ROWE & HELBIG

In the matter of *Rowe & Helbig*, Cleary J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning the welfare of two children, X and Y. The dispute involved serious allegations of sexual abuse made by the mother against the father, which were contradicted by various reports and evidence presented to the court. The Independent Children’s Lawyer sought the appointment of a single expert witness due to the parties' inability to agree on the terms of reference.

The court was required to determine the terms of reference for the appointment of a single expert witness to investigate matters relating to the children's welfare, including the nature of the parental relationships, the children's relationships with each parent and each other, and the risk of sexual or other harm in either household. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the father should spend time with the children on an interim basis, despite the serious allegations and contradictory evidence, and the potential psychological harm to the children from either having supervised time or not having time with their father at all.

Cleary J applied principles of family law concerning the best interests of the child and the need for expert evidence in complex cases involving allegations of abuse. The court appointed Dr B, a Child and Family Psychiatrist, as the single expert witness, outlining specific matters for his report, including assessing the parents' attitudes, the nature of the relationships, the risk of harm, and the capacity of each parent to facilitate a relationship with the other. The court also addressed the costs of the expert report and the provision of relevant documents to the expert, with restrictions on direct communication from the parties.

Pending further orders, the court made interim orders for the children to spend supervised time with their father, facilitated by a specified counselling service. These orders detailed the arrangements for supervision, including the requirement for parents to arrange intake assessments, comply with the service's rules, and share the costs of supervision. The court also provided for the restoration of the matter if the nominated supervision service was unable or unwilling to provide the required supervision.