Farrington & Belkis (No 7) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1686 (28 November 2025)

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 has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. On 12 November 2025 the Court made orders to the effect that:

(a) Eleven of the allegations of contravention made by the mother against the father were found proved.

(b) The father was to file and serve any affidavits relevant to the determination of penalty by 27 November 2025 and written submissions by 9 December 2025.

1. Reasons for Judgment were given in writing. See Farrington & Belkis (No. 6) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1571.
2. On 21 November 2025, the Court, differently constituted, and in sperate proceedings (CAC1398/2025) reserved judgment upon hearing of the father's application for the final parenting orders to be reconsidered pursuant to s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975.
3. On 24 November 2025, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking orders including that:

(a) The orders timetabling the father's evidence and submissions "be stayed until the final determination of the father's application under s65DAAA, or further order;" and

(b) In the alternative, those orders "be vacated and relisted for directions not before 7 days following the delivery of judgment on the s65DAAA application;" and

(c) "That this application be determined 'on the papers'."

1. In support of his application, the father filed an affidavit dated 24 November 2025, which has been read, along with a 'Letter of Urgency' on 24 November 2025 which has been received and read as submissions.
2. On 26 November 2025, the mother filed a Response to an Application in a Proceeding seeking that the father's application be dismissed and costs at scale. Also filed on 26 November 2025 were written submissions which have been received and read.

5. The section 65DAAA application raises, for determination by the Court, whether the 14 June 2024 parenting orders were made on an evidentiary foundation that is now shown, by material not previously known or available to the Court, by any extra form of diligence or effort, to have been unreliable or produced outside the proper delegation and scope of the relevant departmental legislation and policies. As a result, both the first and second Appraisals would be 'ultra vires' to the parenting proceedings.

6. As the second CYPS Appraisal of 18 July 2023 was treated as the primary evidence on which both the Interim and Final Orders relied, to the exclusion of all other expert reports, it is my contention that the Court was in error in the making of those orders and that, as a result, they are 'void ab initio'.

7. The contravention findings and the proposed penalty step proceed on the premise that the 14 June 2024 parenting orders remain a reliable factual foundation. If my section 65DAAA application is allowed, and the 14 June 2024 parenting orders are reconsidered, varied, suspended or set aside, the contravention proceeding (including any penalty) will be directly affected and may not properly continue in its present form.

8. If I am required to prepare and file sentencing material now, there is a real risk of prejudice because:

a. I would be compelled to adopt positions that may be inconsistent with the outcome of the reserved section 65DAAA decision; and

b. the Court would be asked to fix penalty on a foundation that may shortly be reconsidered.

4(b). the contravention penalty step proceeds on the factual foundation of the final parenting orders made 14 June 2024, which are the subject of the reserved section 65DAAA application, are safe;

1. The father's contentions and the basis for his application are misconceived.
2. Firstly, there is no possible outcome to the s 65DAAA application that could render or declare the extant parenting orders as beyond power or invalid or void ab initio (from the beginning).
3. Secondly, orders of the Court are valid until set aside - irrespective of his belated challenge to the "evidentiary foundation" or the "factual foundation" on which they were made.
4. On those two grounds, the father's application for an adjournment must be dismissed.
5. In the plainest of terms, the father wants to be able to use in his submissions on penalty for contravention any finding the Court may make of retrospective criticism or the casting of doubt over the extant parenting orders that he contravened. Undoubtedly, in order to then ground a submission on penalty that his contravention of those orders was justified, or of lesser seriousness.
6. The highest regard that could be had to the father's contentions is that the two, separate proceedings might be informative of each other, but neither is dependent on the other. Under the procedural orders, it is open to him to muster whatever admissible evidence he chooses and to make whatever submissions he says are relevant. His s 65DAAA application is no more than a potentially relevant circumstance.

1. The application was misconceived, wholly unsuccessful, and properly advised, ought not have been brought. The mother has had to incur costs resisting it.
2. Having regard to ss 114UB(3)(c) and (e) of the Act, it is just that the husband pay the wife's costs. The amount will be fixed in order to bring the issue to a close. (Warbrick & Warbrick (No 2) (2021) FLC 94-030 at [13]).
3. As to quantum, I adopt the approach submitted by the Respondent which is to commence with scale item 3 - Opposing an application for interlocutory orders (including an interim hearing) of $2,275.34. Because there was no hearing, there ought to be deduction from that amount. The amount specified for a half day hearing at Item 13 of $1,364.75 leaves $910.59. That is an appropriate amount for the scope of this interlocutory controversy.
4. No submissions were made with respect to time to pay. Sixty days will be allowed being an objectively reasonable time.

I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansfield.