MADAR & MCCORMACK

In the matter of *Madar & McCormack*, heard by Judge Heffernan, the dispute concerned interim parenting orders in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The father sought to vary existing orders regarding his time with the child, contending that these orders were inconsistent with a direction issued under a State Emergency Management Plan.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the existing parenting orders, specifically order 9(d) made on 20 April 2020, were rendered inconsistent or otherwise required amendment due to the State Direction issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court was tasked with determining the operative effect of the State Direction on pre-existing family law parenting arrangements.

Judge Heffernan reasoned that the existing orders were not inconsistent with the State Direction. The court found no basis to amend the prior orders, implicitly determining that the State Direction did not override or invalidate the specific parenting arrangements previously agreed upon or ordered. Consequently, the court made no order amending the existing parenting arrangements.

The final orders of the court were that there be no order amending order 9(d) of the orders of 20 April 2020, and there be no order as to costs.