UNWIN & UNWIN

In the Family Court of Australia, Ms Unwin (the applicant mother) sought an adjournment of a four-day trial, which was opposed by Mr Unwin (the respondent father) and the Independent Children’s Lawyer. The mother’s application for adjournment stemmed from her recent separation from her husband, Mr Y, who had provided an affidavit in support of her case but was now reportedly unwilling or unable to attend court to be cross-examined. The mother wished to issue a subpoena for Mr Y, but there was no guarantee of service or attendance.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother's application for an adjournment. Key considerations included the potential adverse impact of further delay on the children, the financial implications for the parties, and the availability of the family consultant. The proceedings had a lengthy history, commencing in 2013 with final orders made in 2014, followed by fresh proceedings initiated by the mother in 2016 seeking variation of those orders, involving serious allegations of sexual abuse by the younger child’s older half-brother.

Justice Cleary, in dismissing the adjournment application, reasoned that while the best interests of the children are a paramount consideration in parenting proceedings, they are also a relevant and often overwhelmingly important factor in decisions regarding adjournments. The court noted the significant history of the proceedings and the potential for further delay to adversely impact the children, who were already experiencing uncertainty regarding their time and communication with their mother. The court also considered the financial burden on the father, who was privately funding his legal representation and had taken time off work for the trial, and the fact that the mother was in receipt of legal aid and unable to meet a costs order. The availability of the family consultant, who was organised to give evidence during the scheduled trial week, was also a factor.

The oral application made on behalf of the applicant mother for adjournment was dismissed.