URWIN & NEVINS

In the matter of *Urwin & Nevins*, the father applied to Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia to discharge an order that had suspended the operation of interim parenting orders. These interim orders had provided for the children to spend supervised time with the father. The suspension of the parenting orders was initially put in place because the father had been charged with sexual offences against the children's half-sister, and his trial for these alleged offences was listed for May 2021.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the discharge of the existing order suspending his supervised time with the children, particularly in light of the ongoing criminal proceedings against him. The court was required to consider the welfare and best interests of the children in determining whether to lift the suspension of the parenting orders.

Hogan J dismissed the father's application. While the judgment does not detail the specific reasoning, it is implicit that the court found that the father had not met the onus required to discharge the suspension order. The ongoing criminal charges, which were serious in nature and related to the children's half-sister, likely weighed heavily on the court's assessment of the children's safety and welfare. The court's decision to maintain the suspension of the parenting orders prioritised the protection of the children pending the outcome of the criminal trial.

The application filed by the father on 17 September 2020 was dismissed.