DRUDGE & PELL & MITCHELL DRUDGE & SMITH & PELL RENNIE & RENNIE

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Bennett presided over three consolidated matters: *Drudge & Pell & Mitchell* (DGC 13564 of 2010), *Drudge, Smith & Pell* (MLC 11634 of 2011), and *Rennie & Rennie* (MLC 10491 of 2009). The central dispute concerned a request by the Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) for the matter to be relisted to allow a family consultant, Ms EE, to complete her assessment. This assessment was contingent on a seven-year-old child, B, being made available for an observation session with Mr Rennie, who is alleged by B's maternal grandmother to be the perpetrator of abuse. Mr Rennie denies these allegations.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed observation session between B and Mr Rennie, as part of a family report, should proceed, despite objections from B's maternal grandmother and father. These objectors argued that the potential for traumatising B outweighed any benefit derived from the observation. A secondary issue involved the qualifications and clinical ability of Ms EE to conduct such an observation, particularly given B's diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder and the sensitive nature of the allegations. The Court was required to determine this in accordance with the paramount consideration of B's best interests and the principles for conducting child-related proceedings under section 69ZN of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Bennett reasoned that the paramount consideration was B's best interests. The Court accepted the submission of the ICL that Ms EE, as a trained observer with considerable experience as a social worker, was appropriately qualified to conduct the observation and identify signs of distress or trauma. The Court found that Ms EE's proposed approach involved balancing B's potential discomfort against the need to gather crucial evidence for the Court, including an assessment of B's reaction to Mr Rennie and the dynamics between the relevant adults. The Court was satisfied that Ms EE possessed the necessary insight and that appropriate safeguards would be in place to minimise any adverse impact on B, noting that Ms EE herself acknowledged the impossibility of guaranteeing a child's complete security. The objections regarding the risk of trauma were considered, but the Court found that Ms EE's experience and controlled process provided sufficient confidence that the observation session was in B's best interests.

The Court ordered that the matter be fixed for final hearing on 6 May 2013, estimated to take 12 to 15 days. The Court also directed that the reasons for its decision and the evidence of Ms EE be transcribed and made available to the parties.