Hurle & Greves

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by a mother for an urgent stay of interim parenting orders made by Senior Registrar Hayward. The mother sought to stay orders that would have permitted her two-year-old daughter, X, to commence unsupervised time with her father from 29 May 2021, pending a review of those orders. The mother's primary concern was the potential risk posed by the father's alleged paraphilia infantilism and associated online activities, as well as concerns about his alcohol consumption.

The legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application for a stay of the interim parenting orders. In determining this, the court was required to apply the principles established in *Aldridge & Keaton* [2009] FamCAFC 106, which outline the criteria for granting a stay. These principles include the onus on the applicant to establish the stay, the entitlement of a judgment holder to the benefit of the judgment, the presumption of its correctness, and that the mere filing of an appeal is insufficient. The court also considered the bona fides of the applicant, the possibility of granting a stay on terms, the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, a preliminary assessment of the appeal's strength, the desirability of limiting changes to a child's living arrangements, the child's best interests (though not paramount in a stay application), and the timeframe for the appeal hearing.

Justice Henderson reasoned that the mother had established sufficient merit for a stay, particularly given the short period until the review hearing (approximately two months) and the child's young age. The court noted that not granting the stay would render the mother's review nugatory, as the unsupervised time would have commenced. While acknowledging that the child's best interests were not paramount in a stay application, they weighed heavily on the court's decision. The court found the mother to be bona fide in her concerns, and that issues raised regarding the father's adult choices potentially posing a risk to the child required further investigation. Consequently, the court granted the stay on terms that the existing supervised time orders would continue until 19 June 2021, after which the father would have six hours of supervised time per week, with the parents sharing the cost of supervision. The matter was then transferred to another judge for the allocation of a hearing date for the review application.