Schnur & Urbina (No 3)
[2024] FedCFamC1F 750
•9 October 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Schnur & Urbina (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC1F 750
File number(s): MLC 13501 of 2020 Judgment of: JOHNS J Date of judgment: 9 October 2024 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – parenting – where the mother made an oral application for the child to attend upon a new treating psychologist – where the mother submits the current treating psychologist is not independent – where the father and ICL submit the child has a longstanding therapeutic relationship with his current treater – oral application dismissed Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 9 October 2024 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Paton of Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention & Legal Service Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Teicher Solicitor for the Respondent: Rodriguez Family Lawyers Counsel for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Ms Hutchings Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Perisic Lawyers ORDERS
MLC 13501 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: MR SCHNUR
Applicant
AND: MS URBINA
Respondent
INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
JOHNS J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 OCTOBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.That the mother’s oral application seeking the removal of Mr C as treating psychologist for the child, be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Schnur & Urbina has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter was listed before me today for the commencement of the final hearing in relation to the parties’ competing applications for final parenting orders in relation to the child, X who is aged 8 years. The matter was unable to proceed as listed due to Counsel for the father falling ill. In the circumstances the parties sought that the hearing date be vacated and the matter be relisted. In addition, the mother’s Counsel made an oral application for the child to attend upon a different psychologist to his current treating psychologist.
It was submitted on behalf of the mother that she does not perceive the child's current treating psychologist to be independent and, therefore, is someone who ought not be providing treatment to X.
Submissions were made on behalf of both the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL) opposing that course. In support of that position they contended that X has been attending his psychologist, Mr C, since April 2021 and therefore has a longstanding therapeutic relationship with that psychologist. At the time of that psychologist’s appointment, the parties jointly made that decision as they then had equal shared parental responsibility for making decisions regarding X's long-term welfare and development; it was against that backdrop that X’s psychologist was chosen to provide support for their son.
The complaint raised by the mother is that she perceives that psychologist to no longer be independent because the father has also attended upon him. I have regard to the affidavit of that psychologist filed in these proceedings on 5 March 2024. In that affidavit, Mr C appropriately discloses that he has had two separate appointments with the father: one in April 2021 and the second appointment in April 2023. He sets out in his affidavit correspondence confirming those appointments and further indicating that the second of those appointments was for the purpose of providing support to the father arising from issues around depression occasioned by what he says is “situational stress due to family relationship problems”.
He confirms in his affidavit that there was one attendance in relation to those issues but, otherwise, he has had no professional engagement with the father. He also confirms in that correspondence that the father has attended in an appropriate support role for X in the context of supporting the parties' child in his therapeutic attendances. Mr C also reports that the father has displayed what he describes as “good attachment and deep listening” that has contributed to X's wellbeing.
The mother also complains that the father has not provided appropriate information regarding X's attendances. The father rebuts that contention, saying that he has been communicating with the mother via text and also through personal communications more recently. I am not in a position to make any factual determination as to what communication has passed between the parents. That ultimately will be a trial issue that will be determined upon a testing of the evidence.
In circumstances where X has a longstanding therapeutic relationship with a psychologist who was appointed by the parties approximately three years ago, I am not minded at this late stage to make any change to his therapeutic supports.
There is no evidence that indicates that the support that is provided by Mr C is inappropriate or that Mr C’s support is not appropriately meeting X's needs.
The ICL submitted that the feedback from X's school principal is that X has been experiencing difficulties in that setting, that he does require ongoing supports, and, indeed, that there are additional steps that are being taken by his school to ensure that there are supports available to him in the school in addition to those provided by Mr C.
Clearly, it is a very difficult and delicate stage in X's development in light of the information provided by the school principal. That information bolsters my view that there ought be no change to the existing arrangement in relation to the therapeutic supports for X. Having regard to the above matters, in my view such change as proposed by the mother would be contrary to X’s best interests. That being the case, I reject the mother's oral application that there ought be any alteration or change to the therapeutic care arrangements currently in place, and which have been in place since April 2021.
I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns. Associate:
Dated: 7 November 2024
0
0
0