Robinson and Shannon (No. 2)

In the matter of *Robinson and Shannon (No. 2)*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the Father concerning the parenting of two children, M and B. The Father sought urgent orders, including the discharge of previous parenting orders, that the children live with him, that he have sole parental responsibility, and an injunction restraining the Mother from attending the children's schools or attempting to remove them from school. The application was made on an ex-parte basis.

The central legal issues before the court were whether to grant the Father leave to make the application without notice to the Mother, and, if so, what interim parenting orders were in the best interests of the children, M and B. The court was also required to consider the appropriate intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services in the proceedings, given their recent involvement.

Kent J granted the Father leave to proceed ex-parte, acknowledging the urgency and the potential risk to the children. The court discharged all previous parenting orders and made interim orders for the children to live with the Father and for him to have sole parental responsibility. An injunction was issued restraining the Mother from attending the children's schools or attempting to remove them. The court also requested a further Magellan Report from the Director-General and formally requested the Director-General's intervention in the proceedings pursuant to s 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), authorising the Registry Manager to permit inspection of the court file by an authorised person from the Department. The further hearing was adjourned to a specified date, with leave for parties to appear via video link, and directions were given for service of documents and provision of transcripts.