Meidner [2025] FedCFamC1A 224, was an attempted appeal by the father, determined by His Honour, Campton J, on 11 December 2025, in Chambers on the papers.  Because orders had been made on final hearing by the trial judge, declaring the father a vexatious litigant – more commonly known as a Harmful Proceedings order – it was necessary to file an Application in an Appeal, seeking leave to file the actual Appeal.

There had been consent orders made in 2022 that were simply not working and the matter had returned to Court.  In the proceedings of, Vallario & Meidner [2025] FedCFamC2F 1275, from which the father sought to appeal, final orders were made  by the trial Judge on 17 September 2025, providing for no physical time between the three children of the relationship – X born late 2010, Y born late 2014 and Z born early 2016, as well as s68B and s114 Injunctions against the father.  The older children were male, the youngest female.  That was after a campaign by the father, assisted by a former partner of the father and the paternal grandparents, of, inter alia, either removing at least one of the children at a time or facilitating them ‘absconding’ from the mother and making their way either to the father or the home of the paternal grandparents; purchasing a phone for X, without the mother’s knowledge or consent, and using it as a tracking device.  Several Recovery Orders had been issued along the way, which weren’t always able to be executed, and the paternal grandmother was eventually joined to the proceedings.

In those earlier proceedings, the Chapter 7 Expert described the father as presenting with:

…entrenched personality traits (including manipulativeness and impaired empathy) likely to perpetuate harmful behaviours and that he lacked insight into the impact of his conduct on the children[1].

The Trial Judge further opined that:

The cumulation of the findings directed the conclusion that any time spent by the children with the father or communication with him would expose them to an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to their safety, to their sibling relationship and their relationship with the mother and the maternal family, would destabilise their education and other relationships, and perpetuate a destructive dynamic such that no safeguards or condition could adequately mitigate that risk[2]

His Honour, Campton J, concluded that:

The grounds of appeal are deprived of merit. Lacking any ‘reasonable ground’, the appeal is vexatious and so the application for leave to bring it must be dismissed.[3]

[1] Vallario & Meidner [2025] FedCFamC2F 1275 at [207]

[2] At [242]

[3] Meidner [2025] FedCFamC1A 224 at [60]