Sydney court accused of ‘motherly bias’ and legal trickery

An angry dad has launched a Family Court appeal complaining he was the victim of “motherly bias” and legal trickery.

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in Sydney Australia.

An angry dad has launched a Family Court appeal complaining he was the victim of “motherly bias” and legal trickery.

The wealthy father of two has let loose on the Sydney circuit of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, its judges and accredited family lawyers, accusing them of trickery, deception and being “too friendly” with each other.

The man, who has parted ways with his solicitor and barrister and is now representing himself, has asked the court to order a review of the “court video” of his previous hearing showing “facial and body expressions between (the judge) and my solicitor”.

With an annual wage of up to $364,000 a year, he has appealed against a ruling that he pay his estranged wife a lump sum of $186,238 in unpaid child support, half of the $164,000 the mother has paid herself in private school fees for their two daughters aged 10 and 12 and that he sell the family home.

The couple married in 2005 and separated in 2018.

An angry Sydney dad in the midst of a family court dispute has accused the institution of “motherly bias”.

“I believe my matter has solid grounds to highlight the issue with family law is not a lack of resources, it is the trickery and willingness to abuse court process by practitioners and judicial officers which is the very core of the problem,” he wrote to an unnamed senator, according to court judgment.

“This view is limited to the Sydney accredited family law circuit where they are far too friendly with each other.

The father alleged family court lawyers in Sydney were “too friendly” with each other.

“I would be willing to have my voice heard ... prevent today’s children becoming the next stolen generation and continued victims of the Australian legal system.”

With an appeal date set for next month, the man asked the court for an adjournment so he can obtain a transcript of the previous hearing.

The man’s barrister and a former judge who heard part of the case had been members of the same barristers’ chambers which the man said was concerning.

“It is my perception the case was manipulated to ensure motherly bias was a result that the children would not be removed from her care and to achieve this I became a target and sacrificial lamb of which I will be seeking full retribution both in the family court and failing this, through civil action,” he told the court.

Justice Stewart Austin said in his recent judgment that the claim of “motherly bias” was irrelevant because the man was not appealing the parenting orders that the childre live with their mother but visit him regularly.

The judge said he had no power to order a judicial review of the previous proceedings because the man is only appealing four of the 36 orders that were made.

He refused to delay the appeal saying the man had already had one adjournment.