Goldman and Goldman (No 4)

In the matter of *Goldman and Goldman (No 4)*, Cleary J considered an application by the appellant father for a stay of parenting and property orders made on 23 June 2017, pending the determination of his appeal. The dispute involved complex arrangements concerning the children's contact with the respondent mother and the division of matrimonial property.

The court was required to determine whether to grant a stay of specific parenting orders, which included an initial period of no contact between the mother and children followed by a phased reintroduction of contact, and whether to grant a stay of property orders. The parenting orders stipulated a minimum of four weeks of no contact, followed by supervised contact in a contact centre and then by a known person, before unsupervised daytime contact could commence. The property orders offered the mother the option to acquire the father's interest in the matrimonial property or otherwise facilitate its sale.

Regarding the parenting orders, Cleary J reasoned that suspending the operation of the order for unsupervised time pending appeal would achieve a balance between the emotional safety of the child and the maintenance of the relationship between the child and the respondent mother. For the property orders, the court granted a stay, noting the father's concern about potential bank foreclosure and the risk that a sale or transfer to a third party would render the appeal nugatory.

Consequently, pending the hearing and determination of the father's appeal, Order 12(b) was varied by suspending the words "for a period of six months and thereafter," and Order 12(c) was suspended. Orders 23 to 26 inclusive and Order 28(d) were also suspended. The father's application filed on 10 August 2017 was withdrawn and dismissed, while his application filed on 21 July 2017 was adjourned.