POURDIS & POURDIS

In the matter of *Pourdis & Pourdis*, Dawe J considered applications by both the mother and the father concerning interim orders in family law proceedings. The father sought to increase his supervised time with the children to include overnight periods, citing concerns about his drug use and allegations of domestic violence, as well as the potential impact of significant changes to the children's care arrangements. The mother sought interim spousal maintenance and a partial property settlement.

The court was required to determine whether to vary the existing parenting orders to allow for increased overnight time for the father, considering the paramountcy of the children's best interests as outlined in section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). This involved weighing the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect the children from harm, as well as considering various additional factors such as the children's views, the nature of the relationships with each parent, the parents' ability to facilitate a relationship with the other parent, and the likely effect of any changes in circumstances. The court also had to assess the mother's need for spousal maintenance and the father's capacity to pay, and whether it was just and equitable to make interim property settlement orders given the father's asserted lack of income but access to significant assets.

Regarding the parenting orders, the court found that a variation was not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings, and the previous orders were continued. In relation to spousal maintenance, while the mother established a need, the court was not satisfied that the father had the capacity to pay, and this application was dismissed. However, concerning the property settlement, the court was satisfied that the father was able to draw upon significant assets and financial resources, and therefore ordered that he pay $100,000 to the mother by way of interim property settlement. The remaining applications were dismissed, and the question of costs was reserved to the trial judge.