Swefford & Tarbell (No 4)

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Swefford & Tarbell (No. 4)*, heard an application concerning the appointment of a single expert witness in proceedings involving the welfare of a child. The applicant was Ms Swefford, the respondent was Mr Tarbell, and Mr Christos Christaki acted as the Independent Children’s Lawyer.

The court was required to determine whether to discharge previous orders relating to expert reports and to appoint a new single expert witness. Specifically, the court considered the withdrawal of a previously appointed expert, A/Prof Q, due to difficulties with appointments, costs, and uncertainty regarding payment. The court also had to assess the mother's opposition to the proposed new expert, Dr R, and her alternative suggestion of appointing Ms V to share reporting duties.

Justice Watts discharged previous orders made on 22 November 2011 and 9 August 2012. The court reasoned that it would be inappropriate to force A/Prof Q to continue in the matter given her request to be relieved and the existence of a viable alternative. The court found Dr R, a child and family psychiatrist with extensive experience, to be well-qualified to address the complex issues in the case, including allegations of psychiatric conditions and child abuse. The mother's opposition to Dr R was noted, particularly in light of her prior support for Dr R and her unsuccessful attempt to have Ms V appointed, whose qualifications were deemed insufficient for the required psychiatric assessments.

The court ordered the appointment of Dr R as a Single Expert Witness to report on various matters concerning the child's welfare, including risk of harm, the child's views, parental relationships, parental capacity, and allegations of abuse. The father was ordered to contribute $6,500 towards Dr R's fees, with Legal Aid NSW to pay this amount initially on his behalf. The parties were directed to facilitate the preparation of the report, and the Independent Children's Lawyer was granted broad authority to gather relevant documents and communicate with various professionals and organisations involved with the child and parents. The mother's application for subpoenas was granted, and previously scheduled hearing dates were vacated.