With the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on the rise it is imperative that if is used in proceedings it is so used with great caution.  Although the case of Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163 relates to the use of AI by a self-represented party, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale. 

In his filed documents the appellant had included reference to a number of ‘authorities’ which, as it transpired, were non existent decisions.  The appellant conceded the use of AI in the preparation of his documents.  Their Honours raised concerns of the use of AI and opined, in the context of the use of AI by legal professionals, that they have specific ethical obligations to ensure that the written material placed before the Court is accurate.  Further, inputting Court documents into an open AI program may fall foul of the provisions of the Family Law Act which prohibit publication of proceedings.  This would apply to legal professionals and self-represented litigants alike.

This was an appeal by the applicant father in respect of Division 2 proceedings, where Orders were made in his absence after the appellant was essentially evicted from the Court room.  That matter had proceeded to trial commencing on 8 May 2025 after several adjournments necessitated by continued non-compliance by the appellant.  At trial the appellant was represented pursuant to a section 102NA grant of aid.  Whilst being cross-examined the appellant repeatedly interrupted opposing Counsel and he received several warnings from the trial judge, who he also interrupted repeatedly.  This culminated in a direction from the trial Judge that he may not be permitted to continue with his evidence if the appellant could not adhere to her guidance and directions.  The appellant’s conduct worsened and at times he would scream his answers to questions from opposing Counsel.  Her Honour took short adjournments and on one occasion the appellant spoke with a court support officer however, he was still not able to conduct himself in an acceptable manner and resorted to addressing the respondent directly whilst he was in the witness box.  The trial Judge then Ordered the appellant to leave the Court and the trial proceeded in his absence and Orders made.

The appellant seeks to appeal those Orders made in his absence on a number of grounds. Including, inter alia:

Denial of procedural fairness – their Honours found that the appellant had forfeited his right to participate in the trial by his own conduct and had received fair warning of this possibility.  This ground was therefore not established.

Disparaging remarks and apparent bias – the appellant alleged that both opposing counsel and counsel for the ICL made disparaging and misleading comments about him and that the trial Judge ought to have intervened but did not.  He gave no examples in his appeal documents.  This ground was not established.

Failure to consider the appellant’s evidence – there had been adjournments to allow the appellant to rectify his non-compliance with trial directions, he had filed an Affidavit and was permitted to provide an aide memoire at the trial.  This ground was not established.

Ignoring the appellant’s urgent application – the appellant had filed an application in a proceeding for interim parenting orders less than two months prior to the scheduled trial which was therefore listed on that date.  The appellant asserts that this application, seeking a reversal of residence in respect of the subject child, ought to have been listed on an immediate basis.  This ground was not established.

Systemic barriers to participation – this ground related to the fact that the appellant had been incarcerated at times during the litigation however, the matter had been adjourned to accommodate that position and the appellant was not incarcerated in the months leading up to the litigation.  The appellant’s complaint here was, in fact, statute barred.  This ground was not established.

Flawed and one-sided Family Report – the appellant could not participate in the preparation of the report as he was incarcerated.  This was acknowledged by the Report Writer and a concession made as to its limitations.  This ground was not established.

Reliance on unverified or incomplete “evidence” – this related to the tender of documents produced on subpoena by Victoria Police and Corrections Victoria.  The appellant’s position was that the records were not the most up to date records and that he had not been convicted on all charges.  It was evident from the trial Judge’s findings that she had only considered convictions and other objective evidence of family violence such as the appellants messages attached to bank transfers to the respondent.  This ground was not established.

Alteration of affidavits and false allegations – no objection was taken at trial to the affidavit evidence of the respondent.  This ground was not established.

Ignored evidence supporting the appellant (selective omission) – this related to an assertion by the appellant that the respondent had conceded, on 24 September 2024, come eight months prior to the trial, that she did not remind the child of the appellant.  There was no admissible evidence at trial of this alleged admission however in circumstances where the respondent and child had fled the home following family violence and had essentially been ‘in hiding’ since, there would have been no requirement for the trial Judge to place any weight on that concession.  This ground was not established.

The appeal was dismissed.