DREHER & COLOMBERA

In the matter of *Dreher & Colombera*, the parties, the mother and the father, were engaged in parenting proceedings before Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings had been ongoing and the court noted that the parties had negotiated for an extended period, resulting in insufficient time to conduct the hearing in a single sitting.

The primary legal issue before the court was how to manage the continuation of the parenting proceedings given the time constraints. This involved determining the future hearing dates, the filing and service of further evidence, including from treating psychologists, and the process for issuing and inspecting subpoenaed documents. The court also needed to consider the admissibility of evidence and the role of the Family Consultant.

Bennett J reasoned that the matter required a structured approach to ensure all necessary evidence could be presented and considered. The court vacated the existing further hearing dates and adjourned the matter for a final hearing estimated to take seven days. Directions were issued for the filing of evidence from treating psychologists, the service of amended applications and affidavit material, and the production of documents via subpoena, with strict deadlines imposed. The court also directed the Family Consultant to provide an addendum report on the child's views and permitted parties to rely on previously filed affidavits, while also relieving them from certain compliance rules regarding annexures.

The court made various orders to facilitate the final hearing, including directions for case outlines, participation in further family dispute resolution, and the use of an electronic court book. Specific orders were made regarding the mother's ability to elicit evidence from her treating psychologist and the parents' obligation to maintain an application for supervised time. The court also addressed the father's interim applications for school reports and the ability to send cards and letters to the child, dismissing the latter application. Finally, the court requested the Independent Children's Lawyer to explain the adjournment to the child and noted potential consequences for legal practitioners regarding inadmissible evidence and costs.