Grillo and Arthur (No 2)

[2014] FamCA 645

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRILLO & ARTHUR (NO 2) [2014] FamCA 645

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – consideration of existing therapeutic regime aimed at re-establishing a relationship between the child and father – where current psychologist has limited availability pending trial – orders made for the appointment of a new child psychologist – orders made truncating therapeutic regime to ensure matter is ready for trial.

APPLICANT: Mr Grillo

RESPONDENT: Ms Arthur

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission of SA

FILE NUMBER: ADC 4152 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 12 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 11 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in Person

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Bowler

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: D'Angelo Kavanagh

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Hemsley

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Services Commission of SA

upon noting:-

(a)The order made on 7 August 2014 adjourning further consideration of the matter to 22 October 2014 at 9.15am

Orders

1. Orders 5 to 14 inclusive of the orders made 1 April 2014 be discharged.

2. That the mother forthwith do all things necessary to facilitate the child’s attendance for therapeutic counselling with Mr F at such times and for such periods of time as nominated (in consultation with the mother NOTING that she has full time work commitments), such therapy to be directed to the re-establishment of the relationship between the child and the father and shall be at the joint and equal expense of the mother and the father.

3. That the sessions referred to in paragraph (2) herein be conducted as follows:

   (a)The first and second sessions to be between the child and Mr F only;

   (b)The third and fourth sessions are to be between the child, Mr F, the father’s daughter Ms G Grillo and her children H and J.

   (c)Subject to the recommendation of Mr F the sessions are to include the father (with or without the presence of the father’s daughter and her children) as Mr F deems appropriate.

4. Following the completion of all sessions referred to in paragraph (3) above, the mother do all things necessary to facilitate the child E spending time with Ms G Grillo from 10am to 5pm on alternate Sundays to commence on the first Sunday following the completion of all sessions.

5. That after the second period of time the child spends with Ms G Grillo in accordance with paragraph (4) herein the father be at liberty to attend such periods of time.

6. That the mother do all things as necessary to engage in therapeutic counselling with Ms I, such therapy to be directed to her facilitating a relationship between the child and the father, at her sole expense.

7. That the father do all things as necessary to engage in therapeutic counselling with Mr F, such therapy to be directed to managing the process of re-introduction of the child to the father and facilitating the relationship with the child and the mother, at his sole expense.

8. That all handovers in respect to the time the child spends with Ms G Grillo and the father as referred to herein be conducted at the D Town Children’s Contact Service AND in the event that service is unavailable THEN inside the K Town Street Police Station.

9. That following upon the father having attended at least two (2) periods of time occurring in accordance with paragraphs (3) (c) and (5) herein the Independent Children’s Lawyer obtain a report from Mr F as to the progress of the therapeutic counselling undertaken by her with the child and the progress of the re-establishment of the relationship between the child and the father.

10. That upon publication of Mr F’s report in paragraph (12) herein, an updated assessment from Ms L be obtained prior to the adjourned date.

11. Leave be granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to file and serve a report by Mr F and Ms L within 7 days of the publication of each of those reports.

12. That the parties be restrained and an injunction granted restraining each of them from discussing the proceedings with the child SAVE as may be necessary to facilitate the attendance of the child and the parties on Mr F and Ms L.

13. That the parties do all things necessary and sign all such documents as may be required to seek acceptance into the D Town Children’s Contact Service for the purpose of supervised handover and the possibility of observed interaction between the father and the child if so ordered.

14. That the outstanding interim proceedings are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Grillo & Arthur (No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADC 4152  of 2012

Mr Grillo

Applicant

And

Ms Arthur

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. The proceedings involve parenting issues in respect of the child E born in 2006.  A trial date has been set for 3 November 2014 as a primary listing.

2. The applicant father is represented by a solicitor and counsel.  The Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) appears with counsel.  However, the mother is self-represented as and from 30 July 2014.

3. The mother alleges that the child is highly resistive to spending time with the father and notwithstanding her best endeavours to promote the relationship, she is unable to persuade him to spend time with the father.  For his part, the father considers that the mother has embarked upon a course of conduct which is designed to alienate the child from him.  The father does not accept that the mother has any intention to promote and/or facilitate a relationship between he and E.  The mother denies that she has any intention and/or has in any way conducted herself in a manner consistent with alienation.

4. The proceedings were listed for trial on 1 April 2014. For various reasons not the least of which was an indication by the mother that if an adjournment was granted she would seek at least legal advice, if not representation, the parties with the assistance of the ICL negotiated the consent orders made 1 April 2014.

5. The intent of the order was to set out a detailed plan to involve the parties and the child in therapeutic counselling with a child psychologist.  The purpose was to explore and facilitate the re-establishment of a relationship between E and the father.

6. At the end of the proposed program, the ICL would obtain a report from the single expert, provide same to the family consultant Ms L with the intent that she would pull the various strings together and publish a report prior to the proceedings.

7. When the matter came back before me on 7 August 2014, there had been little or no progress in the implementation of the orders of 1 April 2014.  The potential difficulty arising from the inactivity is obvious.  Without some further evidence of the extent of the breakdown of the relationship between the child and the father and the prospects of that relationship being re-established, there may well have been a significant implication for the matter remaining listed as a trial commencing 3 November 2014.

8. The parties and the ICL have however reached a pleasing level of consensus and subject to the need to truncate part of the process as set out in the orders, agreement was reached as to Mr F being instructed to undertake the therapeutic counselling.

9. The ICL is to be commended for the significant effort undertaken in canvassing a range of experts in the area to assess availability.  Ultimately, Mr F has indicated his preparedness to undertake the task, but given the relative close proximity to trial it is necessary to shorten the proposed therapeutic program but hopefully without affecting the integrity of the outcome and the ability of both Mr F and Ms L to prepare reports in time for the November hearing.

10. On 7 August 2014 counsel for the ICL made an oral application that the parties be the subject of an injunction restraining each of them from discussing the proceedings with the child.  The mother did not oppose the making of such an order.

11. A further matter was raised by the father’s counsel namely, that the parties had not yet enrolled in the D Town Contact Centre and that to do so at an early stage would significantly speed up the process having access to the Centre both for the purposes of this order, but also if it should be required that supervised time occur at the Centre.  Again, the parties were in agreement that such an order should be made.

CONCLUSION

1. Accordingly, I propose to discharge orders 5-14 inclusive of the orders made 1 April 2014 and make fresh orders which better reflect the continued agreement between the parties of the need for therapeutic counselling but to acknowledge that the process must by necessity be somewhat shortened.

1. I make orders as appear at the commencement of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Berman delivered on 12 August 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  12 August 2014