Munroe & Purdue (No 2)

[2018] FamCA 1105

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MUNROE & PURDUE (NO. 2) [2018] FamCA 1105

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – Single expert report – Application for release of single expert report to the mother’s treating psychiatrist, psychologist and general practitioner – Where such an order would only be made in exceptional circumstances – Where it is not appropriate to make such an order – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Munroe

RESPONDENT: Mr Purdue

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1376 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 7 June 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Aldridge J

HEARING DATE: 7 June 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Wong

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: LegalHAND

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Blackah

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Jordan Djundja Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Mahony

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Monroe & Purdue (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 1376 of 2017

Ms Munroe

Applicant

And

Mr Purdue

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The father has made an application that an order be made authorising the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the father to provide a copy of Dr E’s report to the mother’s treating psychiatrist, treating psychologist and general practitioner.

2. Dr E is the single expert psychiatrist who was appointed to give a report into the family dynamics concerning the children and to provide recommendations to the Court to assist it in determining the appropriate parenting orders to be made in the best interests of G.  As is normal, Dr E conducted interviews with not only the parties, but also relatives, and recorded both the results of those interviews and her assessments of the parties.  Dr E also made an assessment of the mother’s mental health, but it is clear that Dr E did so in reliance upon reports from the mother’s treating psychiatrist and treating psychologist, rather than herself conducting a psychiatric assessment.

3. In the course of her report, Dr E made some comments that have been set out in the oral submissions of counsel for the father which I do not intend to repeat.  The short point is that in certain circumstances, the mother has either not been entirely frank as to her history or has minimised aspects of her mental health.  The suggestion is, therefore, that the doctors treating her would benefit from access to this report so as to properly treat the mother in the best interests of G. 

4. As I understand it, the mother’s current psychiatrist, psychologist and general practitioner already have a copy of the report.  The focus is on whatever doctors might be consulted by the mother in the future.

5. In my opinion, it is inappropriate in a general sense for one party to have control over confidential documents, such as a family report, that they can then supply to a treating doctor of the other party, except in exceptional circumstances.

6. A family report is a report prepared for the limited purpose of assisting the Court in relation to parenting decisions about the children the subject of the proceedings.  Such reports are sometimes disseminated but ordinarily to practitioners providing therapy either to the family or to the children to assist them with the implementation of the orders.  I am also concerned to prevent an unwarranted interference in the therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient from their former partner.  Again, in my opinion such a thing should only occur, if at all, in an exceptional case.

7. I accept the submission that, in any event, what is more likely to be of use to any future treating medical professional is the history of the matter and treatment as recorded in the former treating professional’s notes, rather than the limited purpose report of Dr E which, I might add, contains her opinions which remain unchallenged because the proceedings have quite reasonably and properly been resolved.

8. For those reasons, I propose not to make the order.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Aldridge delivered on 7 June 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  20 December 2018