CHRONIS & CHRONIS

In proceedings before Loughnan J, the court considered interim applications concerning both children's matters and property division. The father sought overnight time with the children, while the mother sought supervised time. The dispute over children's matters arose in the absence of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and family consultant reports, but with evidence of the father's past hospitalisation due to suicidal threats, raising concerns about the children's safety if past behaviour recurred. In relation to property, the mother had withdrawn funds, prompting the father's concern about dissipation of the asset pool, which was valued at approximately $9 million. The father had responded by restricting the mother's access to joint funds.

The court was required to determine whether to appoint an Independent Children’s Lawyer and to make orders regarding the father's time with the children, balancing the father's desire for increased contact with the need to protect the children from potential harm. Regarding property, the court had to consider the appropriate interim orders, particularly concerning the withdrawn funds, and whether to intervene given the significant asset pool and the father's actions in restricting access to joint funds.

On the children's matters, the court reasoned that while no harm would necessarily come to the children if the father had supervised time, there was a risk of harm if he repeated past behaviour. Consequently, the court ordered the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer and made interim orders for the father's time with the children to be supervised by a professional third party for five hours on alternate Saturdays and specific dates, with the father to bear the costs. The father was also restrained from physically disciplining or assaulting the children, and from denigrating the mother to them. Regarding property, the court applied the principle that interim financial orders should not involve actions that cannot be undone at final hearing and should not interfere unless necessary. Given this principle and the substantial asset pool, the court made no order for the return of the withdrawn funds.