What is the difference between an interim order made at a conference and a final order after trial?

An interim order is a temporary arrangement, typically made at a conference or on a motion, meant to manage a specific issue, such as support, parenting time, or possession of a home, while the broader case is still working its way through the court process — it's generally based on limited evidence, such as affidavits, rather than a full evidentiary hearing, and is understood by everyone, including the judge, to be provisional rather than a lasting resolution. A final order, by contrast, is the court's ultimate decision on the issues in dispute. It can follow a full hearing or trial, where evidence is properly presented and tested, including through cross-examination, and it can also be made on consent or at a conference.

Because interim orders are based on more limited information, they're generally easier to revisit as the case progresses, either by agreement, a further motion if there's been a genuine change in circumstances, or ultimately at trial, than a final order is, which normally can only be changed later through an appeal or a properly brought motion to change showing a material change in circumstances since it was made. Understanding this distinction matters practically, since an interim arrangement shouldn't be assumed to permanently lock in an outcome the way a final order does.