Newett & Newett (No. 5)

In the matter of *Newett & Newett (No. 5)*, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered a further application by the mother for the recusal of the presiding judge. The mother alleged serious judicial misconduct, including criminal behaviour and corruption, which she contended would prevent the judge from bringing an impartial mind to the remaining parenting proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the mother's allegations, even when elevated to assertions of criminal behaviour and corruption, provided sufficient grounds for the judge to recuse himself. The court was required to determine if a fair-minded observer, aware of the mother's claims, would reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the determination of the parenting matters.

Baumann J dismissed the mother's application for recusal, finding that she had failed to identify any judicial conduct that would lead a fair-minded observer to doubt the judge's impartiality. The judge noted that while property proceedings had concluded, the parenting proceedings remained. His Honour referred to the principles established in *Faldyn & Badenoch* [2021] FamCAFC 85, which require incontrovertible and detailed evidence to substantiate serious allegations of judicial misconduct. The court found no such evidence was presented by the mother. Baumann J also observed that the mother appeared to misunderstand the distinction between interim and final orders, and the process of seeking and not obtaining a particular order.

Consequently, the mother's further application for recusal was dismissed. The court also listed outstanding interim applications concerning parenting matters for a hearing on 22 June 2021, with parties granted leave to appear by telephone.