HALL & HALL

In *Hall & Hall*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by both the mother and the father concerning interim arrangements for their children. The mother had ceased the children's supervised time with the father, citing allegations of violence. The father sought to enforce the existing orders for supervised time, while the mother requested a suspension of this time, the preparation of a further report, and the appointment of an independent supervisor.

The court was required to determine whether to continue the existing supervised time arrangements or to suspend them as sought by the mother. A key issue was the admissibility of evidence the mother sought to rely upon, specifically concerning the father's alleged past behaviour, and whether this evidence was more prejudicial than probative under the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The court also considered the overarching principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) regarding the best interests of the children and the enforcement of court orders.

Berman J dismissed both the mother's and the father's applications. The reasoning involved a careful balancing of the children's need for time with their father against the mother's concerns and the admissibility of the evidence presented. The court ultimately found that the mother's application to suspend supervised time was not made out, and the father's application for strict compliance was also dismissed, indicating a decision to maintain the status quo pending further information. The court ordered the father to file an affidavit from a Ms N within 14 days and adjourned the matter for further consideration.