COREY & JEBBETT

[2019] FamCA 302

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COREY & JEBBETT [2019] FamCA 302

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL AID – where the Court endorsed the father’s request for Legal Aid Queensland to continue to provide funding for the father for the trial in these proceedings.

APPLICANT: Mr Corey

RESPONDENT: Ms Jebbett

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Anthony Kingston, Norman & Kingston Solicitors

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9223 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 4 February 2019

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 4 February 2019

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Torre, Landmark Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In person

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Kingston, Norman & Kingston Solicitors

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Leave is given to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to issue and serve subpoenae directed to the following recipients for the purposes of giving evidence at the trial of these proceedings in the week commencing 11 March 2019:

   (a)Ms R of Company P; and

   (b)Ms S of Company P.

2. Leave is given to the father to file and serve a brief, updating affidavit as to his attendance upon a psychologist pursuant to the orders made on 6 December 2018.

NOTATION:

A.The Court hereby endorses the father’s request of Legal Aid Queensland to continue to provide funding for the father for the trial in these proceedings.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Corey & Jebbett has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9223 of 2017

Mr Corey

Applicant

And

Ms Jebbett

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The trial of parenting proceedings concerning the child D born in 2012 commenced before this Court on 3 December 2018.

2. The parenting proceedings involve issues that are complicated by the health care needs of the child and what has been identified as some health needs of the father himself.

3. The issues for determination by the Court are now agreed to be:

   a)parental responsibility, that is whether the mother should have sole parental responsibility for D or whether parental responsibility should be shared between the parents;

   b)whether D should spend any time or have any communication with his father and whether that time should be supervised; and

   c)a question concerning D’s schooling there being some evidence that D would benefit from being schooled in a mainstream kind of school, albeit at a school with the necessary aides for a person with D’s difficulties, or whether he should be home schooled as is the mother’s ambition.

4. The trial has proceeded for some four days and is in a position where the second of two expert witnesses is in the midst of cross-examination by the mother.  When the trial resumes on 11 March 2019 that cross-examination is to continue.

5. The father to date has been legally represented with the assistance of Legal Aid funding.  I have had the opportunity to observe the father in the witness box giving evidence when cross-examined by each of counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and by the mother.

6. Whilst the mother represents herself, not having lawyers in the proceedings, she has demonstrated a capacity, with guidance from the Court, that she is capable of presenting a case and arguing her case.  I have grave reservations having had the opportunity to observe the father over some hours in the witness box, that he would have a similar capacity.  The Court would be greatly assisted if Legal Aid continues to fund legal representation for him and most particularly, it would be in the child’s interest for that to occur given what I perceive to be the father’s incapacities in terms of self-representation should that come to pass.

7. The trial is at the stage where the mother is yet to be cross-examined and that important task will fall to both counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer and for, on the father’s side, hopefully, his legal representative.

8. There is a fair degree of animosity between the parents and it would be unfortunate if the trial descends into the chaos that sometimes occurs when partners who have great animosity towards each other have to directly

   
   

   cross-examine each other.  For all these reasons, I would encourage the Legal Aid office to provide whatever assistance to the father in terms of continued legal representation that it might see fit.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 4 February 2019.

Associate:

Date:  4 February 2019