Cotter and Harry

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Cotter (the mother) applied for a stay of interim orders made by Justice Cronin, pending her appeal against those orders. The respondent was Mr Harry (the father). The Independent Children's Lawyer did not support the mother's application for a stay. The Director-General, Department of Family and Community Services, intervened in the proceedings to assess the child's best interests.

The court was required to determine whether there were reasonable grounds for the mother's appeal against Justice Cronin's interim orders, which had varied existing orders for the child to spend time with her father and dismissed the father's interim application for the child to live with him. The mother's grounds of appeal included claims that the application dealt with by Justice Cronin was not before him, that she was unable to respond to the father's application, that the Independent Children's Lawyer had not re-interviewed the child, and that Justice Cronin had erred in finding the Department of Human Services had no concerns for the child's welfare.

Justice Watts found that the mother's grounds of appeal lacked merit. The court determined that the mother's application for suspension of orders was clearly before Justice Cronin, and the father's interim application had been effectively dismissed, negating the mother's complaint. The court also accepted the Independent Children's Lawyer's submission that further interviews with the child were unnecessary and potentially harmful. Furthermore, Justice Watts clarified that Justice Cronin had not found the Department had no concerns, but rather inferred their deferral to the court's decision. Consequently, Justice Watts dismissed the mother's application for a stay of the interim orders, confirming that the 2009 orders, as varied by Justice Cronin, remained in effect. The court also granted the Department of Human Services leave to access subpoenaed and exhibited material.