Waterford and Waterford (No. 2)

In *Waterford & Waterford (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father seeking orders for a further Family Assessment report to be prepared by a specific psychologist. The dispute arose from allegations that the child, C, had been sexually abused by the son of the mother's current partner. The Court already had before it reports from the police and the Child Protection Service concerning these allegations. The father's application sought to have the psychologist specifically interview the child about the abuse allegations, assess the mother's capacity to protect the child, and determine if the mother had coached the child regarding the dispute. The application was opposed by the mother and not supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was necessary and appropriate, in the best interests of the child C, to order a further interview and assessment by a psychologist at that stage of proceedings. This involved considering the potential emotional and psychological impact of further interviews on the child, given the time elapsed since the initial allegations and interviews, and balancing this against the need for the Court to have the best available evidence to determine the child's living arrangements and welfare. The Court was also required to consider the existing reports and the potential for further expert evidence at trial.

Justice Dawe reasoned that a further interview by a psychologist at that late stage, over 12 months after the initial interviews, would likely offer limited benefit to the Court or the families. The Court was not satisfied that such an interview would be necessary or appropriate for the final hearing, nor that it would be in the child's best interests, given the potential for further emotional and psychological risk to the child. The Court noted that existing expert reports would be available for cross-examination at trial, and that the child's reticence to engage in interviews, as noted in a previous report, was a significant factor.

Consequently, the father's application for the further Family Assessment report was dismissed. The Court noted that the matter remained listed for further procedural steps before a Registrar and that the mother's costs in relation to the dismissed application were reserved. The Court also indicated that consideration would need to be given to obtaining an updated report closer to the trial date, as the previously appointed Family Consultant was on maternity leave.