Chong & Kerimowa

Case [2025] FedCFamC1A 158

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Chong & Kerimowa [2025] FedCFamC1A 158

Appeal from: Kerimowa & Chong [2025] FedCFamC1F 277
Appeal number: NAA 248 of 2025
File number: PAC 2709 of 2023
Judgment of: AUSTIN, BAUMANN & WILLIAMS JJ
Date of judgment: 8 September 2025
Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – PARENTING – Where the mother appeals from final parenting orders providing for the children to live with the father and spend supervised time with her on four occasions each year after a six-month moratorium period – Where the mother’s lawyers withdrew their representation during the trial – Where the primary judge refused the mother’s application to adjourn the trial – Where the mother’s mischaracterised ground of the denial of procedural fairness fails – Where the mother failed to identify how the decision to refuse the adjournment was incorrect – Where the mother’s contention her legal representation at trial was so incompetent as to cause the trial to be unfair fails – Whether the primary judge fell into legal error by ordering the children’s time with the mother be supervised indefinitely – Where the mother did not advance any fall-back position supposing the children were moved to live with the father – Where the primary judge found the mother posed an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children – Where there was no evidentiary premise upon which the primary judge could logically make the supervision period finite – Appeal dismissed – Costs ordered in a fixed sum.  
Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Pt VII, ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 65D, 65DAAA, 114UB

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 26, 36, 67

Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW) rr 101, 105

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) r 26
Cases cited:

Aon Risk Services Aust Ltd v ANU (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27

Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621; [1953] HCA 25

Bloch v Bloch (1981) 180 CLR 390; [1981] HCA 56

Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662; [2017] HCA 8

Boyle & Zahur and Anor (No 2) (2017) FLC 93-814; [2017] FamCAFC 263

CDJ v VAJ (1998) 197 CLR 172; [1998] HCA 67

D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57

Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553

Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479; [1990] HCA 30

Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22

GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635; [2023] HCA 32

Gronow v Gronow (1979) 144 CLR 513; [1979] HCA 63

Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; [1989] HCA 46

Kaba & Zemin [2024] FedCFamC1A 114

Kerimowa & Chong (No…

Continue reading Chong & Kerimowa

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chong & Kerimowa [2025] FedCFamC1A 158
Case
[2025] FedCFamC1A 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chong v Kerimowa involved an appeal by the mother against final parenting orders that mandated the children to reside with the father and spend supervised time with her on four occasions annually, following a six-month moratorium. The mother's legal representatives withdrew from the case during the trial, and she subsequently proceeded self-represented. The mother contested the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the proceedings and argued that the legal representation she received during the trial was so deficient that it rendered the trial unfair. Additionally, she contended that the indefinite supervision of her time with the children was unjust, particularly because she did not propose an alternative plan if the children were to reside with the father.

The court examined the mother's claims of procedural unfairness due to the withdrawal of her legal representation and the denial of an adjournment. The court found that the mother did not demonstrate how the refusal of an adjournment was erroneous. Moreover, the mother failed to specify how her legal representation was so inadequate that it caused the trial to be unfair. The court also addressed the mother's argument concerning the indefinite supervision of her time with the children, noting that she did not present any alternative proposals if the children were to live with the father. The court upheld the primary judge's finding that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of psychological harm to the children, and it was deemed reasonable that the supervision of her time with them should be indefinite.

The court dismissed the mother's appeal and ordered her to pay the father's and the Independent Children's Lawyer's costs of the appeal, fixed at $15,000 and $6,075 respectively. The decision was based on the findings that the primary judge did not err in his handling of the proceedings and that the orders made were in the best interests of the children. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of the safety and well-being of the children in making parenting decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 248 of 2025

PAC 2709 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MS CHONG

Appellant

AND:

MR KERIMOWA

Respondent

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER

ORDER MADE BY:

AUSTIN, BAUMANN & WILLIAMS JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application in an Appeal filed on 4 August 2025 is dismissed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant shall pay the respondent’s party/party costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $15,000.

4. The appellant shall pay the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s party/party costs of the appeal, fixed in the sum of $6,075.

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.

Background

Background to the litigation

It is dismissed with costs for the following reasons.BACKGROUND The parties married in 2013 and separated in or about September 2022. Upon separation, the mother and children vacated the family home. The children were then aged eight (a male) and five years old (a female). The parties amicably arranged for the children to spend time with the father on weekends (at [12]), but such amicability did not last long. Only a month later, in October 2022, several dramatic developments occurred in quick succession. First, the mother began sending the father messages accusing him of sexual infidelity (at [14]–[16]). Secondly, she informed the police the father had sexually assaulted her numerous times some months beforehand (at [17], [20] and [73]). Thirdly, she alleged the father had sexually assaulted the younger child by touching her vulva and digitally penetrating her (at [2], [21]). Fourthly, she sent the father messages alleging the elder child was afraid of him and that both children were “absolutely terrified” by him (at [18], [21]). The mother then withheld both children from him. Thereafter, despite not spending any time or communicating with the father, both children made escalating allegations of their physical and sexual abuse by him (at [23]–[24]), some of which were ostensibly quite fantastic – such as the father punching the younger child in the face and stomach, putting the younger child’s head in the toilet, cutting the younger child with a knife, suffocating the elder child, and chasing the elder child with a knife. In early 2023, the mother’s allegations also escalated in seriousness. She alleged to the State child welfare agency that the father had trafficked the children to a “known paedophile ring” (at [110]–[111]), from which allegation she eventually resiled in cross-examination (at [115]). The father commenced proceedings in respect of their children under Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) in May 2023. In August 2023, interim orders were made requiring the children to spend supervised time with the father, but the mother failed to ever comply with those orders (at [30]). The trial of the proceedings began in March 2025. On the third day of trial, the mother’s lawyers successfully sought leave to withdraw due to an alleged conflict of interest between she and them (at [38]). The trial then continued with the mother self-represented. At the conclusion of the evidence, the primary judge dismissed the mother’s application to re-open and adduce more evidence to try and vindicate her allegation of the father’s interest in child pornography (at [40]–[45]), which allegation she first raised in an affidavit she filed about two months beforehand (at [25]). The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) both advocated for the reversal of the children’s residence and the father’s conferral with sole parental responsibility for them. They each proposed the children spend only confined time with the mother, being once every three months, and only then after a lengthy moratorium (at [31], [36] and [37]).

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.