HUMPHREY & HUMPHREY

In the matter of *Humphrey & Humphrey*, Judge Scarlett of the Family Court of Australia considered an application to vary earlier interim parenting orders. The dispute concerned the parenting arrangements for two children, with a final hearing scheduled for September 2014. The court found the application to vary the existing orders to be misconceived, deeming the evidence presented insufficient to justify any alteration or discharge of the current parenting arrangements.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the existing interim parenting orders should be varied or discharged, and the necessity of appointing an Independent Children’s Lawyer to represent the children's interests. The court was required to assess the evidence in light of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and determine the appropriate course of action for the children's representation.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the application to vary the interim orders lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The court applied the principle that interim orders should not be lightly discharged or varied without compelling reasons, particularly when a final hearing is imminent. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to vary the orders. Furthermore, in accordance with section 68L of the Family Law Act 1975, the court determined that the interests of the children required independent representation and ordered the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer, requesting Legal Aid New South Wales to arrange this.

The court ordered the dismissal of the Application in a Case and the Response to an Application in a Case. It directed the parties to provide relevant documentation to the appointed Independent Children’s Lawyer and granted the lawyer leave to issue subpoenas without charge. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was also granted liberty to apply to relist the matter, and the application was otherwise adjourned to 10 September 2014 for the final hearing.