Many parents assume that if a child wants to speak directly to the judge deciding their future, the Court will arrange for that to happen. It is a common question, particularly from older children who want to understand why someone they have never met will make important decisions about where they live and how much time they spend with each parent.
A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Peppi & Hanieh [2026] FedCFamC1F 147, highlights that the answer is not as straightforward as many people expect.
The Child’s Request
The case involved two children, aged nine and seven. Before the parenting trial began, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) made an application asking the Court to allow the older child to meet the judge.
Importantly, the request was not made so that the child could give evidence or tell the judge what parenting arrangements he wanted.
Instead, the child simply wanted to meet the person who would be making decisions about his future.
According to the evidence before the Court, the child explained that he did not think he could trust someone to make such important decisions if he had never met them. He was not concerned that his views would not be heard. Rather, he wanted reassurance from meeting the judge.
It was a thoughtful and mature request from a nine-year-old.
Why the Court Refused the Application
Justice Behrens expressed genuine sympathy for the child and acknowledged how understandable his request was.
However, judges can only exercise powers that Parliament has given them. The Court found that there was no provision in the legislation or the Court Rules authorising a judge to meet a child simply to provide reassurance or explain the Court process.
The Court considered several possible sources of power, including sections 100B and 102NJ of the Family Law Act 1975, but concluded that none authorised the meeting sought by the ICL.
Because the Court found it had no power to make the order, the application was dismissed.
Even If the Court Had the Power…
Justice Behrens went on to explain that, even if such a power existed, she would have been reluctant to exercise it without evidence from an appropriately qualified child expert that the meeting would be in the child’s best interests.
The Court identified a number of potential risks, including:
- the child saying something that could affect the judge’s decision-making;
- the child becoming distressed;
- another child feeling excluded or treated differently;
- parents seeking to rely on the child’s reaction after the meeting; and
- creating unrealistic expectations about the judge’s role.
These concerns demonstrate why Australian family law generally avoids placing children directly into the litigation process.
How Children’s Voices Are Heard
The decision does not mean children’s views are ignored.
Australian family law provides several mechanisms to ensure children’s voices are heard in an age-appropriate way without requiring them to meet the judge directly.
These can include:
- an Independent Children’s Lawyer;
- family reports prepared by psychologists or social workers;
- reports from other appropriately qualified experts; and
- evidence about the child’s views gathered through those professionals.
The Court also referred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court’s Kids’ Corner resources, which are designed to help children better understand the Court process.
A Compassionate Judgment
One of the most striking aspects of the judgment is the compassion shown by Justice Behrens.
Her Honour described the child as “remarkable”, noting the courage it took to make the request and observing that he was motivated not by wanting to influence the outcome, but by wanting to build trust in the person making decisions about his life.
Recognising that she could not meet with him, the Court instead ordered that:
- the Independent Children’s Lawyer explain the outcome to the child;
- the ICL be permitted to read parts of the judgment to him if appropriate; and
- the child’s therapist receive a copy of the reasons if that would assist in supporting him.
The judgment demonstrates that while judges must act within the limits of the law, they remain acutely aware of the emotional impact that family law proceedings can have on children.
What This Means for Parents
Parents are often surprised to learn that children do not usually speak directly with the judge deciding their case.
Instead, the Court seeks to protect children from becoming participants in parental conflict while ensuring their views are still properly considered through independent professionals.
Every parenting case is different, and the way a child’s views are presented to the Court will depend on factors such as the child’s age, maturity, and the issues in dispute.
Obtaining appropriate legal advice early can help parents understand how the Court is likely to approach their particular circumstances.
Need Advice About Parenting Proceedings?
If you are involved in parenting proceedings and have questions about how your child’s wishes may be considered by the Court, Powell Family Law can provide practical advice tailored to your family’s circumstances. We can explain the role of Independent Children’s Lawyers, family reports, and other evidence commonly relied upon by the Court, and help you navigate the parenting process with confidence.
