Richards and Whipp

This matter concerned applications made by both the mother and the father concerning their child. The father had filed an application for contempt, while the mother had filed several applications, including one for a stay of previous orders made by Justice Cohen. The proceedings were before Watts J.

The court was required to determine the procedural steps necessary for the upcoming hearings, including the listing of various applications and the provision of evidence. Specifically, the court needed to address whether a family consultant, Ms B, would be required to give oral evidence at the contempt hearing and whether her counselling memorandum could be admitted without objection. Further, the court had to consider the mother's applications, including her application for a stay, and the father's application for specific orders.

Watts J made a series of procedural orders to manage the litigation. The father's contempt application was listed for hearing before Justice Le Poer Trench. Directions were given regarding the mother's solicitors notifying the father's solicitors about Ms B's evidence and the admissibility of her counselling memorandum. Several of the mother's and the father's applications were listed for hearing before Watts J on 8 April 2009. In the event the mother's application of 26 September 2008 was unsuccessful, the parties, child, and any other significant adult were ordered to attend interviews with Ms B for a family report. The court also set deadlines for the filing and service of affidavits, lists of relevant material, and written outlines of arguments for the 8 April hearing. Certain previous orders made by Justice Cohen were discharged.

The court also made orders regarding the child's time with the father during April 2009, specifying periods of contact. These periods were to be facilitated by a person nominated by the mother or agreed upon by the parties, who was not to be the maternal grandmother. This facilitator was to absent themselves for specific periods to allow for one-to-one time between the child and the father, with liberty to reapply on 24 hours' notice if the child had any adverse reactions. Costs were reserved for both parties.