Carpenter and Carpenter

In *Carpenter & Carpenter*, the mother sought a stay of final parenting orders made by the Family Court of Australia, pending her appeal against those orders. Alternatively, she sought a stay of orders concerning the youngest child and an order preventing the father from changing the older children's schools. The court was required to determine whether to grant the stay or the alternative orders sought by the mother.

The central legal issues were whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success and, if so, whether a stay was warranted considering the paramountcy of the children's welfare. The court also had to consider the significant delay in hearing the appeal and the potential for a retrial, as well as the specific terms of the mother's alternative applications, some of which were beyond the court's power to order. The court applied the principles established in *Clemett & Clemett* and reinforced in *JRN & IEG* and *K & B*, which emphasise the welfare of the child as the primary consideration, the need for stability, and the importance of the appeal having substantial grounds and not being a mere delaying tactic.

The court found that while the mother's appeal was bona fide, it did not appear to have reasonable prospects of success, particularly given the extensive findings of fact made after a six-day trial. The court noted that the delay in hearing the appeal was substantial, making a stay for a prolonged period potentially detrimental to the children's stability. Furthermore, some of the alternative orders sought by the mother, such as requiring the father to reside within a specific distance of the children's school, were not within the court's power to grant. The court also observed that the mother's proposed changes to the children's living arrangements, particularly the separation of siblings, had not been agitated during the trial and would represent a significant departure from the existing orders.

Consequently, the mother's application for a stay was dismissed. The court also dismissed oral applications for costs made by the respondent father and the Independent Children's Lawyer.