Mou and Chhoi (No 2)

[2014] FamCA 987

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MOU & CHHOI (NO. 2) [2014] FamCA 987

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Application for inspection by the parties’ lawyers of father’s home, where the father proposes the child spend overnight time.

APPLICANT: Mr Mou

RESPONDENT: Ms Chhoi

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Victoria Legal Aid

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5013 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: 26 August 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 26 August 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr P. O’Shannessy

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Moores Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Hoult

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Altavilla Vessali

COUNSEL FOR THE ICL Ms Dowlser

SOLICITOR FOR THE ICL Victoria Legal Aid

Orders

1. That forthwith the legal practitioners for each of the parties attend upon the father’s residence at L Street, Suburb P for the purpose of a view to inspect and photograph the state of the home.

2. That the proceedings be adjourned part-heard to 9.15am on 27 August 2014.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mou & Chhoi has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 5013 of 2013

Mr Mou

Applicant

And

Ms Chhoi

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In the matter of Mou and Chhoi I have an oral application made this day on behalf of the respondent wife (and supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer) that the legal practitioners for each of the parties attend upon the father’s residence at L Street in Suburb P for the purposes of a view.  The father opposes that application.

2. The background to the matter is that these proceedings involve a parenting application in respect to the parties’ child D, who is aged six-and-a-half.  The allegation that is squarely raised by the wife is that the child is at risk in the father’s home. 

3. There have been investigations and reports prepared by two psychiatrists:  Dr E, a single expert psychiatrist, and Dr A, adversarial expert from whom I have permitted the father to adduce evidence.  Each of those psychiatrists has made a diagnosis that the father has a condition, a hoarding disorder, as described in DSM-5. 

4. The father, as part of his application before the Court, seeks orders for unsupervised time.  It is his application that unsupervised time should commence on an overnight basis four weeks after orders are made.  As part of his evidence before the Court, he has proffered photographs he says were taken of his home some two days ago.  Those photographs are marked Exhibit A4. 

5. The photographs show two rooms in the father’s home which have been cleared of all matter, including furnishings.  Those rooms are essentially bereft of any furnishings or other incidentals one might ordinarily expect to find in a home.  The father, as part of his case, says that he is in the process of recovering and is having treatment for his hoarding condition. 

6. It is said by the mother that the Court should have concerns as to the father’s evidence, and as to how far along the pathway he is in terms of his recovery from the hoarding disorder. 

7. On behalf of the wife it is submitted that I should have significant concerns as to the true state of the father’s household, particularly in circumstances where part of his application is that he have unsupervised overnight time within a short timeframe.  That application is supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

8. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence I have heard thus far from the father and in light of the matters that are put before the court through the evidence of Dr E, Dr A, and Ms K, the Family Consultant as to the nature and severity of the father’s condition and his insight with respect to his condition, that it is appropriate that I accede to the mother’s application that there be a view.  Accordingly, I propose to make an order as follows:

   1.That forthwith the legal practitioners for each of the parties attend upon the father’s residence at L Street, Suburb P for the purpose of a view to inspect and photograph the state of the home.

   2.That the proceedings be adjourned part-heard to 9.15am on 27 August 2014.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Justice Johns delivered on 26 August 2014.

Associate: 

Date:  26 August 2014