Lietzau & Lietzau

The father appeals from final parenting orders made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The children, now aged between 14 and 10 years, had not seen their father for six years before the trial. Despite this, the father sought sole parental responsibility for the children and orders for them to live with him. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer proposed that the children remain living with the mother and spend time with the father as and when they wished. The primary judge found that the father had engaged in significant family violence against the mother and posed an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the children. The court made orders that the children live with the mother, the mother has sole parental responsibility for them, and the children spend time with the father as they wish and as agreed between the parties.

The father’s appeal against the final parenting orders pleaded 33 grounds, which encompassed more than 200 separate propositions of error. The father also claimed an apprehension of bias on the part of the primary judge. He had previously applied for the disqualification of the primary judge on the basis of apprehended bias, but that application was dismissed. The court held that the dismissal of the disqualification application was a judgment from which an appeal could be independently brought, and so no complaint about the validity of that decision could be agitated in this appeal. The court found no merit in the father’s complaints of procedural unfairness, interlocutory decisions made before and during the trial, or errors in the application of legal principles. The father’s analysis of the factual findings made by the primary judge was also rejected.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in law or fact when making procedural directions for the trial, nor when making an order under s 102NA of the Family Law Act. The father’s superficial analysis of the factual findings made by the primary judge was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the father’s application in the appeal, which was filed late and granted leave to proceed on the basis of a 65-page Summary of Argument. The mother did not participate in the appeal, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer did not seek costs. No order as to costs was made.