Lilley and Hayfield

The case of Lilley & Hayfield concerned parenting and financial proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Lilley, sought orders for equal shared parental responsibility and specific time arrangements with the child, J, as well as a property settlement. The respondent, Ms Hayfield, sought dismissal of the father's applications and had not filed a financial statement despite court orders. The proceedings had a lengthy history dating back to 2007, with significant delays and a lack of clarity regarding the issues requiring determination. The father had been experiencing ongoing mental health issues, including hospitalisation, which impacted his ability to participate in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine how to manage the proceedings given the parties' lack of appearance, the father's ongoing mental health issues, and the absence of clear justiciable issues for a final hearing. The court also considered the principles governing child-related proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which emphasise the child's needs, active case management, safeguarding against abuse, promoting cooperative parenting, and conducting proceedings without undue delay and with minimal formality. The court noted the absence of social science evidence and the potential application of Less Adversarial Trial provisions to the parenting aspects of the case.

Justice Bennett applied the principles of the Family Law Act 1975 by adjourning the outstanding applications to a future date to allow for clarification of the proceedings. Crucially, the court ordered the independent representation of the child, J, by a lawyer, requesting Victoria Legal Aid to arrange this. The independent children's lawyer was directed to familiarise themselves with the case, speak with the parents, and make recommendations for the further conduct of the matter. The court also indicated that it would not read the father's voluminous and potentially inadmissible affidavit, deeming it unfair to the other party to attempt to extract relevant material.

The court ordered that all outstanding applications be adjourned to 2 August 2012, with the possibility of dismissal if the parties were not in a position to progress the matter. An independent children's lawyer was to be appointed to represent the child's interests, with specific tasks outlined for their preparation. The court reserved liberty for the parties and the independent children's lawyer to apply to discharge the appointment of the children's lawyer on the adjourned date.