Introduction

Family law decisions are often finely balanced, requiring the Court to weigh each parent’s application to spend time with their child against the overriding principle that any order must promote the child’s best interests.

Family law cases often involve careful decisions, as the Court must balance each parent’s request to spend time with their child against the overriding principle that every decision must be in the child’s best interests. In Hannigan [2025] (Full Court, 3 July 2025), the Court once again emphasised its discretionary power in determining parenting arrangements, particularly when questions of parental access are contested.

The father in this case sought to challenge an order denying him time with his two children. On appeal, he requested that the Full Court set aside the original decision and grant him access. Instead, the Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the original ruling, reaffirming that the best interests of the children remain the paramount consideration, even when it results in a difficult outcome, such as a parent being denied contact.

This judgment offers valuable guidance for practitioners, parents, and individuals navigating parenting disputes under the Family Law Act.

Background

The dispute centred on the father’s application for time with his two children, following the breakdown of his relationship with the mother. Initially, the Court denied his application, finding that granting him access would not be in the children’s best interests.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the father appealed, contending that the trial judge:

1. Did not adequately recognise the importance of children maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents.
2. Gave insufficient regard to his capacity and willingness to care for the children; and
3. Reached a conclusion that was “manifestly unjust.”

The Full Court heard the appeal in July 2025.

Key Legal Principles

The Court’s reasoning emphasises several recurring themes in family law:

1. Paramountcy of Best Interests

The paramount consideration under the Family Law Act is the best interests of the child. While the Act recognises the importance of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents, this consideration is secondary to safeguarding the child from physical or psychological harm.

In Hannigan, the Court determined that the evidence supported the trial judge’s conclusion that contact with the father would not be in the best interests of the children.

2. Judicial Discretion

Appeals in family law matters are often challenging to succeed in, as trial judges are afforded a broad discretion when determining parenting and property issues. An appeal will only succeed where it can be shown that the trial judge made an error of law, failed to consider relevant evidence, or reached a conclusion that was not reasonably open on the evidence before the Court.

Here, the Full Court found no such error of law or fact. The father’s dissatisfaction with the outcome was not, on its own, sufficient grounds for an appeal.

3. Evidence and Credibility

The Court emphasised the significance of making decisions based on the evidence, especially when allegations of harm or parental incapacity are made. The trial judge evaluated witness testimony, documentary records, and expert evidence before reaching a conclusion, and the appeal court found no basis to disturb those findings.

Implications of Hannigan [2025]

This case highlights several practical takeaways:

1. High Threshold for Appeals
   Unless a clear error of principle or process is demonstrated, appellate courts will defer to the trial judge’s discretion.
2. Best Interests Take Priority Over Parental Desire
   Even when a parent sincerely seeks contact, the child’s welfare remains the most important consideration.
3. Evidence Matters
   A parent’s ability to show that time with the child is safe, beneficial, and suited to developmental needs is essential. Simply making assertions or expressing dissatisfaction with an outcome is not enough.
4. Finality of Decisions
   The Court’s reluctance to disturb first-instance judgments underlines the importance of presenting the strongest possible case at trial. Appeals should not be seen as a fallback option.

Broader Reflections

Hannigan [2025] also reflects a wider judicial trend: a move towards ensuring stability and certainty for children, even where that stability comes at the cost of limiting or excluding one parent’s involvement.

While the decision may seem disappointing for the father, the decision highlights a key principle in family law: a child’s safety, security, and well-being come first. Parents engaged in parenting disputes are encouraged to approach proceedings with this lens, focusing on how their proposals serve the child’s best interests, rather than their own preferences.

Practical Guidance for Parents and Practitioners

• Prepare Evidence Thoroughly: Supporting documents, expert reports, and credible testimony are essential. Courts depend heavily on evidence, not emotion or personal belief.
• Manage Expectations: Clients should be informed that “time with children” is not guaranteed. The court’s primary consideration is always the best interests of the child, not parental rights.
• Avoid Over-Reliance on Appeals: Unless there’s a clear error of law or fact, appeals will not necessarily be allowed, nor do they offer a second opportunity to re-argue the case.
• Focus on the Child’s Perspective: Consider practical realities such as schooling, emotional needs, and safety of the child or children, rather than adult grievances.

Conclusion

The decision in Hannigan [2025] serves as a stark reminder of the Family Court’s responsibility to prioritise children’s welfare above all else. For practitioners, it highlights the importance of evidence, the challenges of appeals, and the necessity of guiding clients with realistic expectations.

If you are seeking advice or guidance on your rights as a parent, how to best assess the interests of your child or children, parenting arrangements, or understanding how the law determines what is in your child’s best interests, contact the team at Resolve Conflict to discuss your circumstances. We offer a free 15-minute consultation to help clients understand their options.