O’LOUGHLIN & O’LOUGHLIN

In the matter of O’LOUGHLIN & O’LOUGHLIN, the father applied to the court alleging three contraventions of existing parenting orders by the mother. The proceedings were before Tree J in the Family Court of Australia. The dispute arose within a long and highly conflictual history of litigation between the parties concerning their child, B. A supervisor, previously appointed to oversee compliance with orders, had recommended the suspension of the father's time with B, after which the child had ceased contact with the father. The child had also expressed suicidal ideation, and the supervisor recommended a psychiatric assessment. The mother sought a variation of the current parenting orders under s 70NBA of the relevant Act, irrespective of whether the contraventions were established.

The court was required to determine the father's applications for contravention and the mother's application for variation of parenting orders. A key issue was the appropriate course of action given the child's expressed suicidal ideation and the breakdown of contact between the child and the father, within the context of ongoing parental conflict. The court also considered the unusual step of appointing an Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) in contravention proceedings.

Tree J noted that while there was doubt as to whether s 70NBA would permit a complete reworking of existing orders, this question did not need immediate resolution. In the interests of justice, and acknowledging the unusual nature of such an appointment in contravention proceedings, the court appointed an ICL to independently represent the child's interests. The court expressed significant concern that ongoing litigation was impacting the child and therefore directed that any contact between the ICL and the child would require leave of the court. The contravention proceedings were adjourned to allow for the appointment of the ICL.

The court ordered that the child B be independently represented by a lawyer, requesting Legal Aid Queensland to make urgent arrangements for this. Upon appointment, the ICL was directed to file a Notice of Address for Service, contact the Associate to Justice Tree to arrange a suitable listing date for a further urgent mention, and was granted leave to inspect and copy any material subpoenaed by the parties. Crucially, the ICL was prohibited from contacting the child B without prior leave of the court, and both parents were forbidden from disclosing information about the ICL's appointment to the child. The further hearing of the father's contravention applications was adjourned pending the ICL's appointment.