Pedrana& Roberts (No 2)

In *Pedrana & Roberts (No 2)*, Cronin J considered an application by the father for interim orders and substantive relief concerning the care of a child, M. The mother had also filed an application under s 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether to grant the father's application for interim orders, and if not, under what conditions the father's amended application for substantive relief should be adjourned for final hearing. Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's application under s 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Cronin J dismissed the father's application for interim orders. The court adjourned the father's amended application for substantive relief and the mother's response to a date to be fixed for final hearing, but only upon the fulfilment of specific conditions. These conditions included the father filing and serving a comprehensive psychiatric report addressing anger management issues relevant to the child's care, and evidence from an expert child psychologist, nominated by the Independent Children's Lawyer, detailing how any reintroduction program for the father and child should be undertaken. The mother's application under s 102Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) was otherwise dismissed.