Addison & Fulton

[2025] FedCFamC1A 123

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Addison & Fulton [2025] FedCFamC1A 123  

Appeal from:

Addison & Fulton [2025] FedCFamC2F 218

Appeal number(s):

NAA 140 of 2025

File number(s):

BRC 14645 of 2021

Judgment of:

RIETHMULLER J

Date of judgment:

15 July 2025

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Parenting – Where the appellant father attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance the day before the hearing – Where the appellant did not comply with the filing rules – Where the appellant did not attend the hearing – Appeal dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Rules – No order as to costs.

Legislation:

 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.31

Number of paragraphs:

4

Date of hearing:

15 July 2025

Place:

Brisbane

The Appellant:

Litigant in person (did not participate)

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Kalimnios

Solicitor for the Respondent:

The Queensland Legal Practice

Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Ms Brereton

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:

Insight Family Law and Mediation

ORDERS

NAA 140 of 2025
BRC 14645 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR ADDISON

Appellant

AND:

MS FULTON

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:	RIETHMULLER J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Appeal NAA 140 of 2025 be dismissed.  

2.There be no order with respect to the costs of the appeal.

Note:   The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Addison & Fulton has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RIETHMULLER J:

BACKGROUND

1. The appellant appeals against final parenting orders made on 27 February 2025 which provided for the parties’ children to live with the respondent and spend no time with the appellant. The orders also provided for the respondent to have sole parental responsibility for the children.

2. The reasons for the primary judge’s decision are conveniently summarised in his Honour’s judgment which provides as follows:

   106.The children have a close and loving relationship with their mother. Their relationship with their father has been compromised. Although there is evidence of the children enjoying their supervised time with the father there is also evidence of anxiety and traumatic reactions, particularly by [X], to spending time. The father blames the mother for this. I do not accept that the mother has set out to undermine the children’s relationship with their father, although her own anxiety may have had some impact on them.

   107. …in this case, despite an attempt at re-unification therapy it has not been possible to restore the children’s relationship with the father. Although the father sought further therapy, I do not consider it to be in the children’s best interests to embark on it. They have been through sessions of supervised time and the therapy. The father did not follow the advise of the therapist and the sessions were cancelled. Throughout these proceedings the father has laid blame for his predicament on the mother, his lawyers, the ICL, and the therapist. He lacks insight into his own role in it. I have no confidence he has gained the necessary insight. To try again, at least at this stage, would risk more harmful experiences for the children. For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is a current benefit to the children in spending time with the father. I acknowledge that that finding would be disappointing for the father and is potentially sad for the children in the long term. However, I must assess the situation as it presents itself today.

   108.The history of family violence and the father’s breaches of family violence orders are indicative of risk of harm issues for these children. Notwithstanding that, overall I do not consider the father to be a danger to the children physically. He may, however, by his actions cause emotional or psychological harm, given his lack of insight into the effects on the children of his conduct. This needs to be seen in the light of the children’s presentation in the father’s presence. Despite some good visits at the contact centre there were many occasions when the children were distressed when with the father. This was also witnessed by both family report writers. I find that there is an unacceptable risk of harm to these children if they were to spend time with the father at this point in their lives. Attempts to mitigate this risk through supervision and therapy have not been successful.

   109.Both children have special needs. Their mother has been their primary carer all of their lives. She has acquired the skills necessary to address their particular medical needs. The father conceded that he does not have the same experience. Although he pointed to a number of courses undertaken by him, I am not satisfied that he has the skills necessary to meet the children’s medical needs…

   110.The father is significantly in arrears of child support. He apologised for this saying that he had been struggling with his own needs, physically, mentally and financially. Whilst it is good for him to accept his responsibility, his failure to meet it is an example of him prioritising his own needs over those of his children.

3. The appellant attempted to file a Notice of Discontinuance on 14 July 2024, the day before the appeal was listed for hearing. However, the notice he uploaded to the court filing system was unsigned. The appeal remained listed for hearing. The appellant did not appear at the scheduled hearing of the appeal. As a result, the appeal is to be dismissed pursuant to r 13.31 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

   COSTS

4. Neither party, that is the respondent or the ICL, sought costs orders in this matter and indeed would have been prevented from doing so as a result of r 13.53 and the lack of costs notices having been filed. In these circumstances, I make no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex-Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Riethmuller.

Associate:

Dated:       18 July 2025