CURTAIN & FINCH

This matter concerned parenting orders for three children, H, S, and W, before the Family Court of Australia. The applicant mother sought an adjournment of the final hearing, which was opposed by the respondent father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The dispute involved allegations of emotional harm to H, potential sexual abuse, and the mother's conduct in making numerous allegations.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for an adjournment of the final hearing, and whether to make interim parenting orders by consent. Additionally, the court considered the father's application for costs associated with the adjournment. The primary legal issue was the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the unavailability of a key witness, the Family Consultant, for cross-examination.

Justice Thornton reasoned that despite the mother's lack of readiness and the father's and Independent Children's Lawyer's opposition to an adjournment, the trial could not proceed due to the Family Consultant's unavailability. Consequently, the court adjourned the trial to a later date and made procedural orders to prepare for a five-day hearing. The court dismissed the father's application for costs, finding no circumstances under section 117(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to justify an order against the mother, particularly given the adjournment was necessitated by the witness's unavailability.

By consent, the court made interim parenting orders, discharging previous orders and varying the father's time with the children to include alternate weekends and half of school holidays, with supervision by nominated individuals. These orders were deemed to be in the best interests of the children for the interim period.