Leroux & Leroux

In *Leroux & Leroux* [2015] FCCA 2078, Benjamin J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Leroux, seeking the removal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) appointed in proceedings concerning their children. The father alleged a range of failures by the ICL, including a lack of recognition of parental alienation, failure to address risks of child abuse, inadequate consideration of mental health assessments, premature formation of opinions, conflicts of interest, lack of impartiality, over-familiarity with the mother's solicitor, and improper arrangements for Father's Day.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the conduct of the ICL warranted their removal from the proceedings, having regard to the ICL's duties and the best interests of the children. The Court was required to assess the specific allegations made by the father against the established principles governing the appointment and conduct of ICLs under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Benjamin J dismissed the father's application, finding that the allegations did not establish a sufficient basis for the removal of the ICL. The Court applied principles from cases such as *Knibbs & Knibbs* [2009] FamCA 840 and *Bosgard & Bosgard* [2013] FamCA 308, which emphasise that removal of an ICL is an exceptional measure and requires a significant demonstration of bias, conflict, or failure to fulfil their role. The Court considered the ICL's duty to represent the children's best interests and noted that disagreements with the ICL's views or approach do not automatically equate to grounds for removal, referencing the approach in *Kingley & Arndale (No. 2)* [2010] FamCA 968. The Court also implicitly considered the principles outlined in *Pagliarella & Pagliarella* [1983] FLC 92-400 regarding the role of the ICL.

The application filed by Mr Leroux on 9 September 2015 was dismissed. Any applications concerning costs in relation to this removal application were reserved.