Wild and Blanch

[2009] FamCA 868

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILD & BLANCH [2009] FamCA 868

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim

APPLICANT: Mr Wild

RESPONDENT: Ms Blanch

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr O’Connell

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2954 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 3 September 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Dessau J

HEARING DATE: 3 September 2009

REPRESENTATION

FOR THE APPLICANT: In person

FOR THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE ICL: Mr O’Connell

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Septimus Jones & Lee

Orders

1. That for the purposes of paragraphs 3 to 10 of the Orders made by the Honourable Justice Monteith on 27 March 2009, the therapist shall be Mr B and each parent shall contact him by 4.00pm on 7 September 2009 to arrange the earliest available appointment to commence the family therapy.

2. That the mother shall forthwith advise the father of the name of P’s paediatrician and shall authorise the paediatrician to talk to the father about P’s condition and treatment, if requested by the father.

3. That the docketed Registrar shall advise the parties of a time and date for a telephone mention in late-January 2010 with a view to case management and if necessary, the listing to a final hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Wild & Blanch is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 2954 of 2008

MR WILD

Applicant

And

MS BLANCH

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This case has a very long history in the court.  It comes to me today to make the narrowest of decisions.  I understand the passions of each party, although I do not understand its detail nor can that be expected. 

2. In shorter summary what is important today is that since January 2001 the father has not seen the four girls, D who is 10½, N who is nine, M who is 8, and P who is 6. 

3. What is also important is that the last orders were made by Monteith J on 27 March 2009.  I understand that those orders followed an extremely detailed report from an expert witness, Mr V.  I understand too that the orders were not made by consent.  They were made by the judge, having read the report and listened to submissions.

4. The basic schemer of those orders, made until further order, was for the mother to have sole responsibility for the children and for them to live with her.  They contained a suite of orders designed to give the opportunity for the younger two children and the father to engage in family therapy with a therapist recommended by Mr V. The older two children were to be requested and encouraged to participate.  After several sessions, there was to be supervised time spent between the two younger girls and their father at a supervised contact centre, and, again, the older girls were to be requested and encouraged to attend. 

5. I acknowledge that the parents would have a great deal more detail that they could add, but I note, in brief form, Mr V recommended a psychologist, Ms L.  Unfortunately, the therapy did not proceed successfully.  Ms L refused to continue with any family therapy.  There are differing versions as to what occurred, and I cannot make factual findings about that today, nor am I going to try to do so. 

6. The very limited issue that has come before me is as follows.  Mr V subsequently suggested trying the family therapy again, but with a different therapist, Mr B.  The father agreed and the ICL supports it, but the mother opposes it on the basis that – to use a colloquial expression – “enough is enough” – the therapy has been tried and it failed.  She puts the blame on the father for his aggressive behaviour towards the first therapist, and she also refers to the ongoing trauma to the children by having to be involved and not having any certainty of the outcome.

7. I am satisfied that there should be this last effort to have the benefit of therapy for the children and their father.  That was clearly the import of the orders made by Monteith J on 27 March 2009, with the benefit of all the relevant material before him.  I am not suggesting that the attempts at this should be endless by any means at all.  I suspect that realistically this is the last effort that can be made towards this therapy. 

8. I form no view as to whether the father was or was not aggressive with the therapist.  Needless to say, it is in his best interests and, most importantly, the children’s best interests, that, despite any potential frustrations, he maintains a good relationship with the therapist, who might well be able to help the family in the reuniting of the children with their father.

9. The father has been concerned about the mother’s involvement in the therapy.  He does not object to her having some contact with the therapist.  He is concerned as to the extent of the contact.  I have made my view clear in the course of argument that it is not up to me to tie the therapist’s hands in any way.  The therapist will be doing his best in a complex situation to reunite the children with their father, and I want the therapist to be able to proceed however he sees best in his professional opinion. 

10. It is apparent that there has been a huge amount of correspondence to arrange the therapy. To avoid that now, and to relieve the parties of as much uncertainty as possible, I propose a few mechanical orders that expand upon the existing orders.  I will make it clear that each party is to contact Mr B by 4.00 pm next Monday to arrange the earliest available appointment with him.

11. Otherwise, I was told that young P has recently had an overnight stay in hospital because of her asthma.  She is seeing a paediatrician today.  I will make it clear in these orders that the mother is to tell the father the doctor’s name, and she is to authorise that doctor today to talk to the father about P’s condition. 

12. The other issue that was raised was in relation to the further management of this case, and there was some consensus that I should have the relevant Registrar conduct a telephone mention in about late January next year with a view to any orders that need to be made.  In particular, if a hearing is required, orders may be needed for the hearing to be set up sooner than later. 

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Dessau

Associate: 

Date:  3 September 2009