for the limited period until the appeal hearing, the child's short-term welfare and evident distress from enforced contact outweighed the need to immediately enforce the Family Court contact orders; the appeal was not rendered nugatory, further attempts at contact were likely to fail and cause harm, and an updated s133 report and full appellate consideration should occur before further enforcement.
21 Feb 2020
The appeal was allowed because the Family Court Judge erred in proceeding to order relocation without an up‑to‑date psychological assessment tailored to M's markedly changed circumstances; fresh material (the child's affidavit/letter and an updated report by the psychologist) showed immediate and substantial risk if M were forced to remain in Australia (high likelihood of running away, detention, self‑harm and exponential addition to adverse childhood experiences), and the balance of the s5 principles (safety, continuity of schooling and immediate welfare) weighed in favour of returning M to…
13 Mar 2017
Appeal allowed: the High Court found the evidence did not establish a sufficient level of risk of parental alienation to justify placing Alice in the father's day-to-day care; the Family Court orders were set aside and the interim orders continued pending remittal to the Family Court to determine precise day-to-day care and detailed contact arrangements with directions for filing memoranda, because expert opinion given at hearing lacked adequate factual foundation and the best interests analysis favored both children remaining primarily with their mother.
19 Feb 2015
The appeal was meritorious and pursued for the child's long‑term benefit; there was no basis to penalise the appellant under r14.6 or to reduce respondent's costs for lengthy submissions; consequently costs should lie where they fall and no order for costs is made.
13 Nov 2014
On the balance of probabilities the evidence including three s133 reports and subsequent events established that the mother’s perceptions and conduct posed a real and escalating risk of alienation of the children from their father, counselling had not demonstrably mitigated that risk, and a protective change in care (father eight days per 14, mother six) was in the children’s best interests; the appellant failed to prove a material adverse financial consequence that would justify departing from that conclusion.
9 Jun 2014
Judge Adams did not err in refusing leave to appeal under s143(3): he directed his mind to the child's welfare, relied on non-partisan material showing the child was settling, appropriately discounted partisan expert evidence, and correctly applied the gate-keeping role for interlocutory appeals; even if error existed, relief would be denied in the exercise of discretion because of imminent substantive hearing, lack of irreparable harm, risk of satellite litigation and weak evidential basis for altering interim arrangements; judicial review dismissed and costs awarded to respondent.
9 May 2014
The High Court allowed the appeal in part: the Family Court's order entirely denying the father contact with his daughter for two years was disproportionate and not demonstrably in G's best interests; supervised contact mitigates the risk of alienation while preserving G's relationship with her father. The Court applied a general appeal standard (rehearing) and substituted a supervised-contact regime (fortnightly two-hour supervised contact at Barnardos for six months) with leave to apply for variation thereafter and imposed a s48(5)-style prohibition on denigratory communication about the ot…