Rigoli Lawyers

 BACKGROUND The parties commenced living together in 2003 and married in 2005. They have two children, both girls aged 10 and 12 respectively. They separated in 2018 but remained living separately in the family home. This arrangement remained until an incident between the parties which resulted in the father being charged with assaulting the mother and a domestic violence order against the father. Following this, the father remained living in the family home and the mother and children lived with her parents. The father’s conviction of charges relating to this incident was later quashed on appeal, and the domestic violence order set aside. In the appeal against his charges, the court raised concerns that the mother’s evidence about what happened was unreliable. Specifically, she said that he had picked her up and slammed her to the floor on her back. Read more on our official blog:  https://rigolilawyers.com.au/2022/12/family-court-orders-equal-time-with-kids/  

  Introduction In the case of Samad & Haider [2022] FedCFamC2F 1256 (16 September 2022) the father was found to have a sense of entitlement in resenting the fact that his contact with his child was ordered to be supervised. BACKGROUND The mother and father married in an Islamic religious ceremony in 2019 and had a short relationship of approximately 6 weeks duration. The father did not live with the mother during this time, nor was the marriage registered. The relationship produced one child, a daughter born in 2020 after the parties divorced, now aged 2 years old. At the time the court heard this matter, the father had not spent any time with the child apart from 4 supervised visits of one hour’s duration each at a contact centre. These visits were discontinued by him. The court later found that he ceased time due to a sense of entitlement that he should not have to be supervised when seeing his child. Read the full post here:  https://rigolilawyers.com.au/2022/12/family-court-sup

 Family Court rules unacceptable risk -father cannot see daughter at all 13 DEC FAMILY COURT RULES UNACCEPTABLE RISK -FATHER CANNOT SEE DAUGHTER AT ALL Posted at 11:55h in Uncategorized by Maria Rigoli  A father failed in his appeal seeking to see his daughter in the case of Lim & Zong [2022] FedCFamC1A 146 (20 September 2022). Background This matter involved an appeal brought by the father of a 10 year old girl against parenting orders made by the family courts. The orders provided that the child would live with the mother and not spend any time with or communicate with the father. The parties were married overseas in 2006 and moved to Australia in 2013, later divorcing in 2014. There was one child of the relationship born in 2012, a daughter now 10 years old. Proceedings were commenced for parenting orders in the family courts in 2014. There were numerous court events and delays, most of which were caused by the father. In October 2020, the court ordered that the father was not t

      n the case of Grunseth & Wighton [2022] FedCFamC1A 132 (26 August 2022) an appeal was made from original orders dividing the parties’ property so the appellant (de facto wife) received 47.5 per cent and the respondent (de facto husband) received 52.5 per cent.   Background to case The appellant contended that such a finding could not be made because she contributed over half of the property to be divided. There was only a small adjustment made by the original judge under s 90SF(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). It was a short relationship. On appeal it was found that there had been error established. Findings of family violence were open on the evidence as well. Each party sought the possession of a dog purchased by the appellant wife. Original orders were set aside so the matter could have discretion re-exercised. Orders were made to adjust the split in sale proceeds upon the sale of the property so that the de facto wife received 70% les $160,000 which the de facto husba

  Initiating application File the following documents with an Initiating Application in financial proceedings: 1. a Genuine Steps Certificate that certifies the applicant has complied with the pre-action procedures and made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute; 2. a financial statement; 3. the Financial Questionnaire; 4. a copy of any family violence order affecting the child or a member of the child’s family under rule 2.10; 5. an affidavit in support if seeking interlocutory orders. Each party must file an Undertaking as to Disclosure before the first court date unless the court orders otherwise. This undertaking includes a statement that the party has read Parts 6.1 and 6.2 of the Rules. The form and a copy of Parts 6.1 and 6.2 of the Family Law Rules 2021 are on the matter plan. Parties need to comply with the pre-action procedures, including disclosure, before issuing proceedings. If they sign the undertaking as to disclosure at the same time as filing the application or respo