Krill and Crawley and Anor (No. 2)

[2008] FamCA 1209

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRILL & CRAWLEY AND ANOR (NO. 2) [2008] FamCA 1209

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim – Supervision

APPLICANT: Mrs Krill

RESPONDENTS: Ms Crawley and Mr Haydn

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Robert Winter

FILE NUMBER: ADF 1537 of 2006

DATE DELIVERED: 6 November 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 6 November 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: Ms Knighton

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 additional sessions of supervised time at Anglicare Contact Centre during the months of December 2008 and January 2009 at times to be arranged by the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

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

3. That the mother authorise her solicitors to pay from the money held in their trust account on her behalf the total sum of TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY DOLLARS [$240.00] to the applicant maternal grandmother such amount to be paid in four equal amounts 7 days before each session.

4. That by 4:00pm on 19 January 2009 the applicant maternal grandmother file and serve her affidavit of evidence in chief.

5. That on or before 4:00pm on 19 January 2009 the mother file and serve her affidavit of evidence in chief, an affidavit annexing a report from her drug and alcohol counsellor, an affidavit annexing a report from her psychiatrist, an affidavit annexing a report from her counsellor Ms N, and an affidavit annexing a report from a daycare worker.

6. That this matter be adjourned part-heard to a continuation hearing at 10:00am on 27 January 2009.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Krill & Crawley and Anor 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

MRS KRILL

Applicant

And

MS CRAWLEY

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. This is a part-heard trial.  It was adjourned to today to await a number of reports, primarily the report of Ms S, who has been instructed in this matter and has now prepared two reports.  Ms S’s latest is annexed to an affidavit of Mr Winter filed on 30 October 2008.

2. Separate to that, we also have a report from the mother's general practitioner, Dr G, as to her current mental health.  That report was filed, one day late, but that does not concern me.  That report is frankly unhelpful though, save and except in respect of one comment, namely Dr G suggests that a mental health assessment would be better performed by the psychiatrist who assessed the mother last year, and that was Dr H.

3. The third report which was ordered and upon which we were waiting was a report from a counsellor at the Drug and Alcohol Service at M.  We now have that; that has been filed.  Although Ms Leeson made a negative comment about it, in my view it is a helpful report and it is provided by the drug and alcohol counsellor who has had the contact with the mother. 

4. The other matter that was to be addressed during the adjournment was whether it was possible to have an alternative supervisor other than the Children's Contact Service. The mother has proposed her father, the maternal grandfather.  Unfortunately though the maternal grandfather has not been able to be seen by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, which was agreed to be the first step, namely, an assessment of the maternal grandfather by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, and, depending upon what that was, the matter then be brought before me, hopefully today.  Unfortunately that has not happened, and thus I am not in a position to make an order for any alternative supervisor at this stage.

5. The report of Ms S recommends that the child remain living with the grandmother and spend time with the mother, supervised at the Children's Contact Service.  That has been the interim arrangement of recent times.  However, the mother's position is that she does not accept the recommendation of Ms S and still pursues the orders that she seeks on a final basis, namely, that in effect the child be returned to her care.  For the grandmother's part, she is prepared to accept the recommendations of Ms S. 

6. Unfortunately there is no resolution at this stage of this matter and it needs to proceed as a trial. Thus I propose to make orders in a moment for the filing of the necessary affidavit material.  In the meantime I am told that the supervised sessions through the children's contact service can continue, at this stage up until the end of January, and the Independent Children’s Lawyer asks me to make orders putting that in place.

7. That raises again the issue of cost, which was a matter that was agitated before me on 22 September 2008 and in respect of which I made certain orders to carry through to today.  The issue is whether the mother should contribute to the costs of the travel that needs to be undertaken by the grandmother to ensure that the supervised sessions take place.  The other issue is the payment for the sessions themselves. 

8. The grandmother seeks a further order that the mother meet the entirety of the cost of each session, which is $22, and contributes to her travel costs.  She says her fuel costs fluctuate, but they are still approximately of the same order as they were, sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower.  She in effect leaves it up to me as to what amount I fix, if I am prepared to fix an amount by way of contribution to those costs.

9. For the mother's part, she is keen to involve her father as a supervisor, which may soften the impact, depending on how that time is set up but there will still be travel costs involved for the grandmother. 

10. In any event, I do propose to make an order continuing the supervised time at the Children's Contact Service, up until the end of January at this stage, on the assumption that I can have a continuation hearing around that time.

11. I am also prepared to make another order for the mother to contribute to the costs of this exercise.  I should say that the mother's proposal is that she continue to pay the $22, which is the cost of each session, and contribute $30 towards the travel costs of the grandmother for each session. However in my view that is insufficient.

12. The only source of funds that is readily available for this is an amount that is held in the mother's solicitor's trust account on account of future costs and which came from a civil suit.  Ms Knighton is not able to tell me precisely how much is in the trust account at the moment, but when this issue was last raised it was several thousand dollars, and I made note of that in my extempore judgment that I delivered at the time. 

13. In my view, for the same reasons as I gave on 22 September 2008, the mother should contribute to the cost of these sessions and it is appropriate for her to meet the entire cost of the session of $22 and contribute one-half of the fuel costs of the grandmother.  The grandmother could not be specific, necessarily, as to how much that was.  I made an order that the mother pay $65 for each session on the last occasion.  Today I am going to make an order that she pay $60 per session until the sessions come to an end.

I certify that the preceding 13 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 6 November 2008.

Associate