SHELBOURNE & SHELBOURNE

In the matter of *Shelbourne & Shelbourne*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications by the mother for interim parenting and property orders. The proceedings involved competing allegations of family violence between the parents, and registered overseas orders concerning two of the children. The court also addressed the admissibility of video recordings made by the father.

The primary legal issues before the court were: whether to make interim parenting orders given the welfare of the children would be adversely affected if no orders were made; the appropriate form of supervised time for the children with the mother; the mother's need for funds and spousal maintenance; and the admissibility of video recordings made by the father, specifically in relation to section 7 of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW).

Rees J determined that interim parenting orders were necessary for the welfare of the children, particularly in light of registered overseas orders and an apprehended domestic violence order that would otherwise prevent the mother from spending time with two of the children. The court found that the video recordings made by the father were reasonably necessary for the protection of his lawful interests and were not unfairly prejudicial, thus admitting them into evidence. Regarding property, the court acknowledged the mother's demonstrated need for funds and ordered the father to pay a total of $50,000 by way of interim property settlement and $300 per week for spousal maintenance.

The court ordered that the children live with the father and spend time with the mother under supervised arrangements, with specific details regarding weekday and weekend contact. The mother's application for sole occupation of the former matrimonial home was dismissed. The father was ordered to pay the mother $20,000 within seven days and a further $30,000 within three months as interim property settlement, along with weekly spousal maintenance. The children were placed on a Watch List at all points of arrival and departure in Australia, and both parents were restrained from removing the children from the Commonwealth. The father was also restrained from showing the admitted video recordings to anyone other than his legal representatives and the appointed Single Expert.