Recent Family Law Decisions: What Clients Need to Know
Parenting Matters: Risk, Therapy and the Voice of the Child
Aliye & Salomea [2026] FedCFamC1F 132
In this interim parenting dispute, a father sought unsupervised time with one of two children, along with the commencement of family therapy involving the other child. The Court was not satisfied that unsupervised time was appropriate at that stage and instead ordered that supervised time continue, while directing the father to undertake psychological treatment. The decision illustrates the Court’s cautious, evidence-based approach at the interim stage: where there are genuine concerns about a parent’s capacity to manage risk, the Court will generally maintain protective arrangements (such as supervision) and use the interim period to facilitate therapeutic intervention, rather than relaxing safeguards before those concerns have been properly addressed.
Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1037
This matter involved two teenage girls in a high-conflict parenting dispute, with allegations of parental alignment by the father and a breakdown in the mother’s relationship with the children. The Court had to weigh future risk factors against the children’s own firmly expressed views and their mental health. Ultimately, the Court found that living with the father was the only realistic option that served the children’s best interests. The case is a useful reminder that as children move into their teenage years, the weight given to their own wishes increases significantly, and the Court will give serious consideration to those views alongside risk and welfare considerations, particularly where ongoing conflict is affecting a child’s wellbeing.
Property Settlement: What Counts as an Asset, and the Impact of Family Violence
Anselmo [2026] FedCFamC1A 87
On appeal, the Full Court considered two specific questions about what should be treated as property available for division under section 79 of the Family Law Act. First, the Court confirmed that funds held in a solicitor’s trust account, where those funds would be exhausted by outstanding legal fees, work in progress and trial costs, should not be treated as an asset of the party in question. Second, the Court held that statutory leave entitlements (annual leave and long service leave) owed by a party’s own company to that party were not to be treated as an additional asset in their hands, particularly where those entitlements had already been factored into the valuation of the party’s shareholding using a net asset backing methodology. This decision provides helpful clarity for parties (and their advisers) on avoiding “double counting” of value that has already been reflected in a business valuation, and confirms that legal costs genuinely owed out of trust funds are not available for distribution.
Maugham & Coolidge [2026] FedCFamC1F 53
In a four-year de facto relationship, the Court made a 2.5% adjustment in the respondent’s favour to reflect family violence, in addition to recognising the respondent’s significant contributions during the relationship. No further adjustment was made for future needs. This case demonstrates the continuing, practical application of family violence as a contributions-based factor in property settlements under the Family Law Act, even in comparatively short relationships, and shows that such adjustments are made on a case-specific basis rather than as a fixed percentage uplift.
Enforcement and Procedure: The Limits of the Slip Rule
Jepson & Jepson (No 9) [2025] FedCFamC1F 659
Following a final hearing in which a two-pool approach had been adopted, a party sought to use the “slip rule” (rule 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court Rules) to vary final orders, arguing that legal fees had been added back to the incorrect pool. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought could only properly be obtained through a successful appeal, not through the slip rule. The Court also noted that the party had unreasonably rejected an earlier settlement offer. This decision reinforces an important procedural point: the slip rule exists to correct clerical or accidental slips in orders, not to revisit the substance of a judge’s reasoning or findings. Parties who believe a final order reflects an error of substance, rather than a simple mistake in recording the Court’s intention, need to pursue an appeal within the applicable time limits, rather than seeking a shortcut through a slip rule application.
Key Takeaways
These decisions highlight several recurring themes in family law practice:
- Parenting matters are highly fact-specific, and the Court will balance risk minimisation against the children’s own views as they mature.
- Property settlements require careful identification of what truly constitutes an asset, and family violence remains a relevant contributions factor, even in shorter relationships.
- Procedural rules, including the slip rule, have defined and limited purposes – using the wrong mechanism to challenge a final order can result in an application being dismissed outright.
If you have questions about how these decisions might apply to your own parenting or property matter, our family law team at Fallu McMillan Lawyers is here to help. Contact us to arrange a confidential discussion with one of our solicitors.
