RIMMINGTON & HEALEY

In Rimmington & Healey, the father, Mr Rimmington, sought a stay of final orders made by Justice Watts on 19 September 2012, which included orders that the children live with their mother, Ms Healey, and that the father be restrained from spending time with or contacting the children. The father also sought to restore prior interim arrangements, specifically orders made by Justice Loughnan on 6 October 2011, which allowed for supervised contact at contact centres and communication via Skype. The application was heard in the Family Court of Australia by Justice Watts.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant a stay of the final parenting orders pending the father's appeal, and whether to restore previous interim orders for contact. In determining these issues, the court was required to consider the principles applicable to stay applications in parenting matters, including the welfare of the children, the strength of the grounds of appeal, the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, and the balance of convenience between the parties. The court also had to assess whether the father had established a proper basis for the stay, considering the bona fides of his application and the potential hardship to the mother and children if a stay were granted.

Justice Watts applied the principles established in cases such as *EJK & TSL (No. 2)* and *Aldridge & Keaton (Stay Appeal)*, emphasising that the welfare of the child is a significant consideration. The court noted that the father had not demonstrated substantial grounds for his appeal, and that refusing the stay would not render the appeal nugatory. Crucially, the court found that it would cause hardship to the mother if she were ordered to facilitate the children spending time with their father, and that it was not in the children's best interests to resume contact with him, particularly given the findings made in the final judgment regarding the mother's mental health and the children's safety.

Consequently, the father's application for a stay of the final orders and for the restoration of prior interim arrangements was dismissed. The court's decision was based on an assessment of the merits of the father's application against the established legal principles for granting a stay, with a primary focus on the best interests of the children and the well-being of the mother.