Adams and Adams

In the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne, Justice Bennett presided over proceedings between Mrs Adams (the applicant) and Mr Adams (the respondent). The dispute concerned parenting orders, and the immediate issue before the court was the respondent husband's disruptive and abusive behaviour during the hearing. The husband had repeatedly made applications for the judge's disqualification and had addressed the court in a discourteous and insulting manner, including telling the judge to "shut up" on multiple occasions.

The court was required to determine the appropriate course of action to manage the husband's unacceptable conduct while ensuring the proceedings could continue in the best interests of the child. Specifically, the court had to decide whether to restrict the husband's participation in the proceedings and, if so, to what extent, considering the principles of natural justice and the paramountcy of the child's welfare. The court also had to address the husband's application for the judge's disqualification based on an alleged conflict of interest arising from the judge's past representation of the Department of Human Services.

Justice Bennett reasoned that the husband's behaviour had escalated and was intended to offend and flout the authority of the court, rather than to advance any legitimate point relevant to the case. Citing precedent, the court held that while the right to be heard is fundamental, it can be qualified where its unqualified application would frustrate the purpose of the jurisdiction, particularly in matters concerning the welfare of a child. The judge found that the husband's behaviour precluded him from taking an active role in the proceedings as far as being heard was concerned, and that his applications for disqualification were not made out. The court adopted the reasoning from *C & C & Ors* [2006] FamCA 770, finding that the husband's behaviour would not improve and was intended to derail the proceedings.

Consequently, the court ordered that the husband's participation in the proceedings be restricted to observing and hearing them by video relay from another location, with his microphone muted. This restriction would remain in place until further order, and the husband was granted liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order by making a written application supported by an affidavit deposing that he would conduct himself in a civil and orderly manner. The court also reserved liberty to apply generally and made specific arrangements for the husband's needs, such as using the lavatory. The application for disqualification was dismissed.