Harlow and Astin (No 2)

In the matter of *Harlow & Astin (No 2)*, heard before Barry J of the Family Court of Australia, the dispute involved an application by the Mother for the appointment of an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) and an adjournment of the trial. The Applicant was Mr Harlow.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the Mother's applications for the appointment of an ICL and for an adjournment of the trial. The Mother sought the adjournment to facilitate the appointment of an ICL.

Barry J dismissed both applications. The court noted that the benefit of an ICL had previously been considered and found not to be necessary. The application for an ICL was made late and lacked supporting material. Furthermore, the court considered the likelihood of Legal Aid funding being capped, which would impact the ability to appoint an ICL. The Mother was ordered to file and serve by 4.00 pm on 25 August 2009 a document specifying the orders she was seeking, and a list of her witnesses. Leave was granted to the Father's legal representatives to file an application for certain witnesses to appear by telephone.