Arndale & Kingley (No. 3)

The appeal was brought by the mother against the decision of the Family Court regarding the appointment of a family consultant and an Independent Children’s Lawyer in family law proceedings. The dispute centred around concerns about the impartiality and potential bias of new court-appointed officers following the discharge of the previous family consultant. The mother argued that the new consultant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer might be influenced by prior interactions with the discharged consultant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in appointing a new family consultant and whether the trial judge erred in declining the mother's application to discharge the Independent Children’s Lawyer and appoint a new one. The mother contended that these appointments might not be impartial due to the new consultants' potential exposure to previous discussions and reports from the former consultant.

The court examined the mother's concerns regarding the impartiality of the new family consultant and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. It concluded that the trial judge had correctly assessed the situation and found no merit in the mother's claims of potential bias. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the mother's concerns and made appropriate decisions regarding the appointments, thereby not committing any error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.