Prendergast and Parsons (No. 7)

In the matter of *Prendergast and Parsons (No. 7)*, Guest J of the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne was required to determine whether to order psychiatric assessments for both the husband and the wife. The application was made by the wife's counsel, with the wife consenting, and was supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer. The proceedings concerned contested applications regarding the child's best interests, with the husband expressing significant concerns about the wife's mental health and parenting capabilities, while simultaneously refusing to undergo a psychiatric assessment himself.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to order psychiatric assessments of both parents, particularly the husband, given his resistance. The court was also required to consider the paramount consideration of the child's best interests in making such an order, and the evidentiary basis required to justify it. This involved an examination of relevant case law concerning the court's inherent and statutory powers to order medical examinations of parties in family law proceedings, especially when a parent's mental state or conduct is a significant factor in determining the welfare of a child.

Guest J reasoned that the husband's persistent denigration of the wife's mental health and parenting, coupled with his own concerning behaviour and refusal to be assessed, created a situation where professional assistance was necessary to determine the child's best interests. The court reviewed numerous authorities, including *Gilbert v Gilbert*, *L v T*, and *SR v SA*, to establish its jurisdiction. Guest J concluded that the court had the power to make such orders, drawing on its inherent jurisdiction to regulate proceedings and its statutory powers under sections 68B, 65D(1), 67ZC, and 114 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court found that the amendments to the Act did not alter the established position regarding the power to order assessments. The judge was satisfied that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, including the husband's conduct and submissions, to warrant the order, deeming it essential for the proper exercise of discretion in determining the child's welfare.

Consequently, the court ordered that both the husband and the wife attend upon a psychiatrist nominated by the Independent Children's Lawyer for a psychiatric assessment and report, and to abide by the directions of the Independent Children's Lawyer and the appointed psychiatrist. The determination of responsibility for the costs associated with these assessments, as well as the costs of the application itself, was reserved. The court also noted that the matter reasonably required the attendance of counsel and ordered the transcription of the ex tempore judgment.