Wall & Pearson

In the matter of *Wall & Pearson*, Berman J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Pearson (the applicant) seeking to suspend interim parenting orders and reduce the time Ms Wall (the respondent) spent with one of the children. The dispute arose following the applicant's travel with one of the children to New Zealand in March 2020, which the respondent contended was a removal from Australia without her consent and contrary to existing final consent orders made in July 2019. The respondent further alleged that she had been unable to spend time with the child since their return to Australia. The applicant expressed concerns that the child in the respondent's care posed a risk to the child in her care.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the interim orders sought by the applicant, which included suspending the final parenting orders and reducing the respondent's time with the child. Additionally, the court considered the respondent's application for an Airport Watch order for the child, the surrender of the child's passports, and restrictions on the child's removal from Adelaide. A key issue was whether the evidence supported the applicant's assertion that one child posed a significant risk to the other, a consideration relevant to the application of principles such as those discussed in *Rice v Asplund*.

Berman J dismissed the applicant's interim orders, finding that the evidence did not satisfy the threshold for establishing that one child posed a significant risk to the other. The court noted that it was not yet in a position to determine whether a permanent change to the final parenting orders was warranted. Consequently, the court made orders for the child to be placed on an Airport Watch List, re-enrolled at a specific school, and for a family assessment report to be prepared to specifically consider the parties' proposals and their respective best interests.