On a family law motion arising from an interim custody, access, restraining order, and child support endorsement, the responding spouse sought a stay pending a proposed appeal.
The court held that leave to appeal had to be sought in the Divisional Court, but considered the request for a stay under rule 38(35) of the Family Law Rules.
Applying the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience test, the court stayed only the supervised-access provision because it had not been requested in the original motion materials and would significantly disrupt the children's relationship with their father.
The restraining, custody, and child support aspects of the order were not stayed.
Alternate weekend access was ordered on an interim basis, and no costs were awarded.
