RADMER & HAGENS

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Kari considered an application by the mother to dismiss the father's Initiating Application concerning their seven-year-old child. The mother sought dismissal on two grounds: firstly, for the father's alleged failure to comply with the filing requirements of a section 60I certificate under the *Family Law Act 1975*, and secondly, alternatively, for dismissal pursuant to the rule in *Rice v Asplund*.

The court was required to determine whether the father's application should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements, and whether the rule in *Rice v Asplund* applied in these circumstances. Crucially, the court also had to consider significant safety and wellbeing concerns raised by material from the Department for Child Protection and the South Australian Police regarding the child's welfare in the mother's care.

Judge Kari permitted the father to proceed with his application, finding that the serious concerns raised about the child's safety warranted further investigation. The court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations and the need to ensure the child's wellbeing. Consequently, the Minister for the Department for Child Protection was invited to intervene in the proceedings, and an Independent Children's Lawyer was appointed urgently to represent the child's interests. The proceedings were adjourned for an interim hearing.