Brand and Fuller

[2009] FamCA 1193

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRAND & FULLER [2009] FamCA 1193

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Family therapy involving child

APPLICANT: Mr Brand

RESPONDENT: Ms Fuller

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Reed

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9193 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 21 October 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 21 October 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Tredrea

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Stokes Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Stewart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Kennedy Wisewoulds

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Mrs West

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER Rebecca Reed - LSC

Orders
BY CONSENT

1. That paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the orders sought in the Application in a Case filed by the father on 29 April 2009 be dismissed.

2. That until further order the parties do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to ensure that each of them, the child B born …October 1997, and subject to her willingness to do so, the fathers wife Ms C, do the following:

   a.   attend upon a psychiatrist or psychologist (“the therapist”) as may be agreed between the parties or in default of agreement within seven days of this order, as may be nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, for the purposes of engaging in family therapy; and

   b.   to follow all reasonable and lawful recommendations of the therapist.

3. That the parties meet the costs of the therapist referred to in paragraph 2 hereof as follows:

   a.   all sessions involving each of the parties to these proceedings shall be paid for in equal one-half shares by each of the parties;

   b.   any individual sessions involving the sole attendance of the said child upon the therapist shall be paid for in equal one-half shares by each of the parties;

   c.   any individual sessions upon the therapist involving the mother alone shall be paid for solely by the mother;

   d.   any other sessions shall be paid for by the father.

4. That the father use his best endeavours to secure the ongoing consent and agreement of his wife Ms C to participate in the family therapy referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 hereof.

5. That each of the parties shall as soon as practicable provide written authorities to the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the family report writer, and either the therapist or the child therapist permitting either the therapist or the child therapist to discuss progress in therapy with both Mr P and the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

6. That the hearing of this matter listed before a Registrar on 28 October 2009 be vacated.

7. That the Amended Response filed by the mother on 30 September 2009 be adjourned to a Registrar at 2:30pm on 31 March 2010.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Brand & Fuller is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9193 of 2008

MR BRAND

Applicant

And

MS FULLER

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. The application before me today is the Amended Response to an Application in a Case filed by the mother on 30 September 2009.  There is agreement about a number of the orders sought in that response.  The dispute, though, has centred on for how long the therapy which the parties agree to undertake should proceed.  I have heard argument about that and for my part, I have indicated and I repeat that I am not prepared to make an open-ended order.  This is an interim application, and the parties are not prepared to give away the court process, or, in other words, move out of the court process to resolve their dispute and, for example, have their applications dismissed or have consent final orders and then move forward with that. I am prepared to allow the matter to be adjourned to enable therapy to take place for perhaps a bit longer than would normally be the case but, as I have said, it is an interim order and that is how I am proceeding with the matter.

2. What is now proposed, not necessarily by consent but it seems there is no vehement opposition to this, is that a therapist will be nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, all the relevant parties and, of course, the child will attend that therapist and the matter will be adjourned to the end of March 2010 and then an assessment made as to how the matter should be progressed at that point.  I propose to vacate the listing before the registrar next week, which was a listing intended to provide a first day of trial.

3. I understand and appreciate that given the history of this matter and, particularly looking at the report of Mr P, that if the therapy gets off the ground, there is no quick fix and it may be a long process. On the other hand, of course, it may be quite short given that no‑one can be certain as to precisely how this exercise will proceed.  I am hopeful that it is successful in the interests of the child but we will have to keep an open mind about that at this stage.  I understand that – and perhaps I should add that that timeframe has been suggested and I am comfortable to fit in with it on the basis that the therapy can commence within the next three or four weeks.  Although I propose to make orders on the amended response of the mother, I propose to adjourn that application to 31 March 2010.  That will enable a vehicle to be left in place for the parties to come back on any application that they wish to make in relation to the progress of this matter in the interim, i.e. between now and 31 March 2010.

4. One other matter I need to comment on is that the father’s position was that there should be a report from the therapist after about three occasions of therapy.  That is opposed by the independent children’s lawyer and the mother.  My view is that there should not be a report.  This is therapy.  It should be confidential and that for the parties to enter into it, knowing that there will be a report as to what happens would be counter-productive. I know Mr Tredrea has tried to limit what that report will say but in my view it would be inappropriate to have any report.  That does not mean that there will not be feedback.  As I have said, I fully expect that the parties will be provided feedback by the therapist and they, themselves, will be able to gauge how the therapy is progressing.

5. In any event, the therapist will liaise with the Independent Children’s Lawyer and provide appropriate information, not detailed and not lengthy information but just to give some indication to the independent children’s lawyer as to how the therapy is progressing, whether it is worthwhile continuing, or whether it has come to a halt.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer will then pass that information on to the respective solicitors of the parties.  That, of course, may be the catalyst to the matter being listed before either a duty Judge or a Registrar again between now and 31 March 2010.

I certify that the preceding 5 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 21 October 2009.

Associate