Andrewson & Trudeau
[2024] FedCFamC1F 547
•16 August 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Andrewson & Trudeau [2024] FedCFamC1F 547
File number(s): BRC 11543 of 2020 Judgment of: BAUMANN J Date of judgment: 16 August 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – INTERIM – PARENTING – Where the Director of Public Prosecutions entered a nolle prosequi in relation to all charges against the father, including offences alleged to have occurred to one of the subject children – Where the mother has a fixed belief that the father has committed an offence and is an unacceptable risk to the children – Where the children have not spent any time with the father for over three years – The father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer contend for the children to commence spending supervised time with the father – Interim orders made for the children to spend supervised time with the father Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CA
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 5.08
Cases cited: Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 56 Date of hearing: 6 August 2024 Place: Brisbane Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Bunning Solicitor for the Applicant: Damien Greer Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Drysdale Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Earl Solicitor for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Julie Harrington Solicitor ORDERS
BRC 11543 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR ANDREWSON
Applicant
AND: MS TRUDEAU
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
BAUMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That the parents and the children, X born 2012, Y born 2014 and Z born 2015 (“the children”) shall attend upon B Contact Service at Suburb C at such times and for such duration as is recommended by B Contact Service but for no more than two (2) hours per fortnight for the purposes of the children spending supervised time with the father.
2.That in order to give effect to Order 1 hereof:
(a)within seven (7) days, the parents shall do all things and sign all documents to enrol for intake at B Contact Service for the purpose of supervised time in accordance with Order l hereof, including by completing the online form found on the website and they shall specifically advise in the intake form that Ms D is aware of their case;
(b)the parents shall attend any intake sessions required by the B Contact Service at their own expense;
(c)the parents shall each pay equally the costs of attendances by the children and by the parents interviews at B Contact Service subsequent to the intake;
(d)the costs of any subpoenae issued to B Contact Service, and any reports requested by the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall be paid by the parents as and when they fall due;
(e)the parties shall attend and shall facilitate the children (or any of them) personally attending any sessions requested by B Contact Service;
(f)by these Orders the parents authorise B Contact Service to speak with the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the children’s and each of parent’s therapist, and for those persons to speak with B Contact Service as to the children’s progress as and when they consider necessary. Nothing in these Orders prevents the Independent Children’s Lawyer from communicating with B Contact Service.
3.That within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the Independent Children’s Lawyer shall provide B Contact Service with:
(a)a copy of these Orders;
(b)the family report prepared by Ms E; and
(c)the chronological summary prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
4.That the parents attend upon Dr F as and when directed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the purpose of interviews for the preparation of a psychiatric assessment by Dr F.
5.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer provide Dr F with the letter of instructions annexed to the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Application in a Proceeding filed 19 July 2024, in addition to the following material to be provided to Dr F:
(a)Copies of the material filed by the father for the family violence proceedings;
(b)The father’s affidavit filed 29 July 2024;
(c)The mother’s affidavit filed 31 July 2024; and
6.That no further documents be provided to Dr F unless he requests further information.
7.That the mother’s application for leave for the documents produced in these proceedings to be produced in the State Court proceedings be dismissed.
8.That these proceedings be adjourned for Case Management Hearing at 9.30am on 12 November 2024 in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) at Brisbane.
9.That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be at liberty to apply.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Andrewson & Trudeau has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BAUMANN J:
INTRODUCTION
Some months after the parents in this case, Mr Andrewson (“the father”) and Ms Trudeau (“the mother”) separated in mid-2020, the father was (in 2021) charged with offences alleged to have occurred to the child, X between 2016 and 2020.
X (born in 2012 – now aged 12 years) is the oldest child of the parents’ three children, joining Y (born in 2014 – now aged 10 years) and Z (born in 2015 – soon to turn nine years).
Although the father’s parenting Application filed on 25 August 2020 sought orders for equal time on a final basis, his Application sought interim orders that the children live with the mother and spend at least each alternate weekend with him.
Even before the father had been formally charged, the allegations that arose were sufficient for the proceedings to be designated a “Magellan” matter; an Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed and an interim hearing was set to take place before a Senior Judicial Registrar on 24 September 2020. Preceding that interim hearing, a “Magellan report” issued from the Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services which shaped interim consent Orders made on 24 September 2020 in these terms:
1.That until further Order, the children [X] born […] 2012 ([X]), [Y] born […] 2014 ([Y]), and [Z] born […] 2015 ([Z]) (collectively, the children) live with the Mother.
Schooling
2.That until further Order, on a without admissions basis, the Father agrees not to attend [G School] or [J Kindergarten] for the purpose of spending time with, or removing the children from those premises. This Order does not prevent the Father from attending [G School] or [J Kindergarten] when invited by the School or Kindy, to, for example, confer with the children’s teachers in relation to their education or to participate in parent teacher interviews, in the absence of the children.
3.That the Mother shall take all reasonable steps to facilitate [Z]’s attendance at kindergarten and [X] and [Y]’s attendance at school from Term 4, 2020 unless by reason of emergency, illness or Covid-19 School closures.
4.That pending the finalisation of the investigation being undertaken by the Queensland Police Service, the Mother (or her legal representative) shall provide to the Father (or his legal representative) a weekly update in writing addressing the children’s attendance at kindergarten or school for the preceding week, should there have been any absences by the children, and if so, the reasons for the absence.
5.That the Mother will ensure that [X] and [Y] remained enrolled at [G School].
Medical and Counselling
6.That the Mother shall ensure [X]’s ongoing attendance upon her psychologist.
7.That in the event of medical emergency, the Mother shall advise the Father as soon as practicable.
Conduct and Communication
8.That the Mother shall:
(a)speak of the other parent respectfully;
(b)not denigrate or insult the other parent in the presence or hearing of the children and use their best endeavours to ensure that others do not denigrate or insult the other parent in the hearing or presence of the children.
9.That the proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed for Interim Hearing following completion of the current Queensland Police Service investigation, with the Mother, Father and Independent Children’s Lawyer having liberty to apply upon the giving of 7 days’ notice to the other party.
Although an independent family report was ordered, it was never published by Mr H because of the criminal proceedings. Property alteration orders were sought in May 2021 and after being listed for trial, the parties reached consent financial orders (in respect of a sizeable pool of interests) in March 2024.
The parenting and financial applications had earlier been bifurcated by my Orders made in September 2023.
With this history, it is an accepted historical fact that the children ceased all contact and communication with their father in mid-2020, save for brief interviews with Mr H in early 2021.
THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE FATHER
In early 2024, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“ODPP”) entered a nolle prosequi in relation to all charges against the father. Noting the father had faced committal proceedings in late 2022, when he was committed to a trial in the District Court of Queensland, it is fair to observe that the mother has significant concerns about the conduct of the ODPP in effectively deciding not to proceed with the charges.
The mother, in her affidavit for the interim hearing filed 30 July 2024 – an affidavit which I observed was voluminous, consisting of 81 pages and a further 158 pages of annexures – does give very fulsome details of both the alleged offence and the criminal proceedings, including the at least five s 93A interviews of relevance. The father did not reply to that affidavit, at this stage, but has consistently asserted no wrongdoing by him. It is not necessary to analyse in detail the allegations and evidence – all of which not only remains untested in the criminal jurisdiction, but until a final hearing in this jurisdiction, untested here as well.
It is sufficient, I believe, in the circumstances at this stage now, and where the allegations are not tested in the criminal jurisdiction, to record that the allegations are serious and if accepted by this Court in whole or part, could establish he is an unacceptable risk to at least X if not the other children.
The mother has a fixed, and she asserts genuine and reasonably based belief, that the father has committed an offence and is an unacceptable risk to the three children. Her belief, and her aim to establish findings consistent with her belief, is both reflected in the detail in the affidavit relied upon at this interim stage (akin to her ultimate trial affidavit), but also is reflected by the subpoena she has filed and served upon the ODPP.
In respect of that subpoena, on 2 July 2024, I made Orders where the parties (including the ODPP) are to file written submissions in respect of the Notice of Objection filed by the ODPP, to the mother’s subpoena. Those submissions do not close until 27 August 2024. It follows, as a result, that some of the material in the possession of the ODPP is not currently available and has not been considered in respect of this interim hearing.
To complete another aspect of the ongoing litigation journey between the parents, proceedings are listed for hearing in a State Magistrates Court this month. It was the further application of the mother that this Court permit the family report at least to be released for use by her in the criminal trial. After hearing submissions from Mr Bunning of Counsel for the father and Mr Drysdale of King’s Counsel for the mother, the Court indicated it would dismiss the mother’s application, broadly in the exercise of discretion as identified in the oral exchanges but reserving to these Reasons a more formal statement of reasons. That order was communicated because of the criminal trial due to commence in mid-2024, and where the solicitor for the mother in those proceedings, by affidavit filed in mid-2024, gave evidence, particularly at paragraphs 10 to 19, of the relevance and importance of the documents sought to be produced for the application.
THE CORE INTERIM PARENTING DISPUTE
The Applicant father in his Application in a Proceeding filed 12 February 2024, sought orders in the following terms:
1.That this Application be listed at short notice.
Therapeutic supervision
2.That the children, [X], born […] 2012, [Y], born […] 2014 and [Z], born […] 2015 (collectively known as “the children”) spend time with the Father, [Mr Andrewson], via therapeutic supervision conducted at [K Service], pursuant to Orders 3 and 4 below.
3.[Ms L] of [K Service] shall be appointed as Single Expert as follows:
(a)To have overall responsibility to schedule, monitor and case manage the parties’ and children's attendance at and engagement with [K Service] pursuant to these Orders;
(b)To conduct and manage (including via her nominee) the reintroduction of the children to the Father and to thereafter conduct, supervise and facilitate (including via her nominee) the children’s time and development of their relationship with the Father in the context of therapeutic supervision;
(c)Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the Mother and the Father shall each contact [K Service] to register and complete an intake to occur within a further seven (7) days, and the Mother shall facilitate the orientation of the children;
(d)To receive and consider such information, instruction and sealed Court documentation provided by the Independent Children's Lawyer or as may be requested by [K Service], to facilitate the work to be commenced and conducted;
(e)To be hereby authorised to liaise with and to provide such information to the parties and to the Independent Children's Lawyer, about the children and parties, as may be reasonably requested by the Independent Children's Lawyer and parties.
4.Upon the Mother and Father completing their intake with [K Service], the children spend therapeutic supervision with the Father as follows:
(a)From 4:30pm to 6:00pm each Wednesday;
(b)From 10:30am to 12:00pm each Saturday or Sunday (subject to [K Service]’s availability).
5.[K Service]’s costs or those of the Single Expert in either case shall be met by the Mother and the Father in equal shares, this including the cost of preparation of any written report by [K Service] or the Single Expert for use in these proceedings and the cost of the Single Expert to attend Court to give evidence at trial.
6.The Independent Children's Lawyer has leave to provide to [K Service] these sealed orders, and such other sealed Court documents as are considered necessary to give effect to the role of [K Service] in this matter.
7.Each party and the Independent Children's Lawyer have leave to apply to the Court in relation to any observations, recommendations and feedback provided by the Single Expert.
Family Report
8.That pursuant to section 62G of the Family Law Act 1975, a Family Report be prepared by [Mr H].
9.The parties shall do all such things, sign all such documents, attend all such appointments and ensure the children attend all such appointments as reasonably necessary for the preparation of the Family Report on dates to be advised by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
10.For the purpose of completing the Family Report, [Mr H] has permission to inspect this Court file.
11.[Mr H] has leave to read any document produced on subpoena once permission to inspect has been granted to a party or the Independent Children's Lawyer, including the Temporary Protection Order dated [late] 2020.
12.That pursuant to section 68P of the Family Law Act 1975, the Court orders that family report interviews include observations of the Father with the children, having regard to the Temporary Protection Order dated [late] 2020.
13.The Independent Children's Lawyer write to [Mr H] to obtain his professional opinion as to whether the children should be permitted to spend unsupervised time with the extended paternal family and for the extend paternal family to be provided with a contact number on which to contact the children.
14.The Mother and Father equally meet the payment of [Mr H]'s fee to prepare and produce the Family Report.
His case outline filed 30 July 2024 sets out the material he relied upon which has been considered.
Importantly, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, who provided the Court with a 66-page case outline, identified her reliance primarily on the family report by Ms E – itself a lengthy document – dated 28 June 2024, arising from interviews and observations conducted between 14 May 2024 and 27 June 2024, and comprising 338 paragraphs.
The transcript reveals, before oral submissions were delivered by Mr Bunning of Counsel, Mr Drysdale of King’s Counsel and Ms Earl of Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer, an “interim order”, with the signed consent of the father and Independent Children’s Lawyer, was produced. By final submissions, after further exchanges with the Bench, proposed orders 6 and 7 (of Exhibit 1) were not pressed. The essence of the agreed position of the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer was that the three children commence spending time with the father at B Contact Service at Suburb C “for no more than 2 hours per fortnight for the purposes of the children spending supervised time with the father”.
Other orders relating to the parents attending for a psychiatric assessment by single expert Dr F were agreed to by the wife, after Counsel sensibly resolved a dispute as to the terms of reference for Dr F to work within.
The mother’s position, on the core issue was emphatically to seek that the father’s Application in a Proceeding be dismissed “on the basis that the Application requires findings of fact which can only be made at a final hearing”. In support of her position, in addition to the affidavits earlier referred to, the Court was provided, and has now read and considered, written submissions authored, I understand, by Counsel. Although Mr Drysdale KC made oral submissions, the interim hearing held 2 August 2024 began without the Court even being aware of the existence of those written submissions. That deficiency has now been cured.
Before dealing with the competing proposals on this core issue, along the well-established and acknowledged statutory pathway, I am compelled to observe that although the practice, at least in Brisbane, for interim hearings (understanding the truncated nature of such hearings) is to seek to comply with r 5.08 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), this case is a stark example of the apparent complete disregard for that Rule. To be fair, and to the father’s credit, no objection was taken by Counsel for both parties to non‑compliance. Solicitors should be on notice that such benevolence will not occur in every case – including from the Bench.
STATUTORY PATHWAY
At paragraph 2.1 of the written submissions of the mother, the legislative pathway is set out, about which there is no contest, with s 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) prescribing that the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
As I explore, to the extent necessary and where all advocates were conscious of the limitations that arise from making findings on hotly contested facts, much of the oral submissions focussed on:
(a)the mother’s assertion that the father is an unacceptable risk to the children, both in respect of the alleged offence but also other allegations; and
(b)what the children are recorded as saying to the report writer, and whether, as the Independent Children’s Lawyer and father contend (and the mother rejects), supports a desire of the children to have any time with the father; and
(c)even if the form of supervision proposed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer and father can ameliorate or mitigate the risks asserted by the mother, whether the best interests of the children are met where:
(i)the mother says, as the primary carer, she would struggle to support such orders; and
(ii)after many years of no time, or communication, between the father and the children, attempts to engage should wait until a final hearing, before contemplating such engagement.
The context, importantly, is that at a trial, the Court may well have findings in respect of the criminal proceedings; more information from the ODPP file and will definitely have a report from Dr F.
It was indicated to the parties that a parenting trial, which in view of the allegations and the level of particularity evident from the mother’s affidavit for this interim hearing, could take well in excess of five days, is not likely to have a listing until well into 2025. That further delay is a matter of some contextual relevance.
Dealing with the issues identified, the Court provides the following observations on all the untested evidence.
IS THE FATHER AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK?
It is not possible to make this finding without the significant evidence offered to the Court being tested properly. Apart from alleged disclosure and interviews by Police, the Court is aware that the mother asserts some forensic evidence is also available.
However, these serious allegations must, in the interests of these three children, be weighed against the father’s consistent denials and explanations and the decision of the ODPP not to proceed with the criminal proceeding after he was required to stand trial.
Certainly, the Court would not be prepared at this stage to order unsupervised time, but that is not what the father seeks. I have formed the view that, at this time, supervised time will mitigate the potential risk of:
(a)the father committing an offence against the children;
(b)the father assaulting the children; and importantly; and
(c)because of the intense physical proximity which is exercised during supervision, to ameliorate any risk the father will use the contact visits to denigrate the mother; discuss the allegations or otherwise seek to influence the children’s feelings.
Of course, as I will discuss, the children may see their father differently now than they may have in the past – for example, if I accept the children’s views expressed to Ms E that in the past the father has been angry and has shouted or yelled, then not seeing the father act in that way is a good thing. I accept that the mother feels such “improved” behaviour is likely to be an act without genuine intent to change his behaviour. That is a perspective from her lived experience, which is not likely to change quickly, if at all.
CHILDREN’S WISHES
When children have not been asked independently by a qualified practitioner (as I find Ms E to be) about their father when time has not occurred for some years, then I accept the submissions of Mr Drysdale KC that caution needs to be applied to weight attached to their remarks.
However, I start from a position that there is a solid foundation for the opinion expressed by the child expert at paragraph 286 that:
Given their reports herein, it’s possible the children (but not their mother) now want to put their ordeal behind them because they were each clear that they want to at some level spend time with their father. It is obvious that they each missed their father (at least) initially but they learned to live without him. They had some idea that they did not see their father for nearly four years because of some wrongdoing by him. His perceived wrongdoing now seems centred on his previous anger rather than any [other offence]. Given their experiences and knowledge, it is understandable that these children have some mixed feelings about their father. Reassuringly, they each feel happy, safe and connected to their mother.
In forming this opinion, the expert gave details of what the children said to her and what the children have told their counsellors (save for X’s counsellor Ms M who was away at the time).
Importantly as well were the observations made at paragraphs 219 to 230 which I have considered.
As I observed during submissions, the history of this matter and since the events of 2020, the strong and currently entrenched views of the mother could have resulted in a very different presentation by the children to Ms E. I might not have been surprised to hear the children provide some very negative views about their father – but they did not. This is likely to found a finding that the mother has been able to compartmentalise her views – in the children’s best interests. To maintain such a demeanour for over four years is a tribute to her strength of character.
WILL THE MOTHER STRUGGLE TO SUPPORT TIME ON A SUPERVISED BASIS IF SO ORDERED?
The mother’s affidavit deposes to the difficulty she feels she will face if the orders sought by the father (and supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer) are made. Although there is no significant corroborative evidence available at this time to support these feelings, I am prepared to accept she will benefit from therapeutic support and seems to be a person not adverse to seeking helping.
I am of course concerned that the mother, as the primary carer of the children, could become so anxious by supervised time occurring, that her parenting capacity day-to-day might be significantly affected. True it is that the soon to be prepared and released report of Dr F might be useful evidence, however the history itself is a helpful predictor.
Whilst the mother has not, since mid-2020, had to really confront her fears of the children having any contact with the father, I was impressed however by her presentation as recorded by Ms E where she demonstrated support for the children to be observed with the father.
In circumstances where I believe the children will cope well with the orders I propose to make, it will be slightly easier for the mother to adjust to the children’s reactions to spending time with their father.
THE BENEFITS OF STARTING TIME AGAINST WAITING UNTIL A FINAL HEARING
The children’s most recent opportunity to express their feelings and the first opportunity for some years to see their father creates a likely anticipation in the minds of these three delightful children now aged 12, 10 and nearly nine years that something might happen.
I accept, as the mother contends, it is a consideration as to whether it is better for the children to not engage with the father until findings are made about risks, at least. As indicated, that result could be some 12 months away – a delay in the cycle of these children’s natural development that is not easily recovered. I am not able to be as confident, as the mother and her experienced legal team seem to be, that a trial is likely to have one outcome – a no time order.
If the mother’s position is ultimately the result, then the disadvantage to these children is that the safe engagement with their father for 12 months will cease. I accept as the children will be by that time 12 months older and more mature and although explaining that change at that time will be challenging, that of itself does not outweigh the benefit, in my view, that flows from 12 months of safe and supervised contact.
Of course, if the father’s position that the children should at least have unsupervised extensive contact with him is the result of a trial, then a platform to advance time will have been created – making an adjustment for the children (if not the mother) to more extensive unsupervised time, easier.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children to begin safe supervised time with their father as proposed by the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. I will so order.
OTHER ISSUES
Some of the other issues raised in the parents’ Applications in a Proceeding have been resolved by negotiations (for example the terms of reference for Dr F) or are not currently pressed (the discovery application). I accept that the Court may well need to return to that subject after a ruling is made on the objection raised by the ODPP.
The ruling to dismiss the mother’s application to release the family report and other documents was considered and discussed, as the transcript reveals, and was shaped by the longstanding authority of Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280, and Australian authorities referred to by Mr Drysdale KC in the written submissions.
Those authorities reinforce the discretionary nature of the relief sought, namely, to be released from the “implied undertaking”.
I am not satisfied that the limited comments made by the children to Ms E are of significant probative benefit in the forthcoming criminal proceedings.
The mother has, I accept, the option in the Magistrates Court proceedings by subpoena or other application under their rules to have documents produced in those proceedings – be their medical records, police records or the like. I accept it is efficient to undertake that discovery task only once – and that having done so in these proceedings merely conveying that data to another Court sounds simple enough. However, all persons who have responded to a subpoena issued by this Court do so, I infer, anticipating their use in family law proceedings, not a different very adversarial criminal trial.
This concern significantly relates to the application for the release of a family report. There is a general, well founded, reluctance to involve children in the adult conflict of their parents. When these three children were speaking to Ms E, their engagement was sensibly focused on their relationship and wishes about their father – not in an expectation that their words may be used in a family violence hearing.
The mother and father are likely already to have filed statements of fact relating to their version of the history of the relationship. Having these versions, as given to Ms E, before the Magistrates Court does not add much value in my view. The mother’s assertions and the father’s denials are found throughout the report.
However, I do express some concern about the easy access to a family report for other, even related, proceedings. The Court continues to struggle to secure suitably qualified health professionals to undertake the difficult work of assessing families and children in an impartial and considered way. It may be a much more difficult task if every report writer must contemplate that they will be called to give evidence in other proceedings – particularly criminal proceedings.
Of course, the nature of exercising a discretion means that every case turns on its own facts. However, on the evidence in this case, I am not persuaded that good reason exists to release the mother or the father from the implied undertaking.
The orders I set out at the commencement of these Reasons are in the best interests of the children at this time, and the procedural orders are appropriate.
The Independent Children’s Lawyer shall have liberty to re-list should, particularly if the time ordered becomes problematic, the need to do so arose.
The Case Management Hearing date is timed to allow the Court to receive further submissions about how the time that has been ordered to occur has progressed, but also where the report of Dr F will be available; the results of the objection to the ODPP subpoena; and hopefully some resolution of the hotly contested criminal proceedings.
At that time, or shortly thereafter, considering the allocation of trial dates will occur.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six (56) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Baumann. Associate:
Dated: 16 August 2024
0
0
2