Safety Will Always Prevail: Lessons from Walshe & Walshe about Interim Parenting Orders

Written By: Simran Suvarna

Introduction:

The recent decision in Walshe & Walshe [2025] FedCFamC1A 231 reinforces that, in complex parenting matters, ensuring the safety of children takes priority, regardless of the stage the matter is at.

The Facts:

This parties married in 2018 and had a child together in 2019. They then separated on a final basis in 2023. Parenting arrangements evolved gradually, with the father’s time with child progressing from supervised visits to unsupervised, overnight time. These arrangements were made by way of interim consent orders despite the mother having previously made allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, sexual misconduct toward her, physical assault upon her older son, and concerns about the father’s parenting behaviour.

However, in 2024, concerning disclosures were made by the child about pain in her genital area. This triggered the mother to seek extensive medical examinations and police involvement that resulted a no-contact provisional ADVO being issued. In July 2024, a no-contact order was made and the father’s time with the child ceased completely.

The Appeal:

The father later filed an interlocutory application seeking professionally supervised time with the child. The father denied all wrongdoing and contended that the child’s presentation and disclosures had been influenced by the mother. The primary ground for his appeal was that serious allegations that were being disputed, especially those amounting to sexual abuse or risk, should be decided at a final hearing when all relevant evidence was before the Court. He submitted that the primary judge gone beyond the role of making an interim assessment and had instead made an impermissible factual determination.

The Result:

The Court firmly rejected this argument, and the appeal was dismissed in the first instance, with the father having to pay the mother’s costs.

The Reasoning:

Campton J clarified that a judge was not prohibited from making factual assessments on an interlocutory basis merely because the evidence was contested. Rather, they must deal with the controversial evidence cautiously, acknowledge that final findings would be made later, and evaluate credible evidence of risk and whether the proposed arrangements would ensure the child’s safety for the time being.

It was reiterated that the primary judge had not overstepped their authority by making a final finding that the father had had sexually abused the child or posed an unacceptable risk, as required at trial. Rather, the required interim risk assessment was undertaken and it was decided that, on the current state of the evidence, it could not be established that reintroducing time would promote the child’s safety.

What it Means?

This decision serves as an important reminder that interim hearings are critical decision points in a case and still involve real evaluation, including the assessing of evidence that is in dispute. This is particularly the case in complex parenting matters. The Court is tasked with weighing risk in real time and will always treat the safety of children as the paramount objective, even before the matter reaches a final hearing. Accordingly, no positive finding of unacceptable risk is needed for contact to be refused and mere uncertainty about a child’s safety in the interim stages can suffice in warranting such a decision.