THORNTON & THORNTON

In *Thornton & Thornton*, the applicant father sought to vary existing parenting orders to permit him to attend his children's school. The mother alleged the father had sexually abused the children, a claim the trial judge had determined did not place the children at an unacceptable risk in the father's care. The Full Court had reserved its judgment on an appeal concerning these matters.

The central legal issue before Forrest J was whether the father, who was not currently in the children's care (whether supervised or otherwise), should be permitted to attend the children's school, particularly in the absence of any express entitlement in an existing order or parenting plan.

Forrest J dismissed the father's application. The reasoning appears to have been that, in the context of the ongoing appeal to the Full Court and the absence of any current care arrangements or express orders permitting such attendance, the application was not warranted. The court implicitly applied principles concerning the best interests of the child and the need for clear orders governing parental involvement, especially where serious allegations have been made and are subject to appeal.

The applicant's Application in a Case filed 2 December 2015 was dismissed.