Rowe and Helbig (No 2)

In *Rowe and Helbig (No 2)*, Austin J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the mother and the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) concerning interim parenting orders that had reversed the residence of two children. The mother sought a stay of these orders, or alternatively, fresh orders for the children to reside with her or their maternal grandparents. The ICL sought orders compelling a Family Consultant to assist the father in implementing the existing interim orders. The father sought costs against the mother.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother's application to stay or vary the existing interim parenting orders, and whether to make orders sought by the ICL to facilitate the implementation of those orders. The court also considered the father's application for costs.

Austin J dismissed the mother's application, reasoning that rupturing the children's current residence with the father and moving them to live with either the mother or the maternal grandparents would not likely be in their best interests, particularly as such a move would be a temporary measure until the final hearing. The court found the ICL's proposal for orders to ensure satisfactory implementation of the existing interim orders to be superior and made orders pursuant to s 68L of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to facilitate this. The father's application for costs was dismissed, as the hearing provided the mother with procedural fairness to be heard regarding the previously made ex-parte interim orders.