In Novakova & Novakova [2026] FedCFamC1A 34, the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed the mother’s appeal against final parenting orders, as well as related property and spousal maintenance orders.

The decision is a useful appellate authority in parenting and relocation matters. It confirms that where a trial judge has made clear findings about risk to children after a defended hearing, an appeal court will be slow to interfere unless a clear error is shown.

Background 

At first instance, the trial judge ordered that the two children live with the father in Australia, that the father have sole parental responsibility for major long-term issues, and that the mother spend limited time with the children in Australia, initially on a supervised basis.

The primary judge also made protective injunctions restraining the mother from removing the children from Australia and rejected a proposal that would have involved the children spending time with the mother in Country B.

A central feature of the first instance decision was the finding that the mother posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. That finding included concerns arising from the administration of psilocybin to one of the children.

The appeal

On appeal, the mother challenged the parenting outcome and also sought to disturb the associated financial orders.

The Full Court rejected the appeal. Applying orthodox principles from House v The King and CDJ v VAJ, the Court held that the mother had not established factual error, error of principle, or a result that was plainly unjust or unreasonable. 

Why the case matters

This decision highlights several practical points for family law practitioners.

First, appeals in parenting matters are not an opportunity to re-run the trial. Where a primary judge has made risk-based findings after hearing oral evidence, those findings are difficult to overturn.

Secondly, relocation disputes remain proposal-driven. The mother’s position was weakened by the absence of any practical alternative proposal other than the children spending time with her overseas. In that context, the original orders were well within the trial judge’s discretion. 

Thirdly, where protective orders are clearly tied to identified risks, appellate courts are likely to uphold them.

Finally, consequential challenges to property and spousal maintenance orders will rarely succeed if the underlying parenting appeal fails and no separate error is shown.

Conclusion 

Novakova is a concise but important reminder of appellate restraint in family law. In cases involving child safety concerns and international elements, the Full Court will not interfere merely because another outcome may have been open. The question is whether an appealable error has been demonstrated. In this case, it was not.

About the Author

Thirumalai Selvi Shanmugam is the founder, Director, and Principal lawyer at Shan Lawyers and is a leading family law specialist in Australia whose expertise is often sought by organisations and the media.