Vale & Vale

[2016] FamCA 307

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VALE & VALE [2016] FamCA 307

FAMILY LAW – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Discharge – Where the mother seeks an order that the ICL be discharged – Whether the ICL has shown bias towards the mother and acted unprofessionally – Application dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Knibbs and Knibbs [2009] FamCA 840
Kingley & Arndale (No 2) (2010) 255 FLR 326
Bondai & Bretton (No 2) [2010] FamCA 1237
Lloyd & Lloyd & the Child Representative (2000) FLC 93-045

APPLICANT: Ms Vale

RESPONDENT: Mr Vale

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Doris Chan

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7455 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 6 May 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Forrest J

HEARING DATE: 29 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Mr Ulbrick

G & D Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Andrew

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Doris Chan
Legal Aid Queensland

Orders

1. The mother’s Application in a Case seeking discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer is dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Vale & Vale 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 BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: SYC 7455 of 2012

Ms Vale

Applicant

And

Mr Vale

Respondent

And

Independent Children's Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application brought by the mother, who is a party to parenting proceedings awaiting trial in this Court’s list, for an order that the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“the ICL”) in the case be discharged. Although the precise wording of the order sought by the mother was not that the ICL be discharged, that is the nature of the order that she effectively wanted the Court to make.

2. The ICL, Ms Doris Chan, who has been in the matter for some time, opposes the mother’s application. The father, too, opposes the mother’s application.

3. I do not intend to discharge Ms Chan. I will dismiss the mother’s application for her to be discharged. These are my reasons for so deciding.

Some relevant background

1. The parents have competing applications for final parenting orders concerning their two children, who are 14 and 12 years of age respectively. The proceedings have been highly conflictual. The mother makes allegations that the father perpetrated physical violence against her and the children during the relationship and around the time of the breakdown of their relationship and her separation from him. However, final parenting orders were made by consent in early 2013. Those provided essentially for the children to live with the mother and to spend regular unsupervised time with the father.  Contravention proceedings were soon commenced by the father in which he alleged the mother was not complying with the final orders in respect of the children’s time with him.

2. There was a hearing of an application in this Court at which the mother’s solicitors appeared but the mother did not. That solicitor was given…