Krill and Crawley and Anor

[2008] FamCA 1207

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRILL & CRAWLEY AND ANOR [2008] FamCA 1207

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Supervised contact – Costs of supervision

APPLICANT: Ms Krill

RESPONDENTS: Ms Crawley & Mr Haydn

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Robert Winter

FILE NUMBER: ADF 1537 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 22 September 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 22 September 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST 

RESPONDENT:

Mr P Twiggs

SOLICITOR FOR THE FIRST

RESPONDENT:

Northeast Lawyers

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

COUNSEL:

Ms H Leeson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR:

Mr R Winter

Orders

1. That there be four additional sessions of supervised time at Anglicare Contact Centre during the months of October and November at a time to be arranged by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

2. That the mother file and serve a report from her general practitioner Dr G as to her current mental health, such report to be filed and served by 4:00pm on 30 October 2008.

3. That the mother file and serve a report from a relevant counsellor at the Drug and Alcohol Service at M that she is currently attending, such report to be filed and served by 4:00pm on 30 October 2008.

4. That the mother pay the cost of the four additional sessions of supervised time at Anglicare Contact Centre.

5. That the mother authorise her solicitors to pay from the monies held in their trust account on her behalf the total sum of TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS [$260.00] to the applicant maternal grandmother, such amount to be paid in four equal amounts 7 days before each session at Anglicare.

6. That further consideration of this case be adjourned to 9:30am on 6 November 2008.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Krill & Crawley is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 1537 of 2006

MS KRILL

Applicant

And

MS CRAWLEY & MR HAYDN 

Respondents

ex tempore reasons

1. This is a part-heard trial.  The matter was last before me in May, when consent orders were made with a view to re-establishing the relationship between the mother and the child via supervised sessions at Anglicare.  There was to be a reintroduction of the child to the mother through the services of Ms S, who has been the expert instructed in this case and who has provided a report already.  It was intended that Ms S would do an updated report, after four sessions of supervised time. 

2. The sessions of supervised time have taken place and I have a report before me filed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer about those sessions.  Prima facie, that report is positive. 

3. Unfortunately though Ms S has not been able to complete her updated report.  She has interviewed the applicant, the maternal grandmother, but has not been able to speak to the mother, and arrangements have not yet been put in place for that for various reasons which I do not need to dwell on.  It is now anticipated that her updated report should be available by the end of October, early November.

4. At this stage, although there is now some dispute about the need for this updated report, I think it has advanced to the point where it is necessary to complete it, and thus I am not going to interfere with that. 

5. At the moment the continuation of this case hinges around the availability of Ms S’s report because that will inform not only the parties but me as to what the issues currently are, particularly given the supervised time that has been spent and will continue to be spent between mother and child.

6. There are other issues in this case.  There is the mother's drug usage and there have been drug screens undertaken which consistently reveal that the mother is consuming marijuana.  Her counsel tells me that she is undertaking counselling in order that she can stop that practice.

7. Separate to that - and I raised this myself - there is a query about the mental health of the mother.  I am told that there is a report from the her General Practitioner which was presented to the Magistrates Court where she has been appearing to answer certain criminal charges. Although old, that report apparently indicates that the mother had a personality condition and suffered from depression.

8. Thus not only does her drug usage need to be clarified but also her mental health.  I am told that reports can be obtained in respect of those two matters, within a short compass, and I will make an order about that in a moment.  I want those reports available for the adjourned hearing which I will also set in a moment.

9. Separate to that the Independent Children's Lawyer has arranged four further sessions of supervised time at Anglicare, two in October and two in November.  There is still one more to go of the current round, which will happen this month as I understand it.

10. The applicant has raised issues about these sessions, not as to whether they are necessarily of benefit to the child but in relation to the cost and time involved, given where she lives vis-a-vis where these sessions take place.  She tells me that there is a total cost in terms of petrol and the like of $130 each trip.  On top of that she contributes one-half of the cost of the session, being $11.

11. The submission that she put to me was to consider reducing the number of sessions.  That is not supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer and frankly is not supported by me, and I spent some time in addressing the financial circumstances of the mother, with a view to alleviating the burden upon the applicant. 

12. It seems that the mother has recently received - or her solicitor has on her behalf, and it is currently sitting in his trust account - a relatively substantial amount of money. There is currently $8000 or $9000 but that is expected to be reduced to about $7,000. That is earmarked to fund these proceedings if the mother is required to privately fund them.  However, I consider that the mother should contribute more to the cost of the sessions and she has the ability to do that with the money that is in her solicitor's trust account.

13. Looking at the figures again, the applicant tells me the cost is $130 a trip, and if you add the total cost of the session of $22 to that, it totals $152 per session.  The applicant has made a submission to me about how much should be contributed and the mother's solicitor has as well and I am going to fix on what the mother's solicitor has put to me, which is a total of $350 for the four sessions.  I will require the mother to pay direct to Anglicare the cost of each session, which is $22, and then the balance of that $350 will be paid out of the trust account of her solicitor, direct to the maternal grandmother, and  I will make an order about that in a moment.

14. There is a possible complication to the continuation of the sessions in that the mother is due to give birth in late October.  There is obviously a question mark as to the precise date of the birth but, in any event, that might impact upon the dates arranged by the Independent Children’s Lawyer for the further sessions in October and November.  I am still going to make an order for these sessions to take place but, given that circumstance, I am not going to make an order that they take place at the times arranged by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.  There has to be some flexibility and I will just make an order for those four further sessions to take place over that two-month period.

15. The other issue which has been raised in that context is whether there is in fact a need for a professional supervisor.  That cannot be sorted out today because it has just been raised.  The mother needs to consider that, and, as I understand it, the maternal grandmother's position is that if the Independent Children’s Lawyer approves a supervisor then she will in effect go along with that.  Thus it is a matter for the mother to propose alternative supervisors, and for the Independent Children’s Lawyer then to assess those persons and make a recommendation about that, and then the maternal grandmother can consider her position.  It may be that that can be agreed between the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, without my involvement, but if it cannot be then I will look to consider that issue further on the adjourned hearing date.

I certify that the preceding 15 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 22 September 2008.

Associate