Ms Rothschild acted for the second respondent, a father of three. The maternal grandmother of the children sought orders for sole parental responsibility of the children and alleged that the children were exposed to family violence.
Serious allegations of family violence and separation of the sibling group were factors

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant, a mother who wished to return with her child to her previous country of residence. The father opposed the mother’s application for relocation. The applicant had concerns regarding the father’s parenting capacity and the court was satisfied that there was foundation to her concerns.

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant father who sought final orders for the children to live with him and for sole parental responsibility.
Ms Rothschild successfully satisfied Johns J that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the applicant’s care, with opportunity of spending time and

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant father. Bennett J refused to grant leave for the applicant to make an oral application for adjournment of the final hearing.

Ms Rothschild acted for the respondent father. Ms Rothschild successfully satisfied Macmillan J that interim orders restraining the applicant from taking the children to any mental health practitioner were necessary, as it is important for the family consultant to make an assessment without the impact that ongoing therapy may have

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant father. Phipps J made orders that it is in the child’s best interest to live with respondent, for the respondent to have sole parental responsibility and for the child to have time spent with the father.

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant in motion to divide equally the matrimonial property between himself and the respondent. Phipps J held that the respondent’s withdrawal from the matrimonial property was either a premature distribution of a relationship asset or that the money was lost through reckless or negligent conduct.

Ms Rothschild acted for the applicant father. The applicant sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and equal living arrangements in line with the respondent’s partner alleged abuse and respondent’s refusal to promote the children’s religious faith. Phipps J held that likelihood of the orders being changed is outweighed by

Ms Rothschild acted for the respondent mother. Harland J held in the respondent’s favour, rejecting the applicant’s application for a contravention application one day before the final hearing because it is important that the respondent is accorded procedural fairness in having proper notice of the application.

Ms Rothschild successfully acted for the respondent mother in her application for interstate relocation with her child. Taking into account ss60B, 60CC(2) and 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Bender J held in favour of the relocation, for the parties have equal shared parental responsibility and for time

Ms Rothschild acted for the respondent mother. Macmillan J held in favour of of a 55/45 per cent split in the respondent’s favour of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, as well as an equal split of an offshore property and superannuation entitlements. Considerations set out s72 of

Dr. Simon Cichello acted for Mr. Sanjievan in relation to an alleged Human Rights abuse whilst Mr. Sanjievan was a customer of the Dandenong Magistrates Court.

Dr. Simon Cichello acted for Mr. Sanjievan in relation to an alleged Human Rights abuse whilst Mr. Sanjievan was a customer of the Dandenong Magistrates Court.

Dr. Simon Cichello acted for Mr. Sanjievan in relation to an alleged Human Rights abuse whilst Mr. Sanjievan was a customer of the Dandenong Magistrates Court.

Mr. Lawton was allegedly assaulteed and harassed and was arrested during a CoVid19 Lockdown Protest. Dr. Cichello wrote his application.

Mr. Van Niekerk was allegedly assaulted and harassed and was arrested during a CoVid19 Lockdown Protest. Dr. Cichello wrote his application and partially defending his case to a submissions stage.