McMaster and Cullis

This matter, *McMaster v Culliss*, came before Young J of the Family Court of Australia concerning an application by the father for increased time with the child, G, with the ultimate aim of achieving a shared parenting arrangement. This application was opposed by the mother. The court was also dealing with an updated Family Report and the ongoing intractable conflict between the parents.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to appoint an Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) to represent the child, G, given the escalating parental conflict and potential concerns regarding parental wellbeing, and how to manage the progression of the case towards a final hearing, including the filing of further evidence and the preparation of proposed orders. The court also considered a subpoena issued to the Department of Human Services and the contents of the file produced.

Young J reasoned that the appointment of an ICL was necessary due to the intractable conflict between the parents and potential issues affecting their emotional or psychological wellbeing, despite the child's young age. The court ordered the appointment of an ICL to represent G, requesting Victoria Legal Aid to arrange this representation as soon as practicable. The court also directed that all extant applications be adjourned for a further mention, requiring the parties' solicitors to provide the ICL with copies of all relevant documents and to prepare a concise document detailing the specific orders their clients would seek at a defended hearing. No further affidavits were to be filed prior to this adjourned date, but practitioners were required to be prepared to inform the court of the evidence and witnesses intended for the final hearing.

The court ordered that G be separately represented by an Independent Children's Lawyer, with Victoria Legal Aid to arrange this representation. The solicitors for each party were ordered to provide copies of all relevant documents to the ICL within 48 hours of their appointment. All extant applications were adjourned for mention before Young J on 31 August 2007, at which time the solicitors were to have prepared a document detailing the specific orders sought by their clients. Both parents were required to attend this adjourned hearing.