COLLINS & RICARDO

[2011] FamCA 532

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLLINS & RICARDO [2011] FamCA 532

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – application to discharge the Independent Children's Lawyer  

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Collins

RESPONDENT: Ms Ricardo

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER : Ms Weate

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4959 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 27 June 2011

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 27 June 2011

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Autore & Associates

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Falloon

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Jennifer Weate & Associates

Order

1. The father’s application that the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged is dismissed.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 4959 of 2009

Mr Collins

Applicant

And

Ms Ricardo

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I note that the father has maintained today an application which he had earlier made that the order for the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer be discharged.

2. Holden CJ in Lloyd and Lloyd and Child Representative (2000) FLC 93-045 dealt with some of the circumstances that might lead to a court discharging an Independent Children's Lawyer.

3. The court should not readily discharge an Independent Children's Lawyer based upon the unsubstantiated complaints of one of the parties.  There is nothing in what the father has put to me that would provide a basis for discharging the Independent Children's Lawyer on the basis of actual or perceived bias or on any other basis.  There is no evidence that the Independent Children's Lawyer has acted contrary to the child’s interest.  The father has not demonstrated that the Independent Children's Lawyer is incompetent in a professional sense nor has demonstrated that the Independent Children's Lawyer lacked professional objectivity.  No conflict of interest is alleged.

4. The father’s application for the discharge of the Independent Children's Lawyer is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraph is a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Watts delivered on 27 June 2011.

Associate:   

Date:  11.7.2011