Brand and Fuller

In the matter of *Brand and Fuller*, Strickland J considered an application by the father concerning his child, B, born in October 1997. The dispute involved orders sought by the father regarding family therapy and the participation of the child and the father's wife, Ms C.

The court was required to determine the terms of orders relating to mandatory family therapy, the allocation of costs for such therapy, the father's obligation to secure his wife's consent to participate, and the provision of authorities for the Independent Children’s Lawyer to discuss therapy progress. The court also considered the dismissal of certain orders sought by the father and the adjournment of other proceedings.

By consent of the parties, Strickland J made orders dismissing specific paragraphs of the father's application. The court ordered that both parties, the child B, and Ms C (subject to her willingness) attend family therapy with an agreed therapist or one nominated by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The parties were also directed to follow the therapist's reasonable recommendations. The costs of therapy were to be shared equally between the parties for joint sessions and individual sessions involving the child, with the mother solely responsible for her individual sessions and the father responsible for any other sessions. The father was also ordered to use his best endeavours to ensure Ms C's ongoing consent to participate. Furthermore, written authorities were to be provided to the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the therapist to discuss progress. The hearing listed for October 2009 was vacated, and the mother's amended response was adjourned to March 2010.