Rush and McFadzean

This matter concerned parenting orders for the parties' young daughter, with the father applying to re-establish regular contact after a period of suspension. The dispute escalated when the mother ceased making the child available for contact, leading to the father's application for further parenting orders and a contravention application against the mother. The case was allocated to Justice Ryan in the Family Court of Australia at Newcastle.

The court was required to determine a range of issues concerning the child's welfare, including her views on spending time with her father, the potential influence of the mother on those views, the nature of the child's relationships with both parents, and whether the child suffered from encopresis and its potential causes. Further issues included whether either parent had a personality disorder impacting their capacity to meet the child's needs, and if contact resumed, the appropriate changeover arrangements. The proceedings were complicated by the father's disruptive behaviour during hearings, including allegations of bias against the judge.

Justice Ryan applied the test for apprehended bias from *Johnson v Johnson No.2*, considering whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues. Despite finding difficulty with the notion of bias, the judge acknowledged the father's strong belief in it and his disruptive conduct, which made orderly proceedings impossible without resorting to removing the father, thereby creating an unfair process. The judge also considered the potential impact on the mother if the father's behaviour continued to disrupt the hearing.

Ultimately, Justice Ryan disqualified himself from further hearing the proceedings in the interest of justice, noting that the father's conduct made it impossible to conduct a reasonable hearing. The judge ordered that the List Clerk notify the parties of new trial dates as a matter of priority.