Hronn & Tracey [2025] FedCFamC1A 247 (22 December 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 the pseudonym Hronn & Tracey has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. By way of a Further Amended Notice of Appeal filed 4 December 2025, the self-represented appellant appeals orders made by a Judge of this Court on 14 November 2025 (Hronn & Torleif (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 821). Such orders determined parenting proceedings to which she was initially a respondent, but then effectively became the applicant on 11 September 2025. The proceedings related to a child ("X"), born 2016. X is an Aboriginal boy whose skin name is K. He was, for most of his life, a member of the F-J people community living on country at near Town D.
2. X lived with the appellant for some time before the proceedings. The primary judge ordered, relevantly, that he live with Ms Tracy, the first respondent to this appeal, whose solicitor appeared before me today. The primary judge also ordered X to spend time with the appellant and two other persons by agreement with Ms Tracy. The appellant appeals from those orders and asks the Court to make orders for her to assume sole parental responsibility and for X to resume living with her.
3. On 19 December 2025, the appellant filed an Amended Application in an Appeal ("the Amended Application"), seeking relief from the costs of purchasing a transcript of the primary proceedings. Her current obligation to provide such transcript arises from the various rules under Chapter 13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) ("the Rules"), as well as procedural orders made by an Appeal Judicial Registrar on 17 December 2025.
4. The appellant, and applicant today, appeared on her own behalf and relied on the Amended Application and Affidavit of hers filed on 19 December 2025 in support of the Amended Application ("her affidavit").
5. Ms Loria, solicitor, appears on behalf of the first respondent. There was no appearance on behalf of the second and third respondents. That was not unexpected. Mr Stirk appears this morning as the Independent Children's Lawyer. Mr Stirk did not oppose the making of the orders sought by the appellant.
6. Ms Loria initially opposed the application of the appellant, but then sensibly withdrew that opposition. The obligation to provide a transcript from the primary proceedings for use in any appeal falls to the appellant under the Rules. Unless the interest of justice demands, an appellant should neither be relieved of that obligation, nor the financial burden of its acquisition shifted to the Court (Sampson & Hartnett (2013) FLC 93-542).
7. Numerous considerations influence any decision about whether such relief should be granted to an appellant, including:
   • whether the case is financial or a parenting case;
   • whether the whole transcript or part thereof is necessary for the determination of the appeal or a part of the appeal;
   • the likely cost of the relevant transcript;
   • whether the applicant can afford all or part of the cost of the transcript of the primary proceedings;
   • the proportionality of the cost of the transcript to the appellant's anticipated costs in relation to the whole appeal, including the preparation of the appeal books (if so ordered); and
   • the prima facie merits of the appeal.
8. Relief from the obligation to provide transcripts of the impugned hearing is sought on the basis of the appellant's poor financial circumstances. She adduced evidence via her affidavit that she is employed as an education assistant. In addition, she receives both a pension and family assistance providing her a total weekly income of $1,184. Her total weekly expenses are deposed to be $1,221. She owns a modest home, which has a value of $500,000, and negligible savings. The home is mortgaged to the extent of $386,507, and she has other personal liabilities of $86,000. The mortgage payments, weekly, amount to $597.
9. The Court finds that her expenses are, prima facie, reasonable, indeed modest; certainly by Sydney standards. The Court accepts that she is unable to afford the cost of the transcript, which is estimated to be $11,956.33. This appeal relates to a parenting case, and as will be seen below, the issues raised on the appeal traverse the entirety of the evidence. The grounds of appeal allege errors of law, errors of fact, and errors in relation to the exercise of judicial discretion.
10. Mr H, an expert psychologist who prepared two reports for the primary hearing, described the family situation as being complex and the cultural needs of X as being a significant issue (Report of Mr H dated 4 March 2025, p 21). The primary judge found that the appellant did not have the cultural competence she professed, and which was assumed by Mr H. There were issues of cultural retribution at trial. The primary judge was confronted with complex facts that needed to be assessed through a cultural lens, whilst at the same time excluding cultural bias.
11. A key legal issue was the interpretation and application of s 60CC(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which refers to the cultural needs of children. The primary judge acknowledged that his decision was, in essence, a binary determination.
12. The Amended Application must succeed on the evidence before the Court. The appellant should not be ordered to procure and file a transcript which the evidence shows she cannot afford, in the context of an appeal that appears to be arguable, and where reference to the transcript, and indeed the transcript in its entirety, is quite likely.
13. Accordingly, any previous order of the Appeal Judicial Registrar for the appellant to provide a transcript of the proceedings is discharged.
14. Any requirement under the Rules for the appellant to file in the appeal a transcript of the proceedings before the primary judge from 13 October 2025 to 20 October 2025 is dispensed with.
15. I otherwise stand the matter over to any future listing before the Appeal Judicial Registrar.

I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex-tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Altobelli.