Goldy & Goldy (No 2)

This case concerned an application by the father for leave to issue subpoenas for various individuals and entities, including the Kids Helpline, a psychologist, and medical services, in family law proceedings. The dispute involved the father's desire to obtain information relevant to the health of the mother and one of the children, M, and the potential impact of such disclosure on the confidentiality of services provided to children. The matter came before Dawe J in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether leave should be granted to issue subpoenas to the Kids Helpline, considering the public interest in maintaining its confidentiality, and whether leave should be granted to issue a subpoena to the children's psychologist, Dr O. This latter issue involved an examination of the applicability of sections 67D and 67E of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA) to the circumstances, and how the best interests of the children should be considered in procedural matters.

Regarding the subpoena to the Kids Helpline, the Court held that the benefit of the information sought did not outweigh the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality crucial to the operation of the Kids Helpline, and therefore refused leave. In relation to Dr O, the Court considered previous orders that counselling and psychological evaluations be conducted confidentially. While acknowledging the potential relevance of sections 67D and 67E of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA) concerning victims of sexual abuse, the Court found it unclear if the counselling provided by Dr O fell within these provisions, as it appeared to extend beyond issues of sexual abuse. Despite the best interests of the children not being the determinative factor for procedural matters, the Court considered them as a relevant factor. The Court granted leave for the father to subpoena Dr O, requiring her to give evidence regarding the nature of the counselling provided, to enable the Court to determine its admissibility under the *Evidence Act* and to address issues of confidentiality. The Court noted that the reliability of the independent children's lawyer's report might be challenged if based on information not considered established.

The Court made several orders, including granting leave for the father to issue subpoenas to various health services and individuals concerning the mother's and child M's health, with specific return dates. Leave was also granted to subpoena Dr O to give evidence and produce documents at trial, with directions for her attendance and the determination of her evidence. Further directions were given regarding the provision of information to the Independent Children's Lawyer and the filing of updated case outlines. The parties were also ordered to appoint and agree on a single expert for property valuation.