Imani and Etola

This matter concerned proceedings between Imani and Etola, heard by Bennett J. The dispute involved various interim issues, including the vacating of a trial date, directions for future hearings, and compliance with previous orders regarding the filing of financial statements and other evidence. The court also addressed the children's engagement in intensive family therapy and an assessment for autism, as well as the father's contact with the children.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether to vacate the trial date, the terms of an adjournment for directions and determination of outstanding interim matters, and the husband's compliance with filing obligations. Further issues involved the commencement and cost of intensive family therapy with a psychiatrist, the process and cost of an autism assessment for one of the children by a psychologist, and the suspension of face-to-face time between the children and the father pending the completion of family therapy. The court also considered the mother's liberty to seek an interim property settlement and the husband's obligation to respond to such an application. Finally, the court needed to ensure that relevant expert witnesses and the independent children's lawyer received necessary documentation.

Bennett J ordered that the trial set down for 25 October 2016 be vacated and adjourned the proceedings to 19 October 2016 for directions and determination of outstanding interim issues, limiting the hearing to one hour. The husband was ordered to comply with previous orders for filing a statement of financial circumstances and other evidence by 28 September 2016. Liberty was reserved to the mother to apply for costs thrown away due to the husband's non-compliance. The parties were directed to ensure the children attend intensive family therapy with Dr D, with the initial responsibility for its cost to be determined on the adjourned date. The husband was made solely responsible for the initial cost of the autism assessment for child B by Ms E, with liberty to seek contribution at the final trial, and was required to deposit an amount equivalent to the estimated cost with the independent children's lawyer within two working days of notification. Face-to-face time between the children and the father was suspended until the completion of the family therapy, though parties could agree otherwise in writing. The mother was granted liberty to file an application for an interim property settlement by 5 October 2016. The husband was ordered to file and serve any response to the mother's application by 12 October 2016. The independent children's lawyer was directed to provide specific documents to Dr D and Ms E, and to ensure all expert witnesses received copies of each other's reports. The orders incorporated particulars regarding contravention and assistance, pursuant to ss 65DA(2) and 62B. The court noted that failure to attend or comply could result in the matter proceeding without the defaulting party's input.