Sherlock and Lusby

In *Sherlock & Lusby*, the Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application by Ms. Sherlock (the applicant mother) for interim orders concerning her young child, M. The respondent father, Mr. Lusby, did not appear at the hearing, and the matter proceeded ex parte. The court was asked to determine whether to grant interim orders for M to live with her mother and to consider the appointment of an independent children's lawyer and the intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to proceed ex parte, given the urgent nature of the application and allegations of family violence, and what interim orders were in M's best interests. The court also considered its obligations under section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) when making interim decisions, particularly in urgent and ex parte circumstances, referencing the principles outlined in *Goode v Goode*.

Justice O’Reilly reasoned that proceeding ex parte was justified due to disturbing evidence of severe family violence by the father, which raised concerns for the safety of the mother and child if notice were given. While acknowledging the inability to make factual findings without hearing from the father, the court found, on an interim basis, that M should live with her mother to ensure her safety and protection. The court also ordered the urgent independent representation of M's interests, requesting Legal Aid Queensland to arrange this, and requested the intervention of the Director-General under section 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The matter was adjourned to a specific date for further consideration, with directions for service of documents and the father's response.