Hawthorne and Pallai

In the matter of *Hawthorne and Pallai*, heard before Judge Hartnett, the dispute concerned the interpretation and enforcement of existing consent orders regarding school holiday time with the parties' two children, born in 2001 and 2002. The mother had filed an Amended Initiating Application on 5 December 2013, and the father had filed a Response on 1 August 2013, both seeking variations or clarifications of the original orders made on 16 January 2007.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the consent orders of 16 January 2007, which stipulated that school holiday time with the father was to occur with his "substantial attendance," required his physical presence with the children during those periods. The court was asked to determine the meaning of "substantial attendance" in the context of the existing orders and to decide whether the mother's application to discharge a specific part of those orders, and the father's application, should be granted.

Judge Hartnett reasoned that the phrase "substantial attendance" in the context of the 2007 consent orders implied the father's physical presence and active involvement with the children during school holidays. The court discharged order number 6a)ii) of the 16 January 2007 orders, and in its place, ordered that all school holiday time with the father must involve his substantial attendance, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the mother. If the father was unable to attend substantially, the children were to remain with the mother. The court dismissed the mother's amended initiating application and the father's application, noting that the original orders, as varied, would continue in full force and effect.