April 2026 Family Law Updates
- Ashleigh Morris
- Apr 30
- 8 min read
Welcome to the April edition of the Family Law Updates newsletter. This month’s update includes key procedural changes, notable parenting and property decisions, and two feature cases of broader practical significance for practitioners.
Latest: Practice & Procedure
Court Forms Update
The Courts have updated several key forms, including the Response to Initiating Application, Undertaking, Third Party Debt Notice, Enforcement Warrant, Affidavit: Translation of Marriage Certificate, and Notice of Address for Service. Changes include new parenting-order questions in the Response, witness requirements for Undertakings, rule-reference updates, revised instructions, and terminology changes.
Updated forms became available from 28 March 2026, with the old versions accepted only until close of filing on 17 April 2026.
Filing Fees Update – Federal Court / FCFCOA
The Federal Court and Federal Circuit and Family Court Amendment (Filing Fees) Regulations 2026 commenced on 9 April 2026 and make targeted changes to filing fees for certain small claims proceedings.
Key updates include revised claim thresholds for applications in the relevant fee categories:
One fee category now applies where the total of all claims is less than $10,000, or where all claims seek a non-monetary remedy.
Another fee category now applies where the total of all claims is between $10,000 and $40,000.
These amendments apply to applications filed on or after 9 April 2026.
Feature Cases
Pre-Trial Evidence Rulings in Parenting Matter: Court Clarifies Approach to Affidavit Objections
In Linville & Linville [2025] FedCFamC2F 1488, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dealt with a substantial set of evidentiary objections in advance of a five-day parenting trial listed for February 2026. The matter involved competing parenting applications, with the parties having filed lengthy trial affidavits and extensive schedules of objections to each other’s evidence-in-chief.
Judge McGinn determined it was appropriate to rule on the unresolved objections before the commencement of trial, noting that doing so would shorten hearing time and assist case management efficiency. The Court relied on its powers under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), including s 102NJ, together with provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), to determine issues arising in child-related proceedings prior to trial.
A key feature of the judgment is the reminder that evidentiary rules operate differently in parenting proceedings. His Honour observed that, because of s 102NL of the Family Law Act, evidence is not inadmissible merely because it is hearsay, opinion or tendency evidence. Consistent with that principle, many objections based solely on hearsay were dismissed.
The Court also emphasised that relevance objections at an interlocutory stage should be approached cautiously, as evidence with only slight apparent probative value may become more significant when considered in the context of the totality of the trial evidence.
The Court did, however, uphold a number of objections where material lacked relevance, was vague, argumentative, speculative, scandalous, or amounted to unsupported conclusions. Numerous paragraphs and passages from both parties’ affidavits were struck out in whole or in part, demonstrating the Court’s willingness to trim inflammatory or non-probative material before trial.
Importantly, the Court declined to determine objections relating to various audio and video recordings at that stage. Judge McGinn held those issues should be dealt with at trial if and when the recordings were formally tendered, particularly where questions might arise as to legality, the application of s 138 of the Evidence Act, or other matters requiring submissions from counsel.
The decision is a useful procedural reminder for practitioners that the Court may proactively determine affidavit objections before trial, especially in parenting matters where narrowing contested evidence can materially reduce hearing time. It also reinforces the modified evidentiary landscape in child-related proceedings, where hearsay objections alone may carry limited utility.
Overly Technical Objections: Self-Represented Mother Succeeds in Review Filing Dispute
In Mokhtar & Bilgin [2026] FedCFamC2F 165, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia held that a self-represented mother’s Application for Review had been validly filed in time, despite registry staff rejecting it for minor defects. The application had been emailed 18 seconds after 4:30pm on the final day of the 21-day filing period and omitted part of the Notice to Respondent section.
Judge Taglieri found the father’s objections were overly technical and inconsistent with the Court’s overarching purpose of resolving child-related proceedings justly, efficiently and with a focus on substance over form. The Court dispensed with the formal defects, deemed the application filed on 6 October 2025, and confirmed it was therefore within time.
The judgment also noted that the mother may have arguable grounds for review, including whether an earlier threshold hearing under s 65DAAA should have proceeded separately from her application seeking summary dismissal of the father’s parenting case. The matter was adjourned for further case management.
Quick Case Law Wrap-Up
Parenting Decisions
Grandparent Time Refused on Interim Basis
In Forbes & Forbes [2026] FedCFamC2F 115, the Court refused an interim application by a maternal grandmother seeking regular time with her two-year-old grandchild where both parents opposed the arrangement. The Court found a long history of conflict between the mother and grandmother, together with concerns about the mother’s mental health being destabilised by renewed conflict, created an unacceptable risk to the child. Orders were made for the child to live with the mother, spend time with the father as agreed, and for the grandmother to maintain connection through cards and gifts only unless otherwise agreed.
Recovery Order for Almost 17-Year-Old Child
In Coaker & Wakeling [2026] FedCFamC2F 72, the Court dealt urgently with an application after an almost 17-year-old child left the father’s care to live with the mother contrary to existing orders. Despite the child’s age and wishes, the Court considered allegations of alcohol, substance abuse and family violence in the mother’s household created sufficient risk to justify immediate intervention. The mother was ordered to return the child that afternoon, with a recovery order to issue if she failed to comply.
No Time with Father Following Serious Family Violence Findings
In Livingstone & Morton [2026] FedCFamC2F 65, the Court made final parenting orders for two young children to live with the mother and have no time or communication with the father, save for cards, gifts and letters. The decision followed findings of serious family violence, including an incident where one child allegedly witnessed the father place a gun to the mother’s face. Although supervision may have addressed physical risk, the Court found the emotional risk to the children remained unacceptable.
No Reopening of Final Parenting Orders
In Strauss & Wallner [2026] FedCFamC2F 157, the Court dismissed a mother’s application to revisit final parenting orders made by consent in 2024. Those orders had temporarily allowed the mother to live with the child in Tasmania before a planned return to Perth for equal time arrangements. Applying s 65DAAA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court found there had been no significant change in circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration and that reopening the orders was not in the child’s best interests.
Australian Court Confirms Jurisdiction in Overseas Parenting Dispute
In Haluk & Drury [2026] FedCFamC2F 108, the Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders where the child was living in Country B with the mother while both parents and the child were Australian citizens. The Court held the relevant international jurisdiction provisions did not prevent it from hearing the matter in the absence of evidence about foreign law, confirmed jurisdiction, and ordered further case management together with a single expert report addressing the child’s welfare and any proposed relocation to Australia.
Child Ordered to Live with Father After Interstate Relocation
In Pittman & Pittman (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2F 2, the mother had unilaterally relocated a child with significant medical needs from New South Wales to South Australia, alleging family violence by the father. After trial, the Court ordered the child live with the father in New South Wales, granted him sole long-term decision-making responsibility, and established structured time and communication arrangements for the mother depending on whether she remained interstate or returned to New South Wales.
Property Decisions
Interim Property / Chattels Dispute
In Bowles & Kirk [2026] FedCFamC2F 137, the Court made interim property orders in a dispute focused largely on personal belongings and business records. Agreed items, including clothing, jewellery, tools, household goods and company documents, were ordered to be returned to the applicant, while disputed chattels were to remain where they were until final hearing. The Court also directed extensive financial disclosure and the appointment of a single expert to value the family business.
De Facto Wife Receives Majority Property Adjustment
In Cawley & Morvell [2026] FedCFamC2F 64, the Court determined property proceedings following a 16-year de facto relationship involving one child with special needs. Significant weight was given to the wife’s initial contributions, inheritance, parenting responsibilities and future needs, resulting in an overall division heavily in her favour. Orders included payment to the husband, failing which a property sale mechanism would be triggered.
Property Orders Continue After Husband’s Death
In Altman & McCormick [2025] FedCFamC2F 1807, the Court proceeded to determine property adjustment proceedings after the husband died while judgment was reserved. Rejecting the wife’s argument that there had been no separation and therefore no jurisdiction, the Court substituted the husband’s personal representative and found the husband had made significantly greater contributions. After a modest future-needs adjustment to the wife, sale orders were made dividing proceeds 77.5 per cent to the husband’s estate and 22.5 per cent to the wife.
Property Orders Found Just and Equitable Despite Opposition
In Barda & Zerri [2026] FedCFamC2F 122, the Court rejected the husband’s argument that no alteration of property interests should be made under the Stanford principle and found it was just and equitable to intervene following the parties’ separation and overseas divorce. Final orders required the husband to pay the wife $356,998 within 90 days, with the wife then to vacate the former matrimonial home, which the husband retained.
Costs / Appeals / Urgency
Stay Refused Pending Appeal of Parenting Relocation Orders
Following on from Pittman & Pittman (No 2) (cited above), in Pittman & Pittman (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2F 104, the mother sought to stay final parenting orders that had directed the child live with the father in New South Wales following her relocation to South Australia. The Court refused the stay application, finding no sufficient basis to suspend the orders pending appeal, but varied the practical handover arrangements so the child’s transition to the father’s care could occur through Children’s Contact Services.
Review of Refusal for Urgent Listing Dismissed
In Balfour & Ferber (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2F 102, the Court dismissed an application reviewing a Registrar’s decision not to list parenting proceedings urgently. The applicant alleged breaches of interim drug-testing orders and immediate concerns for the child’s wellbeing, but the Court was not satisfied the matter warranted urgent intervention ahead of the already listed interim hearing.
Urgent Listing Challenge Unsuccessful Despite Safety Allegations
In Millwood & Millwood [2026] FedCFamC2F 101, the Court dismissed a review application challenging a refusal to urgently list parenting and property proceedings. The mother relied on allegations concerning the father’s mental health, firearm access and financial conduct, but the Court found the existing listing date was sufficiently proximate and the circumstances did not justify urgent reallocation of court resources.
No Costs Order After Interim Parenting Application
In Partington & Partington (No 3) [2026] FedCFamC2F 95, the mother sought indemnity or scale costs arising from an urgent interim application concerning medical decision-making for one child and alleged social media conduct by the father. The Court declined to depart from the usual family law position that each party bears their own costs and dismissed both the mother’s costs application and the father’s response.
This Month's Case Series Spotlight
A Family Law Saga – How Loyalty Landed Grandma in Jail
One of the most extraordinary recent family law matters began as an overseas child retention dispute and ended with a grandmother sentenced to imprisonment for aiding breaches of parenting orders. The Bellanger & Wemble saga involved recovery orders, watchlist restraints, contravention findings and an unsuccessful appeal. Our full feature examines the case chronology and the practical lessons for practitioners.
About the Author
Ashleigh Morris is a Melbourne barrister practising exclusively in family law, with a particular focus on contested hearings, trials, and complex parenting and property litigation. She is regularly briefed in matters involving difficult factual disputes, urgent applications, relocation cases, enforcement proceedings, and cases requiring strong cross-examination and strategic advocacy. She appears in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia across metropolitan and regional registries.
Stay Connected
To receive future Family Law Updates and case summaries, subscribe to the newsletter. For briefing enquiries or availability, please email a.morris@vicbar.com.au or contact Patterson's List on 03 9225 7888.
Comments