HARLE & NORCOTT

In the matter of *Harle & Norcott*, heard before Judge Altobelli, the dispute concerned interim parenting arrangements for the children. The Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Applicant Mother had consented to certain orders, but the Father opposed the orders specifically in relation to his time with the children.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to make the proposed interim parenting orders, notwithstanding the Father's opposition, given the consent of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Applicant Mother. The Court was required to consider the implications of making such orders and the basis upon which they could be imposed on a party who did not consent.

Judge Altobelli reasoned that while the orders were made by consent as between the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the Applicant Mother, they were being made by the Court in relation to the Father. The Court noted that the purpose of the adjourned date was to review the progress of the Father’s time spent with the children, indicating an intention to monitor the arrangements. The Court made orders in accordance with the 'Short Minutes of Orders' and included particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention pursuant to section 65DA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The proceedings were adjourned for a mention to review progress.