Rilak and Tsocas (No 4)

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Loughnan considered applications by the mother concerning interim parenting orders, a single expert witness, and interim property settlement. The mother sought a stay of an interim order that altered the living arrangements for the parties' five-year-old daughter, specifically regarding her time spent with the father. She also sought the removal of the single expert and an interim property settlement payment of $50,000 from the father.

The court was required to determine whether to grant a stay of the interim parenting orders, despite acknowledging the mother's bona fide concerns. It also had to consider the mother's application to remove the single expert and her oral application for the child to be referred to an organisation dealing with victims of child abuse. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the mother's claim for an interim property settlement payment of $50,000 from the father.

Justice Loughnan dismissed the mother's application for a stay of the interim parenting orders, finding it not appropriate in the circumstances. The application for interim property settlement was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence regarding the source of funds from which the payment could be made, referencing the principles in *Strahan & Strahan* (2009) FLC 93-414. The court ordered the Independent Children’s Lawyer to provide copies of correspondence with the Joint Investigative Response Team and a document evidencing the qualifications of the single expert, Dr C. Leave was granted for the father to make an oral application restraining the mother from referring the child to a specified organisation without prior written notice to the father's solicitor and the ICL, which was then ordered until further order. All outstanding interim applications by the mother were adjourned to the resumed final trial.