Allum & Ervin

In the matter of *Allum & Ervin*, heard by Hannam J, the dispute concerned the terms of a report to be prepared by a family therapist, Ms B. The father, Mr Allum, supported the terms proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL), while the mother, Ms Ervin, opposed them. The court was asked to determine whether it was appropriate for Ms B to prepare a report in accordance with the ICL's proposed terms of reference, which focused on the family's therapeutic engagement.

The central legal issue before the court was the scope and content of the family therapist's report. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the report should address the commencement and chronology of therapy, the methods of conducting and continuing therapy, and the progress of therapy in relation to improving the parents' co-parenting capacity and supporting the child's reintegration with the father. The court also considered the allocation of costs for the report and the therapist's attendance at a hearing, as well as any limitations on the information Ms B should receive or include in her report.

Hannam J reasoned that it was appropriate for Ms B to prepare a report in accordance with the terms sought by the ICL. The court ordered that the report should detail the therapy's commencement, chronology, methodology, and progress, particularly concerning the parents' co-parenting abilities and the child's relationship with the father. The court also directed that Legal Aid NSW would initially meet the costs of the report and any attendance for cross-examination, noting a fee estimate provided by Ms B. Furthermore, Ms B was instructed not to include settlement negotiations in her report and was to receive no additional material from the parties unless by consent or court order.