Wilson and Wilson (No 2)

[2015] FamCA 932

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WILSON & WILSON (NO 2) [2015] FamCA 932

FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to provide a third party with documents related to the proceedings – where the third party is the child’s treating hospital – where the material is requested to better inform the hospital’s treatment of the child – where the mother objects to the release of the material on the basis that it contains embarrassing material – best interests of the child – interim orders made releasing the documents

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Wilson

RESPONDENT: Mr Wilson

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: McKean Park Lawyers

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7512 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 2 June 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 2 June 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In person

THE RESPONDENT: In person

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Mr Finn

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: McKean Park Lawyers

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the Independent Children’s Lawyer be granted leave to provide the Medical Director of the D Hospital with a copy of the following documents:-

   (a)Family Report prepared by Dr L (Family Consultant) dated 21 April 2008;

   (b)Family Report prepared by Ms M (Regulation 7) Counsellor dated 24 May 2012;

   (c)Section 11F(2) report prepared by Mr N, Family Consultant dated 24 May 2013;

   (d)Report of Dr O (psychiatrist) dated 12 June 2014;

   (e)Family Report of Ms E, Family Consultant dated 5 September 2014

   (f)Supplementary report of Ms E dated 19 January 2015; and

   (g)The outline of case filed by the Independent Children’s Lawyer on 9 February 2015.

AND THE COURT NOTES
That in formulating the ICL’s preliminary position he perused subpoenaed documents from:

(a)DHS;

(b)SOCIT Suburb U; and

(c)SOCIT Suburb S

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Wilson & Wilson (No 2) 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 7512 of 2007

Ms Wilson

Applicant

And

Mr Wilson

Respondent

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS

1. I have before me today an oral application made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer, the effect of which is to provide family reports and a psychiatric assessment of Dr O prepared in these proceedings to the child B’s treating medical practitioners at the D Hospital. 

2. Currently, there is a reserve judgment arising from the parties’ competing applications with respect to future care arrangements for the child.  As part of that hearing, there were documents produced under subpoena from the D Hospital in relation to their involvement with the child’s care.  The child is a young girl who has significant psychiatric issues.  There are disclosures made by her that she has been self-harming, and the material produced by the D Hospital would indicate that she has some suicidal ideation.

3. The application is made by the Independent Children’s Lawyer as a result of a request from the child’s treating medical practitioners for background information which may assist them with their ongoing treatment and management of the child’s care.  The documents sought include a Family Report from 2008, a Family Report from 2012, a s 11F(2) report from May 2013, the psychiatric assessment of Dr O prepared in relation to the mother of June 2014, and the two most recent Family Reports prepared in 2014 and 2015 respectively.  The father agrees and consents to the proposal of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

4. The mother, who is self-represented, appeared before me today.  I took some time to explain to her the reasons why the Independent Children’s Lawyer seeks the order in these terms.  Notwithstanding that explanation, the mother has refused to provide a consent to releasing the documents to the D Hospital.  That position is consistent with the position adopted by the mother during the course of the hearing.  It is yet another indication, sadly, for the child of the mother’s lack of insight as to what is required to ensure that the child maintains good health and that she achieves the best possible outcomes in life. 

5. It is the position of the mother that she is embarrassed by some of the material contained in the reports sought to be produced, and in particular, she is offended and aggrieved that the psychiatric assessment of her should be produced to the D Hospital.  That is a position which is motivated by her own needs and not the needs of the child. 

6. I am satisfied in all the circumstances and having had the opportunity of observing the parties during the course of the trial and, more particularly, having heard the very disturbing evidence of Ms E, who is the Family Consultant in the matter, that, in light of the request by the hospital for that information, it is appropriate and in the child’s best interests that that information be provided. 

7. Accordingly, I will make orders in the terms of the minute of order that has been prepared by the Independent Children’s Lawyer. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 2 June 2015.

Associate:

Date:  2 June 2015