Hagle and Diver and Anor

In the Family Court of Australia, Barry J presided over proceedings involving the Applicant and the First Respondent Mother, concerning the welfare of a child, J. The dispute appears to centre on the arrangements for the child and the involvement of extended family members.

The court was required to determine several procedural and substantive matters. These included the adjournment of the proceedings, the filing of updated affidavit material by the Applicant, and the service of documents on the First Respondent Mother and the paternal grandmother. Furthermore, the court considered the issuance of a subpoena to the Department of Education and the inspection of subpoenaed documentation. Crucially, the court also addressed the welfare of the child by requesting the intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) and a report from the Director-General regarding past departmental involvement.

Barry J granted leave for the Applicant's legal representatives to file and serve updating affidavit material, and to issue a subpoena to the Department of Education, with specific conditions regarding the inspection of subpoenaed documents. The court also ordered that the First Respondent Mother be served with a copy of the order by registered post, and that the paternal grandmother be served with the initiating application and other relevant documents. In relation to the child's welfare, the court invoked Section 91B of the Family Law Act, requesting the intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) and directing the Registry Manager to permit inspection of the court file by an authorised person from that department. A report from the Director-General concerning any departmental intervention in the last two years was also requested.