Farnell and Farnell & Anor

In *Farnell and Farnell & Anor*, the primary issue before Rees J of the Family Court of Australia concerned an objection raised by a children's treating therapist to the production and inspection of his files. The Independent Children's Lawyer supported this objection, arguing that disclosure would jeopardise the therapeutic relationship and was not in the children's best interests. A secondary issue involved the father's application for the appointment of an adversarial expert, which was also considered by the Court.

The Court was required to determine whether the children's treating therapist's objection to producing his files should be upheld, considering the potential impact on the therapeutic relationship and the children's welfare. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether the criteria for appointing an adversarial expert, as stipulated in Rule 15.49 of the *Family Law Rules 2004*, had been met by the father.

Rees J upheld the therapist's objection, finding that inspection of the material would indeed compromise the therapeutic relationship and was not in the children's best interests. The application for an adversarial expert was dismissed as the criteria under Rule 15.49 were not satisfied. However, the Court granted leave for the father's solicitors to provide certain documents, including a report by Dr C, to Dr D for the purpose of advising the father in the conduct of the proceedings, effectively allowing for a "shadow expert" role.