Yates & Woodford and Ors [2018] FamCA 112 (27 February 2018)
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 that supported the granting of priority to this matter.

Petrov & Rudetsky [2017] FamCA 947 (23 November 2017)
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. Macmillan J expressed preference for the applicant’s evidence.
Macmillan J considered the effects of family violence, changes in the child’s relationship with his parents and benefits of a meaningful relationships with them, the child’s circumstances and practical difficulties and expense of spending time with the father. Ms Rothschild successfully satisfied Macmillan J that it would be in the child’s best interests to relocate with the applicant.

Hunter & Hillman [2017] FamCA 597 (15 August 2017)
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 communicating with the respondent and his siblings.

Roskam & Roskam [2016] FamCA 1097 (16 December 2016)
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.

Dokic & Jamenev [2016] FamCA 732 (1 September 2016)
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 upon that assessment.

Dowling & McLeod [2016] FCCA 2785 (28 October 2016)
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.

Martin & Wilson [2016] FCCA 235 (11 February 2016)
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 was successful in that Phipps J held in the applicant’s favour for the matrimonial property was divided in proportion of the parties’ initial contributions.

Ericsson & Ericsson (No.2) [2015] FCCA 3146 (27 November 2015)
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 detriment to the children of another hearing, and so it was not in the best interests of the children to reopen the hearing.

Keogh & Kenyon [2015] FCCA 3212 (18 November 2015)
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.

Leeds & Hopper [2015] FCCA 2191 (28 July 2015)
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 spent with the applicant.

Garman & Jackson (No 2) [2013] FamCA 1142 (5 August 2013)
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 the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) were taken into account, particularly the respondent’s ongoing responsibility for the care of the child.