HAWLEY & WIGGINS

This matter came before Bennett J concerning proceedings between a father and a mother. The father's Contravention Application filed on 9 May 2019 was dismissed. The court also addressed the application of section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to any cross-examination occurring on or after 11 September 2019, noting that neither party could cross-examine the other personally and advising them of the availability of the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme.

The court was required to determine the application of section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to the proceedings, the dismissal of the father's Contravention Application, the compilation and provision of a bundle of documents to the parties, and the father's application to publish evidence on social media. Additionally, the court was to consider the father's application for the removal of the independent children's lawyer.

Bennett J ordered that section 102NA(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* would apply to any cross-examination from 11 September 2019, with parties advised of their inability to cross-examine each other personally and the availability of legal representation through a scheme. The father's Contravention Application was dismissed. The court ordered the compilation of a bundle of specified documents, including family reports and previous court orders, to be provided to each party. The father's application to publish evidence on social media was also dismissed. The court further directed that transcripts of telephone calls and an audio recording be marked as exhibits.

The court adjourned the further hearing of the father’s Application in a Case filed 24 April 2019 to 19 July 2019, with the primary matter for determination being the father’s application for the removal of the independent children’s lawyer. Directions were given regarding the notification and appearance of the independent children’s lawyer, and the filing of evidence in relation to the removal application. The father was prohibited from filing further affidavit material in relation to his application. The court also ordered that its reasons for decision be transcribed and provided to the parties.