Bouchard and Lyall and Ors

Case

[2011] FamCA 1044

27 July 2011


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOUCHARD & LYALL AND ORS [2011] FamCA 1044
FAMILY LAW – psychiatric assessment
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
APPLICANT: Ms Bouchard
FIRST RESPONDENT: Mr Lyall
SECOND RESPONDENT: Mr West
INTERVENOR: Department of Human Services
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:
FILE NUMBER: MLC 6957 of 2010
DATE DELIVERED: 27 July 2011
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J
HEARING DATE: 27 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: MS Bouchard appears in person

COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST 

RESPONDENT:

Mr Barbayannis

COUNSEL FOR THE 2ND

 RESPONDENT:

Ms Steiner
COUNSEL FOR THE INTERVENOR: Ms Buchanan for Dept of Human Services
COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Agresta
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Lampe Family Lawyers

Orders

  1. That Ms Bouchard attend upon Dr D on 20 September 2011 for the purposes of a psychiatric assessment with the cost of such assessment to be funded by Victoria Legal Aid.

  2. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be at liberty to provide Dr D with the facts concerning the background of the proceeding and such psychiatric and psychological assessments as are considered appropriate providing that Dr D undertakes the assessment of Ms Bouchard without relying on the accuracy of those reports and upon making such assessment as he considers appropriate as to her mental health, sets out any inconsistency in his views with those of previous professionals whose reports are brought to his attention.

  3. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s application in a case filed 15 July 2011 is otherwise dismissed.

  4. That the application of the mother in a case filed 20 July 2011 and the response to the application of the Independent Children’s Lawyer referred to are both dismissed.

  5. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym  Bouchard & Lyall and Ors is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6957 of 2010

Ms Bouchard

Applicant

And

Mr Lyall

1st Respondent

And

Mr West

2nd Respondent

And

Department of Human Services

Intervener

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. For the reasons that will be absolutely clear, I hope, from the discussion we have had over the last hour, I propose to make an order in terms of what the independent children’s lawyer seeks, and to dismiss the application that Ms Bouchard seeks.  I do not propose to give comprehensive reasons now, because I think those reasons will be abundantly clear from the discussion that will no doubt appear on the transcript if someone wants to read it. 

  2. I do, however, make the following two points:  the first is that I am very concerned that there is not an updated psychiatric examination of the mother and, having regard to all of the litigation that has gone on and the allegations that have been made by each of the relevant parties, it seems to me that the Court would be assisted by that report.

  3. In respect of the father’s, the affidavit material provided by Ms Bouchard clearly indicates that there were significant dysfunctional relationship problems.  It may even suggest that one or more parties to the various proceedings is not truthful.  It may, in fact, show that that particular person has obsessive traits, but it does not strike me as being evidence that would suggest that there’s a mental health problem. 

  4. On that basis, I decline to make the order that those two men be psychiatrically examined.  I will make orders in those terms.  I will rely on the independent children’s lawyer to understand what needs to be done about corresponding with each party, and about the communications that are to go to the psychiatrist.

RECORDED  :   NOT TRANSCRIBED

  1. Those orders will be published later today.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 27 July 2011.

Associate:

Date:  11 January 2012

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Costs

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1