BOREHAM & DAWKINS

In the Family Court of Australia, Bennett J considered a dispute between a mother and father concerning a proposed surgical procedure for their child, X. The mother, who held sole parental responsibility, sought to proceed with the surgery, while the father contended that the procedure was elective rather than therapeutic, and therefore required the court's leave.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the proposed surgery constituted a therapeutic or elective medical procedure, and consequently, whether the father's consent or court authorisation was necessary for its performance. The court also had to determine the appropriate procedural steps to ensure the child's best interests were paramount, including the potential appointment of a single expert witness.

Bennett J ordered that the proceedings be adjourned for a final hearing. Crucially, the court appointed a lawyer to independently represent the interests of the child X, pursuant to section 68L(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. This independent children's lawyer was tasked with obtaining an opinion from Associate Professor AA regarding the necessity of the surgery and making recommendations about interim parenting orders. Associate Professor AA was also designated as a single expert witness, with the understanding that this role would not preclude him from performing the surgery if authorised. The court also made directions regarding the exchange of documents and correspondence between the parties and the independent children's lawyer.