Whilst it is not unusual for a parent to want to revisit Orders that they are not happy with, and such attempts do not appear to have abated since the introduction of section 65DAAA to the Family Law Act, one would expect that it would take longer than three days for a change in circumstances to be established.

In Ritter & Hermann (No 5) [2026] FedCFamC1F 151, final Orders were made on 16 February 2026 in respect of a child aged 9 years.  This was after a contested hearing which had concluded on 16 December 2025, the result being that the child was to live with the father in a country other than Australia and the father would also have sole parenting responsibility for the child.  The mother filed a new Initiating Application on 2 March 2026 enabling the child to be placed on the Family Law Watchlist, thereby preventing the child from leaving Australia with the father. 

The parties’ relationship had been a short one, separating in 2019 when the child was around three years of age.  Thereafter the mother unilaterally relocated to Australia, with the child.  Pursuant to Final Parenting Orders, made by consent on 31 July 2020, the child was to live with the mother and spend time with the father.  Unfortunately, the mother continually contravened those Orders. 

Since separation, the father had remarried and had two very young children from that union.  The father was seeking to return to his country of residence with the child when he was stopped at Brisbane International Airport. 

In her new application the mother essentially sought to overturn the Orders made three days earlier with the child to live with her, in Australia, and for the Watch List Order to remain.  The mother had also filed an appeal against the 16 February 2026 Orders. 

The thrust of the mother’s case was the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, alleging that there was a travel ban imposed to the father’s country of residence but with no evidence to support that position.  The Court not being satisfied that there had been a significant change in circumstances, the mother’s application was dismissed. 

The Court then considered the father’s application for a Harmful Proceedings Order pursuant to section 102QAC of the Act.  The mother’s actions in filing a new Application only three days after the making of Final Orders had caused the father to incur costs of staying in Brisbane in a hotel with the child and having to rebook flights twice, resulting in financial hardship.  The Court was satisfied that such an Order should be made, preventing the mother from instituting further proceedings prior to 17 March 2026, being the first return date of her Notice of Appeal. 

As she was wholly unsuccessful, the mother was also ordered to pay the father’s costs fixed at $8,858. 

The high costs involved in family law matters are often subject to criticism, despite the measures that have been brought in to curb those costs such as jointly appointed single experts, pre-action mediation, pre-action offers of settlement, further mediation throughout the proceedings and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.  However, costs are often steered by being a respondent and having no other alternative but to respond/defend.  this is particularly the case when there is a self-represented litigant.