HAMMOND & HAMMOND

In the Family Court of Australia, the mother sought a stay of interim parenting orders made on 18 December 2013, pending the determination of her appeal against those orders. The father opposed the application for a stay.

The primary legal issue before Hannam J was whether to grant a stay of the interim parenting orders. In considering this application, the court was required to apply the principles established in *Aldridge & Keaton* [2009] FamCAFC 106, which involve assessing the best interests of the child, the desirability of limiting changes to the child's living arrangements, the likelihood of the appeal succeeding, and the bona fides of the applicant. The court also considered the general principle that a party who has obtained a judgment is entitled to the benefit of it, and to presume its correctness, unless and until it is set aside.

Hannam J dismissed the mother's application for a stay of the interim parenting orders. The court found that the principles set out in *Aldridge & Keaton* were not satisfied, particularly in relation to the best interests of the child and the desirability of maintaining stability in their living arrangements. The court noted that the appeal was to be heard within a short period, which weighed against the need for a stay. The applications for the judge to step aside and for an affidavit to be filed were adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal, and other related orders were stood over.