Darcy and Cameroon

[2009] FamCA 651

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DARCY & CAMEROON [2009] FamCA 651

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Family consultants – application by the mother seeking the replacement of the family consultant – where the mother is concerned the family consultant has a biased view of her and is not having proper regard to serious allegations and concerns raised – where the mother is concerned the family consultant is not listening to the child or accurately reporting the child’s views and wishes to the Court – where there is no obvious indication of bias exhibited in the reports – where the child is familiar with the family consultant – not in the best interests of the child for there to be a change of family consultant – application dismissed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA & 60CC

APPLICANT: Ms Darcy

RESPONDENT: Mr Cameroon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 25 June 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

EX TEMPORE REASONS OF: BURR J

HEARING DATE: 25 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: Mother appearing in person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Charman

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ian Charman

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Croft

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: J R Croft

Orders

1. The Application in a Case filed herein by the mother on 23 June 2009 be and the same is hereby dismissed and removed from the pending list.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 928  of 2007

MS DARCY

Applicant

And

MR CAMEROON

Respondent

And

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me today the mother’s Application in a Case filed on 23 June 2009 and with it, a supporting affidavit.  In her Application, the mother requests that Dr A, the family consultant presently tasked with the duty of preparing another family assessment and report in the matter, be replaced by somebody else.  The mother overlooked the need to serve upon the Independent Children’s Lawyer copies of the documents filed by her and so it was necessary to contact Mr Croft by telephone this morning.  I have given leave to Mr Croft to attend this morning’s hearing by telephone link which indeed he has done.

2. The application of the mother is essentially based on her concern that Dr A has a particularly biased view of the mother and is not having proper and due regard to the various serious allegations and concerns that the mother has raised.  The mother is also concerned that Dr A is simply not listening to her daughter and not properly and faithfully reporting to the Court the child’s views and expressed wishes.

3. I have had the opportunity during a brief adjournment whilst Mr Croft was contacted to quickly review the two reports that Dr A has already prepared in the matter and being dated 25 February 2008 and 11 February 2009.  Whilst things may alter during the trial when Dr A has been cross-examined, there is no obvious indication upon a reading of the reports that Dr A exhibited any particular bias towards one party or the other, or indeed has had no regard to the child’s expressed views or wishes.  There is comprehensive reference, and probably most relevantly to the proceedings now in her last report of 11 February 2009, of what it was that the child wanted and what she thought represented the child’s best interests.  In that report Dr A was flattering of neither party in many respects.  It could equally be argued potentially that Dr A had taken a somewhat biased view against the father’s position as well.  If the test that the mother is applying is simply that Dr A has not made recommendations that suit the mother’s applications before the Court, then it could be said of both parties to the proceedings.

4. The test in making this determination is almost certainly the same test that needs to be applied in relation to any parenting issues before the Court and that is Section 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended which requires me to consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.  In my view, those best interests would be represented by there not being a change of family consultant.  The child is now familiar with Dr A and Dr A with her.  I believe, from reading the reports, that they have established a sound and trusting clinical relationship and that it would not be in the child’s best interests to have to develop a relationship with yet another expert in these proceedings as we get closer to trial.

5. The Court’s concern in a number of matters is not to engage in what is known colloquially as “institutional abuse” by referring children to expert after expert after expert.  The Court in fact recently installed single expert rules and the intention of that is to try and limit the amount of evidence that comes before the Court from wide and varied sources and in children’s cases, to protect children from ongoing interviews with a vast variety of people.

6. I have had regard to the provisions of Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended and as far as they are relevant, I have considered the matters that the mother has raised within that context.  In my view, there is no material presently that supports her application and I therefore refuse it, dismiss her application filed on 23 June 2009 and remove that application from the pending list.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Burr.

Associate: 

Date:  25 June 2009