Jelbart and Ganzer

In the matter of *Jelbart and Ganzer*, heard by Judge Neville, the dispute concerned interim consent orders relating to the welfare of children. The parties were required to present an agreed Minute of Interim Consent Orders to the Court, or in the alternative, the Court would make orders based on the Father's application, which aligned with the recommendations of a Family Report.

The central legal issue before the Court was to determine the appropriate interim orders for the children, taking into account the recommendations of a Family Consultant and the passage of time since the report was released. The Court needed to decide whether the parties could reach an agreement on these orders, or if it would need to impose its own orders based on the existing report and the Father's proposed terms.

Judge Neville's reasoning focused on facilitating an agreement between the parties that reflected the Family Consultant's recommendations, adjusted for the eight months that had elapsed since the report's release. The Court indicated that if the parties could not agree, it would make orders in Chambers that substantially mirrored the Family Report's recommendations, with necessary temporal adjustments. The Court's approach underscored the importance of child welfare and the court's role in ensuring timely and appropriate arrangements for children in family law proceedings.