Sauber & Caito (No 4)

In *Sauber & Caito (No 4)*, the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) applied to the court for orders appointing a psychologist as a court expert to prepare a further family assessment report. This application arose in circumstances where the Family Consultant who had prepared the initial family report was expected to be unavailable for cross-examination at the trial, although they would be available at a later date. Evidence before the court indicated the father had not engaged in family therapy and had failed to facilitate or encourage the child's engagement in such therapy.

The central legal issue before Judge Young was whether to grant the ICL's application for a new expert report, given the circumstances surrounding the availability of the original Family Consultant for cross-examination and the father's conduct. The court was required to consider the necessity and appropriateness of appointing a new expert in light of the existing report and the potential for the original consultant to be available at a later stage.

Judge Young dismissed the application. The reasoning appears to have been that the unavailability of the Family Consultant for cross-examination at the original trial date was a temporary issue, with availability confirmed for a later date. The court did not consider it necessary to appoint a new expert when the existing expert could still be cross-examined. The court also noted the father's lack of engagement with family therapy, which may have informed the decision that a new report was not the most appropriate course of action at that juncture.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application filed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer be dismissed. The trial date of 20 August 2021 was vacated and relisted for 8 October 2021.