From my experience in the Australian Family Court in Canberra, I've found it to be quite challenging. It seems some judges may leverage their authority in ways that favour their acquaintances in the legal field, often to the detriment of fathers. Decisions often appear to be based on conjecture rather than certainty. There is no fairness in this court, especially 

A family court judge dismissed a single signature expert report because it could help the father's parents' case to claim back their business that was fraudulent by the mother and her parents, and he treated loans from the father's parents as direct father contributions. Although the mother's parents did not participate in the proceedings, the judge permitted them to take money and benefits from the businesses. Moreover, the mother used business funds to pay for her legal fees, violating the judge's order, but this issue was ignored. The mother's documents were almost all subpoenaed, uncovering discrepancies in the business tax returns; however, the judge still accepted this inaccurate information, showing bias towards the mother's side. This judge also seemed to favour his acquaintances, including the mother's lawyers and barristers, by allowing incomplete disclosures. Given this judge's performance and representation of the Australian Family Court, it raises concerns about the court's ability to impartially address issues like perjury, fraud, tax evasion, and potential money laundering.

In his final judgment, the judge used eloquent language to undermine the father and his parents’ rights and the truth. Concerns were raised about the father's credibility; however, I suggest a more thorough investigation involving discussions with the father's colleagues, friends, and others to uncover the truth, rather than relying on potentially fabricated narratives from lawyers. 

The independent lawyer assigned to the children was ineffective, using speculative questioning techniques in cross-examining the father, making it difficult for him to provide clear answers. I would repeat my previous response, but honestly, your questions are based so heavily on hypotheticals that they're almost impossible to answer definitively. Anything could happen in the future; it's all uncertain.

Meanwhile, the father brought up serious concerns about the children being neglected, abused, and harassed by the mother's boyfriend and friends. Yet, when these issues were raised, authorities like CYPS and the police unfairly accused the father of manipulating the children for his own benefit in the case. The children's lawyer, CYPS, and the mother's barrister all questioned the father's trust in his children in a manner that seemed to doubt his sincerity.

I hope that one day my children will be able to hold accountable those who wronged their father and sue their mother and those associated with the implications of their actions. 

On a different note, I've started a new family, and I'm experiencing joy with my new children.