TIMMS & CHAPMAN

In *TIMMS & CHAPMAN*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned parenting orders made in December 2017. The father sought various orders, including access to a school portal and the appointment of an alternative therapist, following a breakdown in the child's relationship with him. The child, aged 14, had independently obtained an intervention order against the father, which nullified existing time orders. The mother argued she had sole responsibility for the child's education, a position the court considered in light of the original orders. The father also sought to issue a subpoena against the child's school.

The court was required to determine whether the father's applications for an alternative therapist and access to the school portal were appropriate, given the existing orders and the child's expressed wishes and actions. Additionally, the court had to consider the validity and relevance of a subpoena issued to the school, particularly in the absence of an extant substantive parenting application and with no apparent connection to the issues then before the court.

Cronin J reasoned that the father's application for an alternative therapist was inappropriate, as the original orders had contemplated therapy that the appointed therapist had deemed ineffective. The court considered the father's request for access to the school portal a matter for the school to manage, rather than a judicial determination, especially given the ambiguity surrounding the scope of the mother's sole parental responsibility for education. Regarding the subpoena, the court found it should not have been issued as there was no apparent relevance to any live issues before the court, particularly as no substantive parenting application was extant.

The court dismissed the father's applications and set aside the subpoena issued to the school. The documents produced under the subpoena were ordered to be returned to the school principal.