Andrewson & Trudeau (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1F 734 (29 August 2025)

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Andrewson & Trudeau has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. I intend to make an order discharging the appointment of the Independent Children's Lawyer in this matter.
2. I do so for the following reasons.
3. The parties are each represented by very experienced and specialist family law solicitors. Each have engaged and will engage very experienced Counsel, themselves highly specialised in the field of family law, to conduct their respective cases.
4. The current Independent Children's Lawyer, Mr Kingston, has taken over carriage of this matter relatively recently following the retirement of the previous Independent Children's Lawyer who was a part of and involved in the process of the engagement of Ms E, who has authored the Family Report.
5. Neither parent suggests that Ms E should be engaged to prepare an updated Family Report.
6. The reality for the current Independent Children's Lawyer, Mr Kingston, who has taken over the matter following the retirement of Ms Harrington, is that he is - understandably, it seems, given the quantity of material that exists to date in this proceeding - as I understand it from the submissions made, getting on top of it. It sounds to me that that task would continue to be a significant one.
7. Whilst the Court is often assisted by the presence of an Independent Children's Lawyer who has, as Ms Tree quite rightly submitted, a specific statutory role and bears specified statutory duties under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in this case, it seems to me much more likely than not, that these two parents, with the assistance of their very experienced legal representatives, will not suffer in the Court's consideration of whatever orders are ultimately determined to be in the children's best interests.
8. I am confident that, with appropriate consideration, the legal representatives can jointly facilitate Ms E's presence at the trial and that appropriate arrangements can be made for her to be made available to be cross-examined at the trial.
9. I am also confident - given the length of time over which these proceedings have been on foot, albeit that they have been, in a sense, it seems, in abeyance awaiting the finalisation of criminal proceedings - that subpoena as thought necessary have already issued. No doubt they can be the subject of update if needed.
10. For those reasons, I intend to discharge the Independent Children's Lawyer with thanks.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Hogan.