NEELY & EZEL

In the matter of *Neely & Ezel*, heard before Judge Harman, the dispute concerned parenting arrangements for the child. The parties presented Terms of Reference to the Court for approval, but the Court declined to make orders in accordance with them.

The central legal issue before the Court was the extent to which it should exercise its coercive power to compel therapeutic intervention for the parties, in the context of determining the best interests of the child. The Court was required to consider its role in mandating such interventions and the appropriate procedural steps to facilitate a just resolution.

Judge Harman reasoned that while the Court has a broad power to make orders in the best interests of the child, including those relating to therapeutic intervention, it must do so with careful consideration of the practicalities and the parties' capacity to comply. The Court noted that the Terms of Reference, as presented, were not in a form that allowed for immediate orders. Consequently, the Court varied existing trial directions, requiring the parties to file amended applications or responses particularising their proposed relief and to file all affidavit material by specific dates. The Court also confirmed an existing order for a court-funded Family Report, requesting its release well in advance of the final hearing and scheduling appointments for its preparation after the parties had filed their material.