GRAFT & MCCORMICK

In the matter of GRAFT & MCCORMICK, heard before Tree J, the mother sought to vary existing interim orders concerning the children's living arrangements and time spent with each parent. The father, in response, sought to suspend the mother's time with the children until trial and to vary the current equal shared parental responsibility to sole parental responsibility in his favour. The mother also raised several other applications, including seeking to prevent the family report writer from further contact, to stop the father's solicitors and the Independent Children's Lawyer from obtaining further reports, to review the refusal of a Registrar to permit the filing of a contravention application, and for an injunction restraining the father and his solicitors.

The court was required to determine whether there had been a sufficient change in circumstances to justify further interim litigation and a revisitation of the orders previously made by Judge Willis. Specifically, the court considered the mother's applications regarding the family consultant, the Independent Children's Lawyer, the refusal of the contravention application, and the request for an injunction. The court also considered the mother's request for the children to speak to the judge privately and the mother's application for costs and compensation.

Tree J found that there was insufficient change in circumstances to justify revisiting the interim orders. The court noted that in interim proceedings, it is difficult to test the veracity of allegations and make findings of fact unless they are agreed or uncontroversial. Regarding the mother's concerns about the family report writer, the court found no material to support her views. The court also found no substance in the mother's complaints about the father's solicitors and the Independent Children's Lawyer obtaining further reports, nor in her allegations of collusion between the father, his solicitors, and the court. The court declined the mother's request for the children to speak to the judge privately, deeming it inappropriate in this case, and found no basis for her claims for costs and compensation.

Consequently, the court dismissed significant parts of the mother's Amended Application and the father's Response, specifically those seeking to re-agitate interim children's orders. By consent, Order 3 of the previous orders made by Judge Willis was discharged. The court ordered that the applicant's Amended Application in a Case filed 29 January be dismissed, and the respondent's Response to and Application in a Case filed 30 January 2015 be otherwise dismissed. The Independent Children's Lawyer was directed to use her best endeavours to organise psychiatric assessments of each party, with the parties to cooperate with reasonable requests.