Verner & Vine

The appeal concerned orders made by a trial judge regarding contact between the appellant and a child. The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge had erred in various ways, including in making findings about the orders sought, failing to clarify the nature of her application, and not adequately dealing with the evidence presented. The respondent was the other parent of the child.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the child would be distressed by separation from their immediate family for contact with the appellant, whether there was sufficient evidence to support this finding, and whether the reasoning for this finding was inadequate. Further issues included whether the trial judge erred in finding the child would be at risk with the appellant, whether this proposition should have been put to the appellant, and whether the trial judge was entitled to rely on the appellant's own statements without further clarification. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in findings about the previous relationship between the parties, in failing to give a direction about a possible *Jones v Dunkel* inference, and in failing to deal adequately with the appellant's evidence.

The appellate court found no procedural unfairness, concluding that the trial judge had sufficient evidence to support the findings regarding the child's distress and risk. The court held that the trial judge had expressed a range of reasons for refusing contact beyond the likelihood of distress and was entitled to rely on the appellant's own statements without further informing her. The court also determined that further exploration of the parties' earlier relationship would not have altered the outcome and that the trial judge was not required to do more to assist the self-represented appellant, as she had done all that was necessary. The complaint that the trial judge failed to deal adequately with the appellant's evidence was also dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and there was no order for costs in relation to the appeal.