ATHERTON & WILSON

In the matter of Atherton & Wilson, Faulks DCJ presided over an application for final orders concerning children. The dispute involved the parents of a child, C, and the court was tasked with determining interim and final arrangements for C's time with her parents and the procedural aspects of the final hearing.

The court was required to determine a range of issues, including the scheduling of the final hearing, the method of evidence presentation, and the filing of affidavits. Specific directions were also necessary regarding the attendance of a Dr B, the issuance of subpoenas by the Independent Children's Lawyer and the parties, and the conduct of the trial in accordance with the Rules of Evidence under s 69ZT(3) of the Family Law Act 1975. Furthermore, interim orders were needed to govern C's time with her father, including supervision arrangements and notification protocols. The court also had to consider the potential intervention of the Director-General of the Community Services Directorate and the provision of a report by that office.

Faulks DCJ made several orders. The final hearing was set for March 2012, with a directions hearing in February 2012 to ensure readiness and finalise procedural matters. The court directed that evidence would be taken at the commencement of the trial to accommodate Dr B's attendance, either by video link or telephone. Parties were ordered to file affidavits by a specific date, with a strict limitation on late filings. The Independent Children's Lawyer was empowered to issue subpoenas, with provisions for party-issued subpoenas requiring agreement or leave. The trial was to proceed under the Rules of Evidence. Interim orders were made regarding C's supervised time with her father, including specific days and times, and a notification requirement for the father. C was to spend limited time with her father on Christmas Day 2011 and 29 January 2012, under the supervision of her paternal grandparents, who would be informed of their role and provide written consent. The court noted the pending decision of the Director-General regarding intervention or separate proceedings and ordered that a report be provided by a specific date if no separate proceedings were undertaken. Finally, the mother was prohibited from living with the child except at her mother's home or the home of Mr D, pending further order.