Robinson and Shannon

[2014] FamCA 363

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROBINSON & SHANNON [2014] FamCA 363

FAMILY LAW - CHILDREN – Publication Order – Where there are concerns regarding the Mother’s mental health – Where it is requested that Legal Aid Queensland consider extending funding to the Mother so that she can obtain appropriate legal representation for the purpose of pursuing the litigation in these proceedings

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Robinson

RESPONDENT: Ms Shannon

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Purcell

FILE NUMBER: TVC 853 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 2 June 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Townsville

PLACE HEARD: Townsville

JUDGMENT OF: Kent J

HEARING DATE: 2 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Dillon Bowers Lawyers

FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Fellows

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Purcell Taylor Lawyers

Orders

It is ordered that

1. Pursuant to s 121(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Independent Children’s Lawyer have leave to publish the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered today, to Legal Aid Queensland.

2. Pursuant to s 121(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Mother have leave to publish the report of Dr R and the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered today, to Legal Aid Queensland for the purpose of her legal aid funding application.

and it is noted that it is requested that Legal Aid Queensland do favourably consider extending legal aid funding to support the Mother in this matter.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Robinson & Shannon has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT TOWNSVILLE

FILE NUMBER: TVC 853 of 2010

Mr Robinson

Applicant

And

Ms Shannon

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. These are parenting proceedings pursuant to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) concerning two children, aged 9 and 6. The matter was transferred from the Federal Circuit Court to this Court following allegations by the Mother against the Father concerning issues of sexual abuse and family violence.

2. It would seem that a primary issue in these proceedings concerns the Mother’s mental health. The Mother has made allegations that the Father has sexually abused the children, and confirms on the callover today that she intends to pursue those allegations at a trial. This is so despite findings by the relevant department and the police that the allegations are unsubstantiated. 

3. Tree J made an order on 3 December 2013 that the parties be psychiatrically examined. The report of Dr R was released on or about 11 April 2014. The report includes an opinion to the effect that the Mother suffers serious systemised delusional psychotic disorder, and contains a recommendation to the effect that it is critical that the children be transferred to the Father’s care. That report does also, I am informed from the bar table, contain observations to the effect that the Mother is capable, in terms of her parenting capacity, of providing day-to-day care.

4. Currently the Father is spending time with the children on two weekends out of three, and it is said that he is monitoring the Mother’s position. Counsel for the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) has properly raised the question of whether, in light of the opinion in Dr R’s report, the Mother might be a “person with a disability” within the meaning of the dictionary to the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) (“the Rules”).

5. The Mother says that she wishes to represent herself in these proceedings. There is an ICL, and the Father has legal representation funded by the Legal Aid office. It is unclear what the Mother’s position is in relation to obtaining Legal Aid for the purpose of representation, but she is to be encouraged in doing so, and the purpose of these brief reasons is simply to include the recommendation of the Court that Legal Aid Queensland give favourable consideration to any application by the Mother for Legal Aid, so that she can obtain appropriate legal representation for the purpose of pursuing the litigation in these proceedings.

6. Nothing in these reasons should be interpreted as suggesting that there is any limitation upon the Father or the ICL in bringing an application at some point for the appointment of a case guardian for the Mother under the Rules, but at least it may obviate that need if the Mother has Legal Aid and is able to be legally represented in the proceedings.

7. I formally order that these brief reasons be publishable by the ICL to the Legal Aid office.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Kent delivered on 2 June 2014.

Associate:

Date: 3 June 2014