Bradley & Van Veen

In the matter of *Bradley & Van Veen*, Strickland J of the Family Court of Australia considered issues arising in a Magellan matter concerning children. The proceedings involved a dispute between the parents regarding their child, and a specific point of contention related to a subpoena issued to the police. An objection to this subpoena was raised by the mother's ex-partner, Mr P, but the objection was not made in the correct form, and the reasons for it were unclear.

The court was required to determine whether to uphold the objection to the subpoena issued to the police. The subpoena sought documents from SAPOL concerning the mother's ex-partner, Mr P. The court also had to consider the appropriate conditions for the inspection of any documents produced in response to the subpoena, particularly in light of concerns about the privacy of Mr T, who was identified in the documents. Furthermore, the court needed to address the need for an updated report from a family consultant regarding the child's ability to separate from his mother.

Strickland J granted leave for the parties, their legal representatives, and the Independent Children's Lawyer to inspect and copy the documents produced by SAPOL. This was subject to the condition that the Independent Children's Lawyer would first "black out" any addresses belonging to Mr T before any other person inspected the documents. The court also directed Mr P, a Family Consultant, to prepare an updated report addressing the child's separation from his mother, requiring interviews with the parties and contact with Ms R regarding kindergarten. The court also made orders regarding the commencement of the conclusion hearing and the filing of affidavits by the parties. Finally, the court was satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed to apply specific provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 pursuant to s 69ZT(3) of the Family Law Act 1975.