This Week in Family Law

Ep 18: Lawyers reveal their crazy client stories

• LEAP Family Law • Season 2 • Episode 18

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 28:38

In our first episode for Season 2 of This Week in Family Law, we cover the latest updates in Australian family law, including updates to court transcripts, new judicial appointments, fee increases, and the FCFCOA's response to a controversial 60 Minutes report. 

In Law in Motion, each of our hosts tells a crazy client story that has stuck with them to this day. From explicit photos for evidence to embarrassing issues brought up in divorce proceedings, this episode has it all!



Chapters:
0:00 - Introduction
1:49 - What's Up? - Updates in Family Law for this week
9:06 - Law in Motion - Crazy client stories



Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general information and discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. The views expressed are general in nature and may not apply to your specific circumstances. You should seek independent legal advice before acting on any information discussed.



About the podcast:
This Week in Family Law is the go-to podcast for busy Australian family lawyers looking to stay updated without the overwhelm. Whether you’re a family lawyer in Australia, a practitioner working towards CPD, or simply interested in family law, this podcast delivers clear, practical insights in a bite-sized format. Subscribe to stay up to date with the latest developments in Australian family law. New episodes drop every Monday.



Topics covered in this episode:
- Court transcripts: Courts have transitioned to interim arrangements, with in-house transcriptionists
- Public statement in response to the 60 Minutes report - The point of no return
- NSW practitioner's dinner - 14 August Sydney, guest speaker is The Hon Deputy Chief Justice Robert McClelland AO
- Increase to family law filing fees - 1 July 2026
- Joint Costs Advisory Committee seeking submissions on scales of legal costs recoverable in federal court
- New judicial appointments
- Family Court of WA advises delays for transcription services while they transition to a new provider
- Fee increases in Family Court of WA from 1 July
- Crazy client stories
- Evidence in court
- Property settlement
- Divorce matters



Links:

Recording and transcript services update
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/recording-transcription-100626

https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/updates-profession/recording-transcription-220626


Transcription services WA 
https://familycourt.wa.gov.au/_apps/news/detail.aspx?ID=1449&uid=2548-5324-9056-5489


Order form to access transcripts
https://forms.cloud.microsoft/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=IwcY7uC620uqKunrmAvIVhy2_PtQcd5OuGh_ZudLE6NUQ01WNVE0V1VQRjRXWlNEVlVWVkJNVU04TCQlQCN0PWcu


Public statement in response to the 60 Minutes report
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/hague-report


NSW Family Law Practitioners' Dinner 
https://www.familylawsection.org.au/events/16-family-law-practitioners-dinner/2168-nsw-family-law-practitioners-dinner-21-august-2026.html


Increase to family law fees FCFCOA - 1 July 2026
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/fl-fees-increase


Increase to family law fees FCWA- 1 July 2026
https://www.familycourt.wa.gov.au/F/fees.aspx


New Judges - FCFCOA 
https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/the-bar/44713-fcfcoa-welcomes-three-new-judges


New Judicial Officer - FCWA 
https://familycourt.wa.gov.au/_apps/news/detail.aspx?ID=1448&uid=2548-5324-9056-5489


Joint Costs Advisory Committee - 2026 Call for Submissions
https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/latest-news/jcac




Submit a question or provide feedback:
Email: familylawpodcast@leap.com.au
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LEAPAu
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@leap.family.law1 
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leapfamilylaw/

SPEAKER_02

Welcome back to season two of This Week in Family Law, the go-to podcast for busy Australian family lawyers who want to stay updated without the overwhelm. I'm Jenna Downey, and my co-host today is Antonia Cacapato. Antonia, we both have some exciting news to share. We definitely do. I got engaged a few weeks ago. So exciting. And you? I had a baby. So I had my baby girl, we called her Addison Kate, and she is six weeks old now. She is so adorable. She is so cute. But very excited to be here for the podcast because it's a bit different to what I've been doing day to day for the last few months.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, I bet we're very excited to have you here today.

SPEAKER_02

It's almost been ten weeks since we wrapped up season one, and quite a bit has happened since that time. So what we're going to do is we'll run through some updates, particularly from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and also the Family Court of Western Australia, and then we will release a bonus episode sharing with you additional updates, articles, and developments that have been released over the last 10 weeks. I will not be hosting this season. Eleanor and Brendan, who you met in season one, will be dual hosting this week in Family Law. And we also have a new lawyer who will be joining us, and we're very excited to introduce you to Nicole Smith. She will be co-hosting some of the episodes in my absence and also in Dina's absence, who is also on maternity leave. So, Antonia, let's get into this week's updates and I'll run through a few to start off with and then we'll go to you. Perfect. What's up, Jenna? The first updates relate to court transcripts, and I think we've all heard a little bit, um, quite a bit about this of late. So earlier this year, the court's transcriptions, transcription provider, Vic Solutions, entered voluntary administration, creating some uncertainty around transcript services. The good news is that the courts have now transitioned to interim arrangements. Transcript requests are being managed directly by the courts and allocated to a panel of Australian transcription providers and in-house transcriptionists. There's also a new process in place. So if you're ordering a transcript, you'll now need to complete the court's transcript order form, which requests manage, sorry, which the requests are managed through the court's recording and transcript team. The courts have also indicated they're working towards a longer-term, lower-cost transcript model to improve access for litigants. Oh, that'll be good. Yeah. And I think this um is definitely welcomed by the profession just to have a a plan in place for what's going to happen. I can also provide the order form that now needs to be completed, the link to that in the show notes as well. Do we know if that's going to be any delay due to the interim arrangements? I I remember reading previously that there probably would be. Yeah, so I think everyone should probably expect it. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Expectable.

SPEAKER_02

Our next update, it's this is an interesting one because it's the court's response to the 60 minutes episode. So I I saw that episode as well, and it was called The Point of No Return, which examined international child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. When I watched it, and I don't know about you, Antonia, but I walked away and I felt convinced that the mothers had been hard done by in the court system. 100%. I thought the same. And I can understand why the court has actually released a statement to explain the their things from their end, their perspective, and what actually happened. And just to give you some more details on that. So they issued a public statement to address what it said were significant. So the 60 Minutes episodes there were significant inaccuracies and admissions in that episode. The court explained that in the featured cases, family violence wasn't actually the legal basis relied upon in the Hague proceedings, that both children had been found to be habitually resident in Belgium before being brought to Australia, and that extensive protective arrangements had been put in place to support the mothers if they returned with the children. The court also pushed back on the suggestion that mothers fleeing family violence never succeed in Hague convention cases, pointing to numerous published decisions where Australian courts have refused to order a child's return because a legal because of the legal threshold for grave risk had been met. So if you watch the episode, I'd also encourage our listeners to read the court's statement. And it's also a good reminder that the court's judgments can often contain more detail than what can be covered in a prime television segment.

SPEAKER_03

In a media coverage. They just want to try to get some clickbaity viewers as well. So I think the court putting out that um that on the record is really useful.

SPEAKER_02

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. So one of the updates I have for today is that the New South Wales Practitioners' Dinner is shortly approaching on the 14th of August in Sydney with guest speaker, the Honourable Deputy Chief Justice Robert McClelland AO. And it feels like we were just at the last one not long ago. It's already almost a year now. This one will be held at um Dalton House Hyde Park with registrations closing midnight 5 August. So if listeners want to attend, they've got a short window to get some tickets.

SPEAKER_02

Great. Family law filing fees increases. Now, um, this around this time of year, uh, we usually expect these increases. So the filing fees increase from the 1st of July 2026. Um just a reminder, and the court notes this as well that these fees aren't set by the court itself. They're prescribed by the federal government through the family law fees regulations. And just a couple of examples for the most known filing fees that we would encounter as family law professionals. So the filing fee for a divorce application increased from $1,125 to $1,170, so a bit of an increase there. And another example, an application an initiating application for parenting and property seeking interim and financial relief increased from $860 to $895. Oh wow. Another update for practitioners is the Joint Cost Advisory Committee was seeking submissions on scales of legal costs recoverable in federal courts. The committee reviews whether the existing cost scale remains appropriate and whether changes should be recommended as well.

SPEAKER_03

Oh cool. When did the submissions close?

SPEAKER_02

They closed on the 31st of July. So just last year. Yeah. So we'll wait, wait and see on that one. Judicial appointments. So the court has also announced the appointment of three new judicial officers, all commencing on the 10th of August this year. Joining Div 1 are his honour Judge Stephen Middleton in Brisbane and Her Honour Judge Sandra Taglieri in Hobart. Joining Div two is senior judicial registrar Tracy Flintoff, who has been appointed as a judge and will also sit in Brisbane. Congratulations to all appointees, and we wish them every success.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, love to hear new appointees. I've also had one. We've got Ms. Nicole Croft, has been appointed Family Law Magistrate of the Family Court of Western Australia, commencing 1 July. So she would be there. She's been there for a month now. She's an experienced family lawyer with 20 years in private practice. And it's also noted that acting magistrate Max Birkeling returns to Francis Burt Chambers as his in his practice as a barrister.

SPEAKER_02

Great. On the Family Court of Western Australia, the they've also advised that Vic Australia, in terms of the transcription services, is winding down its operations, meaning practitioners can expect delays to transcript requests while the court transitions to a new provider. So a similar update to what we've received in the FCFCOA. For once both courts are doing the same thing.

SPEAKER_03

Yes.

SPEAKER_02

And the court confirmed that requests will continue to be monitored and prioritized where appropriate during the transition. So I suppose to put practitioners at ease that they're taking care of it and things won't be missed. Exactly. There's fee increases also to the family court of WA from the 1st of July. So those are the key updates from the court. Since we wrapped up season one, as I mentioned, we'll be giving you, we'll be bringing to you a bonus episode going through the rest of the updates, articles, and developments over the last 10 weeks. For a bit of fun for the start of season two, we wanted to share with you some crazy client stories. Antonia, can you start us off?

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, sure. Mine isn't as crazy as some of the other ones that the lawyers have planned, but I thought this one was pretty um funny just for like the calmer side of things, but I'll explain. So I had one matter where we acted for the husband, and him and his wife had been together for about 12 years. They both had previously been married before and had children of the previous marriage. And the wife, he was a CEO of a company earning about 600, 700 grand a year. She believed that he was having an affair with his assistant and, you know, confronted him. He said, no, didn't have the affair, don't know what you're on about. But she was adamant and they separated. But then to get her like last word in, she sent a really scathing email to the board of um the company and he lost his job. And the assistant was engaged, it was affecting her relationship as well because there wasn't an affair, but she just wouldn't wouldn't let go. Um so then he loses his job. He's been at that job for about 20 years, and he's about 65, so he can't get another job of that um stature where he would be owning that much. So he's doing a bit of consulting work trying to get a job. And we're doing the property settlement, and she is seeking 75% of the pool, even though they both came in with money, previous property settlements. Um, and it's was more of a 50-50 case. Um and so she was adamant 75%. We went to three mediations, would not budge, it was just crazy. Um, but she was seeking all these um future needs because of his high income, but she had actually caused him to lose his job where he was earning the high income.

SPEAKER_02

Exactly.

SPEAKER_03

So it's like if you had shut your mouth and not sent that email, you would have probably had an adjustment. But because he couldn't be earning that, like he was near retirement, there was no way he'd be getting that kind of role. Yeah. Um and then the other funny part was he had made all these contributions to her children. So like a Rob um Rob case. Yeah. And he she was arguing that she made all these contributions to his children, but they didn't live with him when they were together. And so her children did? Yeah. And he did so much for those children as well. Oh my goodness. Um and it was just a very, very messy matter. So where she was saying, Oh, he's transferring money out to the kids, so you had to get all these forensic zone on the bank statements, and it's like, no, there's the money's not there. Well, she got the forensic zone. Um, but it was funny because she was self-employed, she actually had a higher income earning capacity than she was declaring. So it backfired on her there too. So it was just a very messy case, which went to final hearing for three days, or it was meant to, and of course, as they all do, settled day one.

SPEAKER_02

First day of hearing. Um, did she get anywhere near what she was? 52 and a half percent. There you go.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah. Which was just to get it done. Um, he had enough, but more on morals, he didn't give in to the 75, which was ridiculous. Like that would never have happened with the court. So I think once she got to day one, it m um she realized, you know, oh, I'm not going to be getting that.

SPEAKER_02

And I think a lot of this depends on the advice that she was getting from her lawyer.

SPEAKER_03

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02

And reality testing what she was seeking.

SPEAKER_03

And they weren't doing that. Yeah. Yeah. And it was and the three mediations, the mediator was on our side saying you wouldn't be getting that, just was not listening. I think, you know, when you know the clients, they're not making sense um commercially because their ego's in the way. They've been too hurt. They really want to try to make a point. So but they're actually just eating into the pool. And yeah. So yeah, that was one that stuck with me.

SPEAKER_02

Next up, we have Nicole, who is our new family lawyer who joined the team two months ago. Nicole joined us from private practice and she worked for 18 years exclusively in family law. So we're very excited to have her as part of the team. Nicole, can you share us your crazy client story?

SPEAKER_00

Thanks, Jenna. Um, I've had a lot of crazy client stories, so it was actually hard to narrow down. But the one that stood out for me was a final hearing. Um picture, the final hearing. I was a lot younger. I acted for the husband. The wife was making quite serious allegations of family violence. Um, it included rape on the wedding night and coercive control throughout quite a short relationship. Um, she also made allegations that the husband had introduced her to BDSM and that uh he was essentially forcing her to satisfy his needs. Um, the husband, we were doing his final hearing affidavit, and he basically came in with a folder of photographs and text messages to prove that it wasn't him who introduced her to BDSM and that it was actually her who was the dominant one and has was encouraging him to do this type of stuff. And I always thought to myself, I'm not really a prude. I've read Fifty Shades of Grey, I directly add to Fifty Shades of Grey. I've got this, I know what all this is about. I start looking at these photos, I didn't know what half of this stuff was. Wow. So I had to sit down with this guy and ask him how explicit were these photos. They were extremely sexually explicit. Wow. Um, it was the the level of material was what you would expect from a very R-rated movie, is what I would say.

SPEAKER_05

Okay.

SPEAKER_00

Um, so I'm going through, I had to ask him what half of it was to understand if it should be annexed to the affidavit or not. Um there was sex swings, was probably the most easiest one to understand that I was looking at it. Um there was stuff that I still don't even know. Like, even after he explained it to me, I'm like, I still don't actually know what that was. Um, there was a lot of text messages from her. Um, some were explicit as well. There were text messages of her asking him to come home because she was ready. There was also evidence that she had booked them into sex dungeons, which they attended together. Um, so we were putting together this evidence, and essentially it was to prove that she was the more dominant person, that she was the one seeking it out, not that it was him forcing it upon her. Um, and we put all this evidence together. Um, and interestingly, the court actually found in his favour that I think the judge's comment was that she clearly enjoyed their sexual relationship from the evidence, that there was ample evidence that she enjoyed this. Um, and there was allegations that she'd made him um eat out of a dog bowl, like forced him to eat out of a dog bowl. Um, and there was allegations throughout, I think the court did find that he was belittling of her, um, but not to the extent that they made a finding of coercive control. Um, so ultimately this evidence did actually help his case. Um, he ended up having orders for um, at the time it was equal shared parent responsibility, um, and has substantial significant time with the child, which is what she was trying to seek orders that he didn't have. Um, but yeah, it was definitely an eye-opening experience for me.

SPEAKER_02

Wow, it's so interesting. I feel like I've learned a lot just hearing you speak. Um, yeah, that it never ceases to amaze me what uh what does come up in these cases and completely unexpected that you would be having to go through that type of evidence and then present it before a court. And a court having to make a decision on that as well.

SPEAKER_00

Yes, I I never thought I would be attaching those type of photos to an affidavit in a legitimate way.

SPEAKER_05

Yes.

SPEAKER_00

Where you know, sometimes you do attach some photos and a judge criticizes you for it, whereas in this particular one the judge said no, that evidence actually should disproved the allegation.

SPEAKER_02

Because I suppose in a lot of oc on a lot of occasions it would be irrelevant, but then on this occasion it was relevant and the court agreed. Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Nicole. I'm sure our listeners would have uh enjoyed hearing that one. Next up, we have Eleanor sharing her crazy client story. Eleanor.

SPEAKER_01

Hi, Jenna, nice to have you back. It's good to be back briefly. Briefly, that's right. Um, I all set the scene of this crazy client story. I was fairly newly admitted, and really just coming to terms with how do I advise clients of all ages, uh, different sexes, different types of issues, etc. And I had a very nice man, he was in his 50s, and I think I'm in my early to mid-20s at the time. And it honestly feels kind of weird even to get to be that age and giving this 50-year-old client advice and have him respect that advice. And he was really nice, and he really took on the advice on board. And I thought we had a pretty what looked to be on paper, a simple house and garden, if you'd like to use those terms, property matter. And he one day rang me, and it it was quite a quiet start to the conversation, and he just burst into tears. And I said, What's wrong? What's what's happened? Um, and even by the way, to set the scene as well, I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of a client crying at this point as well, and just being able to deal with that as a moment. And he said, You're about to get a really nasty letter from my ex. Um, and I said, What's happened? Like up until this point, it's been pretty um, it's pretty pretty smooth sailing. Um, and he said, You're going to find out something about me that you don't know that I haven't told you about. And my mind naturally went to he hasn't given me some instructions that are important in the matter. So I said, Is there anything you want to talk about now? Or do you want me to get to read the letter and I'll give you a call? And he just fought through tears and he said, Um Eleanor, I don't know how to tell you this, but I have a bed wedding problem. So it was so sad because I didn't know how to respond to him. He was a 50-year-old man telling me the most private issue that he has in his life. So the context is obviously within five, ten minutes of us uh ending the call, I get a letter from his ex that he was damaging property in the home. And really, she was referring to what was happening when he was sleeping, which he again made a cool issue. And I just it got me thinking how undignified parties can be in family law proceedings, and how in my mind that then solidified that I'd be giving advice on a whole heap of human problems that are now going to go far beyond legal issues.

SPEAKER_02

This is the first time I've heard this story, and it makes me sad to hear that this issue became a part of the discussions between the parties. And we often, as you said, hear about the most private details from clients. But the fact that the other side raised this to suggest that he was damaging the property inside the home, it just makes me sad. Yeah. It it makes and shows what clients have to go through when everything is aired out. I have Brendan with me now to share his crazy client story.

SPEAKER_04

Thanks, Jenna. My crazy client story actually involves the darker side of adult life and involved a very interesting, but I guess somewhat predictable end to a relationship. Now, what I always say to my clients when they first walk in the door and see me for the first time is look, I've seen it all, hit me with your best shot, tell me anything because nothing surprises me at this point. But I think this matter was genuinely probably the first time when I sat there going, What on earth has my client just told me? I was not mentally prepared for that. So, in this matter, I represented a husband who came to me telling me that he was set to inherit quite a sizable amount of funds in the event his parents passed away and they were at that point getting up there in their years, and that he had recently separated from his wife. So understandably there was a bit of urgency that he wanted to get things wrapped up prior to any sort of inheritance potentially coming into play. And there were adult children's relationships, and naturally we got talking about, you know, the history of the relationship, history of income, contributions, the usual stuff that you'd probably ask your client on the first time you meet them. And here's where it got a little bit interesting, right? So he was the primary income earner throughout the relationship. But one day, the wife came up to him and asked him and said, I want to own and run a brothel. So he agreed, for whatever reason, uh worked three jobs to save up the money to open said brothel. And so that happened. All was going well. Um, she was running the front of house. He would help out in between his own jobs every now and then, managing the staff, as we will call them. Um and business was booming.

SPEAKER_02

Stuff was going to be very successful business. Very successful, yes.

SPEAKER_04

Until one day he showed up, and it turns out the wife was doing a little bit more than just asking the customers whether they wanted to pay cash or card at the reception. So it's very spicy. Um so naturally this led to the relationship breaking down and the two of them eventually separating and him making his way to my office. Now, here's where it actually gets even more interesting because it turned out that she was very likely also involved in organized crime and the criminal underworld. Uh, because, you know, if you open a brothel and run it, you tend to attract a certain type of customer.

SPEAKER_01

Sure.

SPEAKER_04

So he was very understandably worried that she would just make some calls and he would simply disappear. So yeah, it was a it was an interesting uh matter to definitely have. And and thankfully, nothing of that sort happens. We somehow managed to resolve this by consent by offering her what I what I would probably call a very large amount of go-away money. Um and so that that settled the matter. But I guess part of me does wonder uh what ended up happening to the both of them, whether he's still around. And and you know, honestly, I'm fine not knowing, but I guess there's just part of me that is a bit curious.

SPEAKER_02

Does the brothel still exist? Do we know?

SPEAKER_04

Um I actually uh do know that it did end up closing down. Okay. Just out of curiosity, I did I did did some digging, but um, it does no longer exist.

SPEAKER_02

Okay.

SPEAKER_04

As far as I'm aware.

SPEAKER_02

Oh, thank you, Brendan. That was uh quite entertaining.

SPEAKER_04

Um glad to hear. It was definitely one of the spicier matters that I had.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, yeah. I can see that uh why you remembered that one and why it stayed with you.

SPEAKER_04

It definitely has stuck with me. How about you, Jenna? Do you have any interesting stories to share?

SPEAKER_02

I do. Um so I had a matter, this was many years ago, we acted for the mother, and there were children of the relationship. The it was a severe domestic violence matter, which it was very sad. When the parties separated, the mother she wanted to remove herself and the children from the situation, so she actually moved to another state in Australia. And she set herself up there, enrolled the children into school. The father, naturally, um, commenced court proceedings to seek for the mother to return with the children, denied the allegations of domestic violence. The mother kept her address very secret for where she was living because she didn't want the father to turn up again because she was scared as to what would happen to her and the children, particularly now that they've separated. And one day it was it was actually sorry, later in the afternoon, you could say like early evening, uh, her and the children were thankfully out. But what happened was that there were three men that turned up at her property, and she had cameras around her property because she was scared for her safety, even though she didn't know the father knew her address. But these three men turned up at her property, they were masked, they broke into the property, and she has all of this on footage. They destroyed parts of the property, realised her and the children weren't home, and after a short period of time, they did end up leaving. She returned a short time later, saw that the property had been broken into and the destruction inside. She ended up watching the video footage to see that these three masked men had turned up at her property. One of the first things she did was she, of course, told the police, but then she also contacted me to let me know and she sent me through the footage. And it was quite chilling to actually watch this video of these men in masks, clearly there for a reason, turn up and break in, discover that her and the children thankfully weren't there. And then I think within 10 minutes, they after they did some damage, they left. But it was confronting, like really confronting to see and watch that. And I've never had that come up before in a manner where I could clearly see what he was trying to achieve, given the fact that he couldn't reach her himself. And there was an AVO out in place as well.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah. I mean, as family lawyers, we do get exposed to footage, like CCTV footage or body cam recordings from time to time. But it's something you never quite get used to. And something of that nature must have been incredibly chilling and confronting to watch. And and even worse for her to see that live on her own cameras and know that you know, if she had been home, if the children had been home at a different time, things would have been out differently.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, and also the fact that he then knew her address and how he found out her address, I don't know. Um I I I would never know. But yeah, it was obviously very scary for her, as you say. Um and she had to be very careful. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, hopefully everything was uh okay for her in the end.

SPEAKER_02

Yes, yes. We've loved being in your ears this week. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode. If you have any questions, comments, or feedback, please reach out to us by email. Or you can also reach us on our socials Instagram, YouTube, or TikTok. Stay tuned for our bonus episode with more updates since season one concluded.