FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LAMBARD & LAMBARD AND ORS (NO. 2) | [2020] FamCA 858 |
| FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appointment of a single expert – Where the parties have been unable to agree on the identity of the singe expert to be appointed to consider and comment on the mother’s mental health – Where the parties have been unable to agree on a joint letter of instruction to the single expert – Where the father and paternal grandmother contend that the single expert should be a generalist psychiatrist – Where the mother and maternal grandmother contend that the single expert should have specialised knowledge of perinatal psychiatry – Consideration given the task before the Court in the substantive proceedings in considering the mother’s mental health – Orders made for the appointment of one of the single experts proposed by the father – Orders made for the parties to prepare a joint letter of instruction seeking the single expert appointment to comment on specific issues. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) 15.52 |
| Lavin v Toppi [2016] FCA 801 R v Uduma (2013) 115 SASR 318 Reeves & Grinter [2017] FamCAFC 19 |
| APPLICANT: | Mr Lambard |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Ms Lambard |
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Ms Dabell |
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Ms M Lambard |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 2664 | of | 2020 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 14 October 2020 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney by web conference |
| JUDGMENT OF: | McClelland DCJ |
| HEARING DATE: | 24 September 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Ms Christie SC |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Linden Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | Ms Cantrell |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT: | McAuley Hawach Lawyers |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT: | Mr Ridley of Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd |
| COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: | Mr Harper |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT: | Mitchell Lawyers |
Orders
That Dr NN be appointed as a single expert to prepare a report in relation to the mental health of the mother, Ms Lambard.
Within 48 hours, the parties’ shall prepare a joint letter of instruction to Dr NN and that letter of instruction will contain a request for Dr NN to consider and comment on the following matters:
(a)Any comments (to the extent possible) on previous diagnoses and the risk, if any, of relapse;
(b)Any view as to the mother’s current diagnosis and prognosis;
(c)Any view as to whether, as a result of issues relating to the mother’s mental health, the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm;
(d)Any view as to whether the current relationship between the child and the mother has been adversely impacted by mental health issues and, if so, how;
(e)Any view as to whether, any mental health issues adversely impact upon the mother’s capacity to provide for the needs of the child, including physical, emotional and intellectual needs and, if so, how; and
(f)Such other matters as the report writer considers relevant.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s…
Continue reading Lambard and Lambard & Ors (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lambard and Lambard & Ors (No 2) [2020] FamCA 858
- Case
- [2020] FamCA 858
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the extent to which Ms Lambard's mental health issues might pose a risk to the child, both physically and psychologically. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether her mental health had adversely affected her relationship with the child and her ability to meet the child's needs, including physical, emotional, and intellectual requirements. The court also sought to understand the mother's current diagnosis, prognosis, and the risk of relapse.
To address these issues, McClelland DCJ ordered the appointment of a single expert, Dr NN, to prepare a report on the mother's mental health. The parties were directed to provide Dr NN with a joint letter of instruction, requesting the expert to consider and comment on specific matters. These included an assessment of previous diagnoses and relapse risk, the mother's current diagnosis and prognosis, the risk of harm to the child due to the mother's mental health, the impact of mental health on the mother-child relationship, and the mother's capacity to provide for the child's needs. The expert was also invited to comment on any other relevant matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That Dr NN be appointed as a single expert to prepare a report in relation to the mental health of the mother, Ms Lambard.
2.
Within 48 hours, the parties’ shall prepare a joint letter of instruction to Dr NN and that letter of instruction will contain a request for Dr NN to consider and comment on the following matters:
(a) Any comments (to the extent possible) on previous diagnoses and the risk, if any, of relapse;
(b) Any view as to the mother’s current diagnosis and prognosis;
(c) Any view as to whether, as a result of issues relating to the mother’s mental health, the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm;
(d) Any view as to whether the current relationship between the child and the mother has been adversely impacted by mental health issues and, if so, how;
(e) Any view as to whether, any mental health issues adversely impact upon the mother’s capacity to provide for the needs of the child, including physical, emotional and intellectual needs and, if so, how; and
(f) Such other matters as the report writer considers relevant.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.