Layne and Headman

In proceedings before Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia, the dispute concerned the welfare of a child, X, born in 2012. The court's orders indicate that the parents were unable to agree on interim time arrangements for the child with the mother.

The primary legal issue before the court was the need to ensure the child's best interests were protected, particularly in light of potential concerns regarding the mother's capacity to care for the child, as suggested by the order for a psychiatric examination. The court also considered its power to involve external agencies in child-related proceedings.

Baumann J exercised the court's power under s 91B of the *Family Law Act 1975* to request the intervention of the Director-General of the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. This intervention was sought to assist in the proceedings concerning the child. The court also directed the Registrar to inform the Director-General and granted liberty to search and copy court documents. Further, the court outlined a process for the mother to seek interim orders regarding time with the child, including specific filing and service deadlines for both parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The court also invited the Independent Children’s Lawyer to seek funding for an independent psychiatric examination of the mother. The proceedings were adjourned for a case management hearing.