Isidro and Halleson
[2020] FamCA 273
•23 April 2020
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ISIDRO & HALLESON | [2020] FamCA 273 |
| FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – parental responsibility – terms of reference for Single Expert – contested gender issues. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) rules 1.04, 15.44, 15.45, 15.46 |
| Re Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Isidro |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Halleson |
| INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Evans Family Lawyers |
| FILE NUMBER: | CAC | 1988 | of | 2019 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 23 April 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| PLACE HEARD: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Gill J |
| HEARING DATE: | 20 April 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Strong Law Pty Ltd |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Watts McCray Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: | Jeanine Lloyd & Associates |
Orders
That pursuant to Order 7 of the Orders dated 8 November 2019, Dr B is appointed as the Single Expert in this matter ("Single Expert").
The reasonable remuneration and expenses of the Single Expert shall be paid by the parents in equal shares, i.e. 50% by the Mother and 50% by the Father.
The expert shall be provided with copies of the following documents:
3.1. Family Court Orders dated 11 October 2019;
3.2. Family Court Orders dated 8 November 2019;
3.3. Family Court Orders dated 20 March 2020;
3.4. Initiating Application filed by Mr Isidro on 3 October 2019;
3.5. Affidavit of Mr Isidro filed on 3 October 2019;
3.6. Notice of Risk signed by Mr Isidro on 30 September 2019;
3.7. Response filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019;
3.8. Affidavit of Ms Halleson filed 31 October 2019;
3.9. Notice of Risk filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019;
3.10. Section 69ZW material;
3.11. Material produced under subpoena to:
a. Department of Human Services (Medicare);
b. C Medical Centre;
c.Any other subpoena issued prior to interviews with the Single Expert.
3.12.Statement/s of facts pursuant to Rule 15.54(3) or Rule 15.54(4) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
3.13.Undertakings by Mr Isidro to the Magistrate's Court of the Australian Capital Territory dated 2 March 2020.
3.14. The Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents.
3.15.Position Statement of the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents prepared by Dr Michelle Telfer; Dr Michelle Tollit; Dr Cameron Pace and Dr Ken Pang.
Where the Single Expert provides an opinion, she is to state the information she relies on in forming that opinion, and the manner in which that information has impacted upon her formation of that opinion.
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall:
5.1. Investigate all matters relating to the care, welfare and development of X, born … 2012 ("the child").
5.2.Carry out mental health assessments of Mr Isidro ("the father") and Ms Halleson ("the mother"), as well as any other assessment/s considered necessary;
5.3.Carry out such assessments of the child as the Single Expert considers necessary; and
5.4.Prepare a written report that complies with the Single Expert's duties and obligations pursuant to Divisions 15.5.4, 15.5.5 and 15.5.6 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall interview, assess and observe:
6.1. The father, Mr Isidro, born … 1971;
6.2. The mother, Ms Halleson, born … 1990; and
6.3. The child, X, born … 2012.
The Single Expert may invite other persons to participate in and facilitate the preparation of the Single Expert report but shall do so only after having given notice to each party, including the Independent Children's Lawyer. If any part of an additional person's input is included in the observations or conclusions of the Single Expert report, the source of and nature of such input shall be specifically identified.
Following reading and reviewing the documents listed at point 1 above, and conducting interviews and assessments, the Single Expert shall prepare a written report in relation to the following matters:
8.1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.
8.2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
8.3. The nature of the relationship and emotional attachments between the child and other significant persons in the child's life, including:
a. Each of the child's parents; and
b. Other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
8.4. The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including:
a. The likely effect on the child of any separation from:
i. either of the child's parents;
ii. any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom the child has been living.
b. The variation or discharging of Order 18 made on 8 November 2019.
8.5.The capacity of the following classes of persons to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs:
a. each of the child's parents; and
b. any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
8.6. The maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Single Expert considers relevant, including but not limited to the allegations that the child prefers to be treated as male and by the allegedly self-affirmed name of "Y" and the allegation that the child prefers the name “X”. The Single Expert is not requested to determine whether the child has gender dysphoria, but to make recommendations (if any) in relation to further investigations and interventions.
8.7.The attitude of each parent to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents, including but not limited to:
a. their attitudes to each other;
b. Encouraging, facilitating contact and the child's relationship with the other parent.
8.8. The impact of any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.
8.9.The understanding of each party of appropriate parenting strategies and behaviours, and the ability of each to implement such parenting strategies and whether or not each parent would benefit from participation in a parenting course or program.
8.10.The capacity of both parents to provide for the child's physical needs, both without support from other persons and with support that can reasonably be expected from other persons including other family members.
8.11.The capacity of the parents to co-parent effectively in a week about shared care or any other arrangement.
8.12.The likely effect and significance of any different capabilities and approaches to parenting of each of the mother and father for the interests of the child in an equal time care arrangement.
8.13.The capacity of the parents, either jointly or separately to be able to effectively manage care of the child and particular issues in relation to the children’s physical; psychological and emotional well-being as they arise;
8.14.Any views expressed by the child and any factors which the Court Expert considers are relevant to the weight that ought to be given to those wishes, including but not limited to:
a. the child’s respective age and maturity;
b.the degree of understanding and appreciation by the child of the factors involved in the issue before the Court and their longer term implication;
c. the strength and duration of the child's wishes;
d. the extent to which those wishes are based on a choice that is well thought through and appropriate as distinct from peripheral matters;
e. the extent to which those wishes are the result of pressure on the child and thus far how they reflect the child’s own choice;
f. the likely impact on the child of an order contrary to their wishes, in this regard the child may not be required to express any wish or view.
8.15. Any other fact, matter or circumstance that the Single Expert considers to be significant and/or relevant to the Court's determination about what Orders should be made in the best interests of the child.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Isidro & Halleson has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
FILE NUMBER: CAC 1988 of 2019
| Mr Isidro |
Applicant
And
| Ms Halleson |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings concern a parenting dispute, including, but not limited to a dispute about the exercise of parental responsibility in the context of contested gender issues involving the child.
This aspect of the proceedings involves a dispute between the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer as to the terms of reference and the material to be provided to the Single Expert, appointed by the agreement of the parties.
The parents provided competing terms of reference which in large part were aligned. They are annexed to these reasons. Written outlines of argument were prepared by each of the parents. Where there were differences, the Independent Children’s Lawyer supported the iteration pursued by the Father.
Before turning to those differences, it is necessary to observe that at this early stage of the proceedings, the factual issues in dispute between the parties appear to centre on the particular characteristics and needs of the child (including whether such arise as a result of gender related issues), and the capacity of each of the parents to make determinations about and to provide for the care and development of the child. In the dispute between the parties, the gender related issues are prominent.
Despite the dispute between the parties as to the gender related issues, the parties were in agreement that the scope of the report prepared by the Single Expert should not include an assessment of whether the child should be diagnosed as gender dysphoric. A central justification for this approach was that it is said not to be within the expertise of this expert. For the Mother, it is also put that gender dysphoria is but one aspect of issues related to gender and so a focus on such a diagnosis is of limited assistance. It was also agreed by the parties that the Single Expert report on matters including the following:
The maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child’s parents, and any other characteristic of the child that the Single Expert considers relevant, including, but not limited to the allegations that the child prefers to be treated as a male. The Single Expert is not requested to determine whether the child has gender dysphoria, but to make recommendations (if any) in relation to further investigations and interventions.
The dispute between the parties centred on a number of discrete areas. In approaching the dispute, it is necessary to bear in mind the Rules insofar as they provide for the appointment of a Single Expert. It is to be observed that Single Experts are appointed to “help to resolve a substantial issue in a case,”[1] that the considerations for the appointment of a Single Expert (and thereby for the scope of a report) point to the main purpose of the Rules, the necessity of the evidence on a particular issue, the nature of the issues in dispute, whether an issue falls “within a substantially established area of knowledge” and whether there is a need for a range of opinion.[2] It is worth emphasising the main purpose of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) as set out at Rule 1.04 as follows:
The main purpose of these Rules is to ensure that each case is resolved in a just and timely manner at a cost to the parties and the court that is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
[1] Rule 15.44
[2] Rule 15.45
It is in this context that the court may direct the parties, as here, to confer as to the instructions to be given to the Single Expert and for the Court ultimately to settle those instructions.[3]
[3] Rule 15.46
This approach points to the desirability of an approach in instruction to a Single Expert that is focussed upon what is substantial in a case, rather than a mere repetition, in a children’s case for example, of the s 60CC considerations. The parties in this case were so focussed.
The disputed aspects
The first disputed area centred on the manner in which the Single Expert was to be instructed in relation to the assessment of parental capacity. That is, all the parties agreed that parental capacity is a matter to be dealt with, but disagreed as to the terms. This was seen in [8.5] of the Father’s terms, in comparison to [8.3-8.4, 8.11-8.15] of the Mother’s terms.
The key objection advanced in respect of the Mother’s approach was that it added unnecessarily to the complexity of the instructions being given to the Single Expert, that it could be expected that the experienced Single Expert would be able to address what was necessary in this area without specific guidance, and that the Mother’s approach would add to the expense of the Single Expert.
The advantage of the Mother’s approach is that it focusses the attention of the Single Expert appropriately on the aspects of parental capacity as they arise in this particular case. This commends the Mother’s approach. However, the Mother’s approach also directs the Single Expert to unnecessary repetition in dealing with parental capacity at [8.3-8.4]. While it may be observed that these paragraphs give direct attention to the Objects at s 60B of the Act, they are matters reasonably subsumed into the other instructions prepared by the Mother in relation to parental capacity and the development of the child.
Accordingly, [8.11-8.15] of the Mother’s terms should be preferred to the Father’s [8.5], but [8.3-8.4] should be excluded.
The second area of dispute at [8.6b] arises in relation to the Mother’s request that the Single Expert provide advice as to the lifting on a restraint previously consented to by the Mother that she would not:
Until further order or agreement in writing between the parties, both parties are hereby restrained from facilitating or allowing X to attend upon the "D Community Centre", the "E Playgoup", the "F Support Group" and/or any other similar playgroup and/or support group.
The key objection posed to this aspect on the part of the Father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer was that it was said to require the Single Expert to form an opinion as to whether the child should be assessed as gender dysphoric, an opinion no party seeks from the Single Expert.
However, given that the Single Expert is being asked to make recommendations in relation to investigations and interventions, it is appropriate that the Single Expert’s attention be drawn directly to this issue. It may not prove capable of answer by the Single Expert (perhaps due to the lack of diagnosis), but at least directs attention to a specific contentious issue in terms of “interventions.” It should remain.
The third area of dispute relates to [8.8] of the Mother’s terms. The focus of the objection related to the Mother’s allegation that the child prefers to be known as “Y.” The dispute here was limited, in the sense that the Father did not oppose its inclusion as long as there was mutuality in respect of the Father’s position that the child prefers to be called “X”. If not so mutual then the Father opposes its inclusion. The Mother opposed the inclusion of the Father’s issue on the basis that he has not presented evidence as yet to justify such a proposition.
The Mother is correct. If there is an allegation by the Father that the child prefers to be called “X” then it does not yet appear in the evidence. However, it could not be expected that all evidence is yet before the Court in the absence of full affidavit material as opposed to interim material. What the Father has already made clear in his evidence is that he alleges that any preference to be called “Y” is not a true preference, but is rather the product of pressure brought to bear by the Mother. If the Father, in his case, makes the allegation that the child prefers “X” then this is appropriately raised at the same point as the allegation that the child prefers “Y.” The significance of each allegation will stand or fall on the evidence that ultimately supports it.
The term of reference should be amended as sought by the Father.
The fourth and final area of dispute relates to the provision of particular documents to the Single Expert set out at [3.14 and 3.15] of the Mother’s terms, as follows:
3.14 The Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents;
3.15 Position Statement of the Australian Standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender divers children and adolescents prepared by Dr Michelle Telfer; Dr Michael Tollit; Dr Cameron Pace and Dr Ken Pang.
The justification put forward for the Mother was firstly that the documents would provide “clarification and consistency in relation to the definition of gender.” Secondly, the sending of the documents was submitted to reflect the importance assigned to the draft version of the documents in Re Kelvin.[4] Thirdly, it was submitted that the documents would assist in minimising harm to the child. Fourthly, it was said that the documents would provide an appropriate framework in relation to gender identity in the proceedings.
[4] [2017] FamCAFC 258.
The Father opposed the provision of the documents on the basis that it undermined the neutrality of the Single Expert in dealing with gender issues in the case.
I was asked to determine this issue absent information, other than what might be contained in Re Kelvin as to the scope or authority of the documents. In Re Kelvin it was noted that the guidelines were then expected to be available at a later date. It is apparent that the then draft guidelines were before the Court in Re Kelvin as annexed to an affidavit by one of the authors, Dr Telfer. Presumably, the affidavit of Dr Telfer sets out the provenance and authority of the expected documents. The court in Re Kelvin referred to, but neither adopted nor endorsed the draft guidelines.
It should be recognised that the efficacy and appropriateness of guidelines and related documents is to be judged in the light of an individual case and an individual child, and so it is unsurprising that there was no such endorsement of the guidelines as of general application. It should be observed that guidelines, produced in an authoritative manner by an appropriate body may be of considerable assistance in assessing the circumstances of a particular child. Here, the evidence as to the status and provenance of the documents is deficient for enabling such an assessment to be made.
However, the appointment of the Single Expert takes place in the context of litigation. It may be anticipated that the evidence of the Single Expert may be tested against the suggested guidelines, assuming that the relevance of so doing is made out at trial. The Single Expert should not be blindsided by such an approach. It is appropriate that the Single Expert’s attention be drawn to the documents, but without there being any suggestion that the Court has given its imprimatur to the documents.
The contested documents may be provided to the Single Expert, with it being made clear that the Court, at this stage of the proceedings, neither approves nor disapproves their application to the child.
I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 23 April 2020.
Associate:
Date: 23 April 2020
Mother's Proposed Terms of Reference and Schedule of Documents for Single Expert
That pursuant to Order 7 of the Orders dated 8 November 2019, Dr B is appointed as the Single Expert in this matter ("Single Expert").
The reasonable remuneration and expenses of the Single Expert shall be paid by the parents in equal shares, i.e. 50% by the Mother and 50% by the Father.
The expert shall be provided with copies of the following documents:
3.1. Family Court Orders dated 11 October 2019;
3.2. Family Court Orders dated 8 November 2019;
3.3. Family Court Orders dated 20 March 2020;
3.4. Initiating Application filed by Mr Isidro on 3 October 2019;
3.5. Affidavit of Mr Isidro filed on 3 October 2019;
3.6. Notice of Risk signed by Mr Isidro on 30 September 2019;
3.7. Response filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019;
3.8. Affidavit of Ms Halleson filed 31 October 2019;
3.9. Notice of Risk filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019;
3.10. Section 69ZW material;
3.11. Material produced under subpoena to:
a. Department of Human Services (Medicare);
b. C Medical Centre;
c.Any other subpoena issued prior to interviews with the Single Expert.
3.12.Statement/s of facts pursuant to Rule 15.54(3) or Rule 15.54(4) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
3.13.Undertakings by Mr Isidro to the Magistrate's Court of the Australian Capital Territory dated 2 March 2020.
3.14.The Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents.
3.15.Position Statement of the Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents prepared by Dr Michelle Telfer; Dr Michelle Tollit; Dr Cameron Pace and Dr Ken Pang.
Where the Single Expert provides an opinion, she is to state the information she relies on in forming that opinion, and the manner in which that information has impacted upon her formation of that opinion.
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall:
5.1. Investigate all matters relating to the care, welfare and development of X, born … 2012 ("the child").
5.2.Carry out mental health assessments of Mr Isidro ("the father") and Ms Halleson ("the mother"), as well as any other assessment/s considered necessary;
5.3.Carry out such assessments of the child as the Single Expert considers necessary; and
5.4.Prepare a written report that complies with the Single Expert's duties and obligations pursuant to Divisions 15.5.4, 15.5.5 and 15.5.6 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall interview, assess and observe:
6.1. The father, Mr Isidro, born in 1971;
6.2. The mother, Ms Halleson, born in 1990; and
6.3. The child, X, born in 2012.
The Single Expert may invite other persons to participate in and facilitate the preparation of the Single Expert report but shall do so only after having given notice to each party, including the Independent Children's Lawyer. If any part of an additional person's input is included in the observations or conclusions of the Single Expert report, the source of and nature of such input shall be specifically identified.
Following reading and reviewing the documents listed at point 1 above, and conducting interviews and assessments, the Single Expert shall prepare a written report in relation to the following matters:
8.1. The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.
8.2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
8.3. Ensuring that the child receives adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential;
8.4. Ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their child.
8.5. The nature of the relationship and emotional attachments between the child and other significant persons in the child's life, including:
a. Each of the child's parents; and
b. Other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
8.6. The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including:
a. The likely effect on the child of any separation from:
i. either of the child's parents;
ii. any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom the child has been living.
b. The variation or discharging of Order 18 made on 8 November 2019.
8.7.The capacity of the following classes of persons to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs:
a. each of the child's parents; and
b. any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
8.8. The maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Single Expert considers relevant, including but not limited to the allegations that the child prefers to be treated as male and by the allegedly self-affirmed name of "Y". The Single Expert is not requested to determine whether the child has gender dysphoria, but to make recommendations (if any) in relation to further investigations and interventions.
8.9.The attitude of each parent to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents, including but not limited to:
a. their attitudes to each other;
b. Encouraging, facilitating contact and the child's relationship with the other parent.
8.10. The impact of any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.
8.11.The understanding of each party of appropriate parenting strategies and behaviours, and the ability of each to implement such parenting strategies and whether or not each parent would benefit from participation in a parenting course or program.
8.12.The capacity of both parents to provide for the child's physical needs, both without support from other persons and with support that can reasonably be expected from other persons including other family members.
8.13.The capacity of the parents to co-parent effectively in a week about shared care or any other arrangement.
8.14.The likely effect and significance of any different capabilities and approaches to parenting of each of the mother and father for the interests of the child in and equal time care arrangement.
8.15.The capacity of the parents, either jointly or separately to be able to effectively manage care of the child and particular issues in relation to the children’s physical; psychological and emotional well-being as they arise;
8.16.Any views expressed by the child and any factors which the Court Expert considers are relevant to the weight that ought to be given to those wishes, including but not limited to:
a. the child’s respective age and maturity;
b.the degree of understanding and appreciation by the child of the factors involved in the issue before the Court and their longer term implication;
c. the strength and duration of the child's wishes;
d. the extent to which those wishes are based on a choice that is well thought through and appropriate as distinct from peripheral matters;
e. the extent to which those wishes are the result of pressure on the child and thus far how they reflect the child’s own choice;
f. the likely impact on the child of an order contrary to their wishes, in this regard the child may not be required to express any wish or view.
8.17. Any other fact, matter or circumstance that the Single Expert considers to be significant and/or relevant to the Court's determination about what Orders should be made in the best interests of the child.
Terms of Reference and Schedule of Documents for Single Expert Report
Prepared by the Solicitor for the Applicant Father
That pursuant to Order 7 of the Orders dated 8 November 2019, Dr B is appointed as the Single Expert in this matter ("Single Expert").
The reasonable remuneration and expenses of the Single Expert shall be paid by the parents in equal shares, i.e. 50% by the Mother and 50% by the Father.
The expert shall be provided with copies of the following documents:
3.1. Family Court Orders dated 11 October 2019.
3.2. Family Court Orders dated 8 November 2019.
3.3. Family Court Orders dated 20 March 2020.
3.4. Initiating Application filed by Mr Isidro on 3 October 2019.
3.5. Affidavit of Mr Isidro filed on 3 October 2019.
3.6. Notice of Risk signed by Mr Isidro on 30 September 2019.
3.7. Response filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019.
3.8. Affidavit of Ms Halleson filed 31 October 2019.
3.9. Notice of Risk filed by Ms Halleson on 31 October 2019.
3.10. Section 69ZW material.
3.11. Material produced under subpoena to:
a. Department of Human Services (Medicare);
b. C Medical Centre; and
c. Any other subpoena issued prior to interviews with the Single Expert.
3.12. Statement/s of facts pursuant to Rule 15.54(3) or Rule 15.54(4) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
3.13. Undertakings by Mr Isidro to the Magistrate's Court of the Australian Capital Territory dated 2 March 2020.
Where the Single Expert provides an opinion, she is to state the information she relies on in forming that opinion, and the manner in which that information has impacted upon her formation of that opinion.
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall:
4.1. Investigate all matters relating to the care, welfare and development of X, born in 2012 ("the child").
4.2. Carry out mental health assessments of Mr Isidro ("the father") and Ms Halleson ("the mother"), as well as any other assessment/s considered necessary;
4.3.Carry out such assessments of the child as the Single Expert considers necessary; and
4.4. Prepare a written report that complies with the Single Expert's duties and obligations pursuant to Divisions 15.5.4, 15.5.5 and 15.5.6 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
That in preparation of the Single Expert report, the Single Expert shall interview, assess and observe:
5.1. The father, Mr Isidro, born in 1971;
5.2. The mother, Ms Halleson, born in 1990; and
5.3. The child, X, born in 2012.
The Single Expert may invite other persons to participate in and facilitate the preparation of the Single Expert report but shall do so only after having given notice to each party, including the Independent Children's Lawyer. If any part of an additional person's input is included in the observations or conclusions of the Single Expert report, the source of and nature of such input shall be specifically identified.
Following reading and reviewing the documents listed at point 3 above, and conducting interviews and assessments, the Single Expert shall prepare a written report in relation to the following matters:
7.1.The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents.
7.2. The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
7.3.The nature of the relationship and emotional attachments between the child and other significant persons in the child's life, including:
a. Each of the child's parents; and
b. Other persons (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
7.4. The likely effect of any changes in the child's circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from:
a. either of the child's parents; or
b. any other child, or other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child), with whom the child has been living.
7.5. The capacity of the following classes of persons to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs:
a. each of the child's parents; and
b.any other person (including any grandparent or other relative of the child).
7.6. The maturity, sex, lifestyle, and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the child and either of the child's parents, and any other characteristics of the child that the Single Expert considers relevant, including but not limited to the allegations that the child prefers to be treated as male. The Single Expert is not requested to determine whether the child has gender dysphoria, but to make recommendations (if any) in relation to further investigations and interventions.
7.7. The attitude of each parent to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child's parents, including but not limited to:
a. their attitudes to each other;
b.Encouraging, facilitating contact and the child's relationship with the other parent.
7.8.The impact of any family violence involving the child or a member of the child's family.
7.9.Any views expressed by the child and any factors which the Court Expert considers are relevant to the weight that ought to be given to those wishes, including but not limited to:
a. the child’s respective age and maturity;
b. the degree of understanding and appreciation by the child of the factors involved in the issue before the Court and their longer term implication;
c. the strength and duration of the child's wishes;
d.the extent to which those wishes are based on a choice that is well thought through and appropriate as distinct from peripheral matters;
e.the extent to which those wishes are the result of pressure on the child and thus far how they reflect the child’s own choice;
f. the likely impact on the child of an order contrary to their wishes;
7.10.Any other fact, matter or circumstance that the Single Expert considers to be significant and/or relevant to the Court's determination about what Orders should be made in the best interests of the child.
0