Hall and Hall (No. 2)

In *Hall and Hall (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Hall (the applicant) and Ms Hall (the respondent) concerning procedural orders related to their children. The matter came before Justice Dawe in Adelaide.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine who should conduct a family assessment report, given that the previously nominated individuals were unavailable within the required timeframe. The court was also required to consider the qualifications of a proposed alternative assessor, Dr A, who was not a psychologist, and whether her appointment would be in the best interests of the children.

Justice Dawe reasoned that while the original orders specified a psychologist, the paramount consideration was the best interests of the children and the need for the matter to be determined promptly. The court acknowledged that Dr A, despite not being a psychologist, possessed extensive experience in preparing reports for the Family Court. The judge was satisfied that Dr A had the necessary qualifications and that her proposed timetable would not be chaotic or detrimental to the children, particularly in light of the specific needs of one child with an auditory processing disorder. The court intended to ensure Dr A would be provided with all relevant documents, including psychological reports, to inform her assessment.

The court discharged paragraph 11 of its previous order and made new orders. These orders directed the parties to jointly instruct Dr A to conduct the family assessment report. Mr Hall was ordered to pay the costs of the report in the first instance, with Ms Hall's contribution to be determined at trial. The parties were required to provide all filed documents to Dr A within two working days and attend appointments arranged by her. The report was to be made available to the Court by 9 December 2013.