Sullivan & Tyler (No 3)

[2013] FamCA 472

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SULLIVAN & TYLER (NO. 3) [2013] FamCA 472

FAMILY LAW ─ Application for stay of orders regarding the appointment of Chapter 15 expert ─ Where the overwhelming consideration is the possible effect on the child’s situation by granting the stay and cancelling another set of scheduled interviews with the Chapter 15 expert ─Where if the parents and child are unable to have interviews with the Chapter 15 expert, the case may move to a final hearing without any guarantee of the assistance of a report from a Chapter 15 expert ─ Mother’s application for a stay is refused

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

K & B (2006) FLC 93-288

Sheldon & Weir (Stay Application) [2011] FamCAFC 5

APPLICANT: Ms Sullivan

RESPONDENT: Mr Tyler

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Christos Christaki

FILE NUMBER: SYC 889 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 19 June 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Watts J

HEARING DATE: 6 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Litigant in person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: KDB Holmes Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Berry

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Legal Aid NSW

Orders

1. The mother’s Application in a Case filed 23 May 2013 be dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Sullivan & Tyler 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 SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: SYC 889 of 2008

Ms Sullivan

Applicant

And

Mr Tyler

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 23 May 2013 I granted the mother leave to file an application for a stay of orders 3, 4 and 5 made on 22 October 2012.

2. Those orders provided that Dr R be appointed as a single expert to give the court a report pursuant to Chapter 15 Family Law Rules together with consequential orders relating to the payment of Dr R’s costs and an order that the parties facilitate the preparation of the report including attending upon and arranging for the child to attend upon Dr R.

3. The father neither consents to nor opposes the mother’s application for a stay of these orders. The Independent Children’s Lawyer supports the mother’s application for a stay of these orders.

4. I indicated during submissions that in addition to the positions put by the parties and the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the other option I would contemplate is dismissing the mother’s application.

SHORT CHRONOLOGY

1. After orders 3, 4 and 5 were made on 22 October 2012, appointments were made for the parents and the child to attend interviews with Dr R on 18 December 2012.

2. On 8 November 2012 the mother filed, inter alia, an appeal against the orders which required the parents and the child to be interviewed by Dr R and on 15 November 2012 the mother filed an application seeking a stay of the orders.

3. On 22 November 2012 I dismissed the mother’s application to grant a stay, leaving…