Ritchie & Feaks (No 2)

[2017] FamCA 504

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RITCHIE & FEAKS (NO 2) [2017] FamCA 504

FAMILY LAW – INTERVENTION – Department of Community Services invited to intervene in the proceedings

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 91B

APPLICANT: Mr Ritchie

RESPONDENT: Ms Feaks

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Children’s Law Chambers

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5143 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 14 July 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 7 July 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: No attendance

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Giblin

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Pursuant to s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975 I request the intervention in these proceedings concerning the child, B (born … 2006), of the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services (‘The Secretary’);

2. For the purposes of the intervention by the Secretary the matter is listed for mention and further directions at 9:30 am on 30 August 2017 at the Family Court of Australia at Sydney;

3. Should any party wish to appear other than in person or by legal representative that party is required to comply with the relevant Rules regarding such a request, noting that permission may not be given.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Ritchie & Feaks(No 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: SYC 5143 of 2008

Mr Ritchie

Applicant

And

Ms Feaks

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 7 July 2017 I reserved the question of inviting, pursuant to s 91B of the Family Law Act 1975, the intervention of an officer of the State of New South Wales (NSW) responsible for the administration of the laws of NSW relating to child welfare (‘the officer’) in these proceedings in order to assist in ensuring that the best interests of B (the child) are met.  The proceedings had been adjourned to that day, in part, to determine the child’s best interests following the contravention of orders concerning the child by the mother. However, the matter was unable to be progressed as the mother did not provide the child to the Family Consultant for assessment despite orders requiring her to do so.

2. In the context of the particular vulnerability of the child, the following matters give strong reason, when considered together, to invite the Officer to intervene in relation to the child:

   a)The child B is autistic and, despite reports by the mother that the child is able to express clear views regarding her father, is reported by the mother to have “non-functional language” rendering her a particularly vulnerable person. 

   b)As a part of determining what appropriate orders would be for the child it was necessary that the child be brought to a Family Consultant for the preparation of an appropriate report to assist the Court.  Despite orders directing the mother to provide the child, she declined to do so.  Rather than allaying any concerns through the participation in a report, this refusal to present the child for the report heightens questions as to the child’s vulnerability. 

   c)Ms Feaks has not participated in the more recent proceedings before the Court, being proceedings listed to deal with her contraventions of Court orders and which were to follow the preparation of the Family Report that she declined to produce the child for. 

   d)The Family Report that was prepared on 7 June 2017 without appropriate cooperation by Ms Feaks resulted in the Family Consultant making a mandatory reporter’s child protection report in relation to the child.

   e)The Family Reporter has indicated that the child has previously been assessed as potentially being at risk of serious harm following notifications by outside agencies.

   f)As the mother has withdrawn the child from formal schooling in order to home school her, the child is no longer exposed to the usual mandatory reporters that a child would be exposed to through the schooling system. 

   g)As the mother has been non-compliant with orders to provide the child to spend time with her father, the child does not have the usual protective mechanism of another party being available to ensure the welfare of the child.

3. On balance, the apparent vulnerability of the child, her isolation, and in particular with the non-compliance with Orders that would have allowed an assessment of the child lead me to the conclusion that it is appropriate to invite the intervention of the Officer. 

4. Without the intervention of the Officer the mechanisms available to the Court may not be sufficient to ensure that orders can be made that are appropriate to ensure the best interests of the child.  Without the intervention of the Officer the mechanisms available to the Court may not be sufficient to ensure that the child is not at risk of harm.  Accordingly, orders will be made inviting the intervention.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 14 July 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  14 July 2017