These cases illustrate the kind of matters we handle every week. Every situation is different — if yours isn't here, talk to us.
Parenting & custody
Shared care arrangement
The situation. Daniel, 40, had been married to Emma for 12 years. They had two children aged 10 and 7. After separation, Emma sought full-time residence, arguing she had been the primary carer throughout the marriage. Daniel operated his own business and had a flexible schedule. He wanted to stay closely involved in his children's lives.
What we did. We built a case around Daniel's consistent, hands-on involvement — school runs, medical appointments, weekend activities — and his practical capacity to share care. We argued that the children's relationship with their father was strong and that a shared arrangement served their best interests.
The outcome. The court ordered the arrangement Daniel sought. The children continue to live primarily with Emma, and spend alternate weekends and one mid-week night with their father. A meaningful, regular relationship — protected by orders.
Read about our parenting dispute work →
Relocation
Relocation opposed and refused
The situation. Michael and Sarah had been divorced for three years. Their daughter Lilly, 9, lived with Sarah in Sydney. Sarah received a job offer in Brisbane — better pay, closer to family — and applied to relocate Lilly with her.
What we did. We represented Michael and opposed the application. Our argument was straightforward: Lilly's relationship with her father was strong, she was settled in Sydney, and the benefits of the move to Sarah did not outweigh the cost to Lilly of losing daily access to her dad.
The outcome. The court denied the relocation request. Lilly remained in Sydney. The judge found her best interests were served by staying close to both parents. Sarah was free to relocate — but Lilly stayed, moving into Michael's care as primary residence.
Read about relocation matters →
False allegations
Allegations of abuse not substantiated
The situation. James and Laura had been married for eight years with one child, Mia, 6. After separation, Laura alleged physical abuse and sought full custody with minimal paternal contact. Interim supervised visitation orders were put in place while the matter was heard.
What we did. We challenged the allegations directly. Laura provided no corroborating evidence — no police reports, no medical records, no witness testimony. An independent children's lawyer and court psychologist were appointed. Under cross-examination, significant inconsistencies emerged in Laura's account.
The outcome. The court found the allegations were not substantiated. James was granted shared parental responsibility. Mia lives primarily with her mother but spends substantial and regular unsupervised time with her father. The judge noted that false allegations damage both parental credibility and children's welfare.
Read about parenting disputes →
Grandparents' rights
Grandparents' contact secured
The situation. Mark and Anna separated when their son Oliver was 8. Mark's parents, Peter and Margaret, had been central to Oliver's life — weekly childcare, school pickups, holiday care. After separation, Anna restricted their contact, citing parenting disagreements and a need for stability.
What we did. We applied to the court on the grandparents' behalf for orders allowing regular time with Oliver. We documented their established bond and the concrete role they had played in his daily life. Anna did not allege they had caused harm — only that the contact was disruptive.
The outcome. The court recognised that children have the right to maintain relationships with significant people in their lives, including grandparents. Oliver's primary residence remained with Anna and regular time with Mark continued. Peter and Margaret were granted fortnightly Saturday visits plus additional time during school holidays.
Talk to us about your situation →
