Corey & Jebbitt (No 3)

[2018] FamCA 1038

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COREY & JEBBITT (NO 3) [2018] FamCA 1038

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – where the single expert psychologist was required in Court to give essential evidence in the matter – where the mother needed a fair opportunity to test the opinions expressed by the psychologist in her report – where the Court authorised the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make whatever request it can make to facilitate the psychologist providing evidence in the case by being funded to give that evidence.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Corey

RESPONDENT: Ms Jebbitt

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

FILE NUMBER: BRC 9223 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 5 December 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 5 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dart

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Landmark Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Ms Pendergast

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

IT IS REQUESTED THAT:

1. The Court hereby authorises the Independent Children’s Lawyer to make a request of Legal Aid Queensland to provide funding for Ms J to attend the trial of these proceedings at the Family Court of Australia Brisbane Registry to give evidence on 5 and 6 December 2018.

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 (No. 3) 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 Jebbitt

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Today is the third day of the trial of parenting proceedings involving Mr Corey (“the father”), Ms Jebbitt (“the mother”), the child D born in 2012 (“the child”) and the lawyer appointed under s 68L of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) to independently represent the child’s interests in the proceedings (“the ICL”).

2. A single expert witness namely Ms J, Clinical Psychologist has undertaken a psychological assessment of both parents and the child.  The issues raised in the case are complex and serious.  Ms J by reason of her report is an essential witness in these proceedings.  She has attended today to give evidence and has been in the witness box for a lengthy period giving that evidence.

3. The mother has only just recently commenced cross-examining her.  The mother is self-represented and needs a fair opportunity to test the opinions expressed by Ms J in her report, some of which are adverse to the mother and her case.  The mother is not funded by legal aid and, as I have mentioned, is

   
   

   self-represented.

4. Given the essential need for the Court to have the evidence of Ms J and fundamentally the interests of the child the subject of these proceedings the Court needs the benefit of complete evidence and the Court endorses the ICL making whatever request it can make to facilitate Ms J providing expert evidence in the case by being funded to give that evidence tomorrow.

5. The Court observes that it is not just in the interests of the child the subject of these proceedings, but it is relevant that this Court needs the assistance of expertise whenever it can get it.  If witnesses are forced to come to Court without any funding at all the diminishing pool of expertise available to the Court will be ever diminishing.

6. On that basis the Court endorses the request being made of the ICL for the funding.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 5 December 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  7 December 2018