Branscombe and Branscombe

This matter concerned interim orders regarding the time the husband would spend with his two children, an eleven-year-old daughter and a nine-year-old son. The children had experienced no contact with their father for the first four years after their parents' separation, and for the past 18 months, contact had been sporadic and limited to short periods, with the father residing in Queensland and the children in Melbourne. The dispute involved competing assertions from the parents regarding the father's alleged insensitivity to the children's anxieties and the impact of a recent decision to remove the children from their private school.

The court was required to determine how to promote the father's relationship with the children without pre-empting the substantive issues to be determined at trial, particularly in light of the children's recent distress following their removal from school and the father's alleged role in that decision. The court also considered the need for a further report from a child welfare expert to assess the impact of these events on the children, and whether the existing report writer, Ms D, was appropriate for this task.

Justice Dessau noted the complexities of the case and the need to avoid pre-empting the ultimate decision on children's issues. The court acknowledged the father's desire for half holiday time and the upcoming pre-trial conference and trial listing. However, given the recent alleged distress caused by the school removal and the need for a further report, the court declined to order any interim contact time between the father and children before the pre-trial conference. The court found it was in the children's best interests to have the same report writer, Ms D, who could be cross-examined on her expertise, and that it was not in the children's best interests for them to travel to Queensland before Ms D had assessed the impact of recent events.

The interim issues concerning the time the husband would spend with the children were adjourned to the Registrar's Duty List on 30 August 2007. The Deputy Registrar conducting the pre-trial conference that morning was requested to fix a trial date, if appropriate, notwithstanding an existing Form 2 application.