Hartford & Ansilda (No. 3)

In the matter of *Hartford & Ansilda (No. 3)*, Brown J of the Family Court of Australia considered competing applications for final parenting orders concerning a child born in December 2006, and the father's application alleging contravention of orders by the mother. The proceedings were adjourned for trial on 25 August 2008.

The central legal issue before the court was the mother's application for an adjournment of the trial date, which was made late in the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether to grant this adjournment and, in light of the circumstances, the appropriate costs orders to make.

Brown J reasoned that the mother's application for an adjournment was made at a late stage and was not supported by sufficient evidence to justify disrupting the scheduled trial. The court noted that the mother's solicitor had ceased to act, and while she had applied for legal aid, the outcome was uncertain. The judge considered the mother's stated intention to seek funds from family and friends if legal aid was not granted. Crucially, the court observed that the mother had also made applications for intervention orders in the Children's Court and that police intervention order applications concerning both parents were listed for hearing on dates close to the scheduled trial. In light of the late application and the mother's conduct, the court ordered that the mother pay $7,000 towards the father's costs thrown away by the adjournment. The costs of the independent children's lawyer were fixed at $1,760 and reserved. The court also directed that sealed copies of the orders and reasons be sent to the registrars of the Children's Court and the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, requesting they be brought to the attention of any court hearing an intervention order application involving the parties or the child.