Swefford v Tarbell

[2013] HCASL 149

SWEFFORD

v

TARBELL & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 149
S80/2013

1. The applicant and the first respondent are involved in parenting proceedings in the Family Court of Australia concerning their son ("the child").

2. On 22 October 2012, the Family Court (Watts J) ordered the appointment of a single expert witness, Dr Robinson, to enquire into and report on matters relating to the child's welfare.  These matters included an allegation made by the applicant that the first respondent had sexually abused the child.  The order of Watts J was made after the expert previously appointed to the case advised the Court that she wished to withdraw.  Watts J dismissed a request by the applicant that this expert be re-engaged.  His Honour also dismissed the applicant's request that he appoint a different named expert, or split responsibility for writing the report between two experts.  Watts J considered that he would be best assisted if one expert did the whole report.  Dr Robinson was a psychiatrist with experience in child and family psychiatry, while the expert suggested by the applicant had no relevant psychiatry experience.  Watts J expressed confidence that Dr Robinson would be qualified to give any expert opinion that it is possible to give in relation to the allegation of sexual abuse.

3. On 20 March 2013, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Coleman, Ainslie-Wallace and Murphy JJ) dismissed an appeal from the decision of Watts J, with costs.  In reasons delivered on 25 March 2013, their Honours held that the decision to appoint Dr Robinson was open to Watts J on the evidence.  Further, Watts J's decision to not re-engage the previous expert was unaffected by factual error, given that expert had made her wish to withdraw clear to the Court and the applicant had put no evidence that she was amenable to reconsideration. The thirteen grounds of appeal raised by the applicant were without merit.

4. The application for special leave to appeal does not raise anything that would cast doubt upon the correctness of the decision below.  No question of principle falls for determination.  Special leave is refused.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane