KAPICIC & BAKAL

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the mother, Ms Bakal, to vary existing consent orders concerning the parenting of the parties' child. The father, Mr Kapicic, had initially sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and time with the child, which were finalised by consent orders on 27 May 2013. These orders were comprehensive, addressing not only time arrangements but also issues such as the child's medical treatment, the mother's mental health and living conditions, the father's parenting practices, and the parties' conduct in the child's presence. Subsequently, the father sought to challenge these consent orders, leading to the matter being transferred to the Family Court.

The mother sought interim orders to discharge the existing consent orders, grant her sole parental responsibility, and establish a new living arrangement for the child with reduced time for the father, pending a fresh Family Assessment Report and psychiatric assessments of both parties. Crucially, the mother also sought to disqualify the author of a Family Report prepared by Dr C, dated 27 April 2013, arguing an apprehension of bias. The mother's concerns included allegations that Dr C appeared uninterested in her concerns, dismissive, and potentially biased against her based on her presentation and the timing of the assessment.

Justice Berman dismissed the mother's application for interim orders. The Court found that the mother's disagreement with the findings and recommendations of Dr C's report did not, in itself, demonstrate an apprehension of bias. Applying the principles from *Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy*, the Court held that a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that Dr C might not bring an impartial mind to her task. The Court noted that the mother had the opportunity to challenge the report through cross-examination and that disagreement with a report writer's conclusions or even the expression of opinions outside their expertise does not render an entire report inadmissible. The Court also found that Dr C had undertaken a comprehensive investigation as a single expert appointed by the parties, and there was no justification for a further assessment by a different consultant given the circumstances.

Consequently, the interim orders sought by the mother, including the discharge of the existing consent orders and the appointment of a new report writer, were dismissed. The Court indicated that the existing Family Report, prepared by Dr C, remained relevant material to assist the Court, and the mother retained the ability to challenge its contents through appropriate legal avenues.