Unsure where to start?

* Terms & Conditions may apply. Call for more details

Australia’s Family Law Court Forces Desperate Father to Wait for 7 Years

We appreciate your interest in reading this blog.

Let us help you achieve family law results that make a real difference.

Sometimes family law cases in Australia can result in gross injustice to one party. Many factors can cause injustice. In Manifold & Alderton 2021, a lapse in procedural fairness and an unreasonable delay affected the primary judge’s handling of the case. You can review full-text decisions from the Federal Circuit and Family Law Court of Australia, including this case.

This case raised several issues that took years to determine in Family Court.

Key takeaways The truth about family law court

  1. After a financial windfall, Mr Manifold and Ms Alderton’s marriage broke up in 2012.
  2. Mr Manifold began court proceedings in 2013.
  3. After multiple postponements, a final judgment was handed down in 2020.
  4. Mr Manifold appealed the decision.
  5. Several problems were found in the judge’s decision on appeal.

Background

Mr Manifold and Ms Alderton were a couple who married in 2008 and had two children. Ms Alderton won over $1 million from the lottery in 2012 and ended the relationship soon after. She gave about $300,000 to Mr Manifold, who moved out of the marital home.

Federal Circuit and Family Law Court proceedings

Mr Manifold began court proceedings for a parenting order and property settlement in 2013. The case came before the Federal Circuit Court. After an initial trial in September, final judgment was reserved.

Reserving judgment means the Court is postponing handing down its decision. The length of postponement can be excessive. Former High Court Judge Dyson Heydon has spoken out against the harm extended delays in judgment can have. One reason he noted was that it could affect a case’s outcome regardless of the case’s merits.

Mr Manifold applied for interim orders four years later. In 2017, the parties agreed to a consent order. Ms Alderton breached the order. After a contested hearing in September 2019, judgment was reserved a second time. A final decision came in September 2020.

Initially, Mr Manifold had requested equal parental responsibility and time as well as an equal property division. In his 2019 application, he wanted sole responsibility and custody of the children, with visitation rights for the mother.

Ms Alderton initially wanted equal responsibility and child custody. Mr Alderton would get visitation rights. As for property, she requested 70% of the total asset pool with an adjustment for spousal maintenance. The proposal changed several times, with Ms Alderton ultimately wanting 85% of the asset pool.

The Judgment

Judge Demack noted Ms Alderton’s propensity for making unilateral parenting decisions. She also withheld them from Mr Manifold. He believed this showed she had little regard for the father’s relationship with the children.

In the final judgment, parties would have equal responsibility, and Ms Alderton would be the primary caregiver. Mr Manifold would spend five nights per fortnight with the children. Both parties retained the property already in their possession.

law and authority lawyer, judgment gavel hammer in court courtroom for crime judgement

The Appeal

Mr Manifold appealed the decision. The case went before a full Court in March 2021. The appeal was granted in light of the “gross and deplorable” delay in delivering the final judgment. The delay itself wasn’t grounds for an appeal. Instead, it was the effect the delay had on the decision that caused an injustice. Specifically, the delay caused the primary judge to make crucial errors.

There was no justification for the delay or consideration of the delay’s impact on the final decision. The delay’s length also meant the children were much older, and the property pool had changed dramatically since 2013.

The findings of the appeal were that due to the delay:

  • The judge didn’t properly consider the evidence;
  • The judge didn’t adequately assess the father’s case;
  • The court order was not founded on adequate reasoning;
  • There was a risk the judge would tend toward the easiest finding.

Let us help you protect your rights

The recent amalgamation of the courts has brought many welcome changes to family law proceedings. One notable reform is a commitment to impose time limits to resolve cases. Unfortunately, Mr Manifold didn’t receive this treatment.

Shanahan Family Law is focused on finding alternative methods to court action. We will help you find opportunities for mediation and walk you through the court process if necessary.

Contact our office for an initial free discovery call. 

Are you looking for family lawyers?

Shanahan Family Law, founded in 2009, focuses on delivering positive outcomes for clients by listening, caring, and tailoring services to individual needs. Let us help you find a positive outcome.

Recent Posts

How to Get an AVO (Apprehended Violence Order)? (6 Important Steps You Need To Know)

What Is the Difference Between Child Maintenance and Support? (Parents Guide)

9 Important Steps When Filing for Divorce Online in 2024 (Latest Guide)

1 2 3 23

Join our newsletter!

Stay updated with our latest news and services.
Luke Shanahan Family Law

Luke Shanahan

Principal

Luke Shanahan is the Principal Solicitor of Shanahan Family Law. Luke has been practising family law since 2008 and started his firm in 2014. He has three beautiful daughters and a supportive, gorgeous wife. In his spare time, Luke enjoys playing tennis and trips to the beach with family and friends. 

Luke is dedicated to providing the best possible legal representation for his clients. His experience and passion for family law set him apart from other solicitors. You only have to read their 5-star reviews to understand that.

Scroll to Top
Book A Free Discovery Call

Share your family matter with us and we will call you.

If your matter is urgent, please call us on (07) 5408 4470

Shanahan Family Law are hiring!

"Join our Sunshine Coast family law service"

If you have questions about this role, please call our office for a confidential chat (07) 5408 4470