Riemann & Riemann

This matter concerned parenting proceedings before McClelland J. The dispute involved the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) seeking to inspect and photocopy documents produced by F Psychology pursuant to a subpoena. The parties and the ICL had differing views on the appropriate level of access to these documents, particularly concerning the potential impact on the children and the therapeutic relationship with F Psychology.

The court was required to determine the terms upon which the ICL and the parties' legal representatives could access the documents produced by F Psychology. Specifically, the court needed to balance the need for relevant information to be available for the parenting proceedings with the potential risks to the children's emotional safety and their therapeutic relationship with the psychologist, as articulated by F Psychology. The court also had to consider the father's opposition to initial access by legal representatives and the ICL.

McClelland J applied principles concerning the appropriate handling of sensitive documents in family law proceedings, particularly where the welfare of children is concerned. The court's reasoning focused on establishing a structured process for document inspection. This involved granting the ICL leave to inspect and photocopy the documents, with the ICL tasked with redacting material deemed irrelevant to the proceedings. The redacted documents were to be provided to the parties and Dr E, with restrictions on further discussion. Legal representatives were then granted leave to inspect the original un-redacted documents, but not to photocopy them, allowing them to assess the ICL's redactions.

The court ordered that, subject to specific conditions, the ICL be granted leave to inspect and photocopy the documents from F Psychology. The ICL was to redact irrelevant material and provide the redacted documents to Dr E and the parties within 48 hours. The parties were restrained from discussing the redacted documents with unauthorised persons. Legal representatives, but not the parties themselves, were granted leave to inspect the original un-redacted documents. A mechanism was established for parties to challenge any redactions made by the ICL. In the event the ICL was unable or unwilling to comply with these orders, or believed providing the redacted documents posed an unacceptable risk to the children, the ICL was to apply for further directions.