Conner & Conner (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC1F 943 (13 November 2025)

(a) The Registry shall provide a copy of the documents in electronic format to the Independent Children's Lawyer and if any document contains information that may identify the Mother's home address ("the information");

(b) The Independent Children's Lawyer shall make a copy of the electronic file and redact from those documents the information;

(c) The Independent Children's Lawyer shall rename the electronic file by adding to the original file name the words "- redacted"; and

(d) The Independent Children's Lawyer shall forward the redacted documents to the Brisbane Registry of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).

1. The parties have leave to inspect the redacted documents produced under the subpoena issued to K Contact Centre on 4 September 2025.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

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 has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

These reasons were delivered Ex Tempore on 13 November 2025 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors and in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.

1. The matter before the Court is a parenting case. In this case, the Father is the Applicant, Mr Conner. The Respondent Mother is Ms Conner. The Independent Children's Lawyer is Ms Hawdon. The matter before the Court this morning relates to the hearing of a Notice of Objection to a Subpoena. The Mother objected to the production or inspection or the copying of documents in respect of a subpoena that had been served upon the manager of the K Contact Service. The subpoena was issued with the leave of the Court and served by the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. It happens in practically every single parenting case in this jurisdiction that an Independent Children's Lawyer will subpoena records from a Contact Centre to see how the contact is progressing between the child and any relevant parent. It is also often the case that correspondence and communications between the staff at a contact centre and a parent could be relevant evidence for the Court in relation to the Court's role of determining the outcome of the parenting proceedings, keeping in mind that the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.
3. The K Contact Centre was used by this family for changeovers, and the mother and the father had communications with that contact centre. The mother and the father attended that contact centre on various occasions where the child, X, was transferred from one parent to another. It is reasonable to expect that there may well be relevant documents and information contained in the K Contact Centre file relevant to assisting the Court in determining the outcome of these parenting proceedings, including the outcome of the hearing of the upcoming interlocutory application relating to the question as to whether or not, at an interim stage, there should be some variation of the current interim parenting order, including a consideration of whether there should be, at this point in time, a change of residence for the child.
4. The Mother, who did not attend at this hearing, was concerned that her personal address may be revealed. I do recall earlier that this Court had been told that the Mother has already indicated her personal address to the Father. In any event, I have indicated, and a direction will issue as part of these orders, that Ms Hawdon, the Independent Children's Lawyer, will inspect the material from the Contact Centre first. Ms Hawdon will determine whether there needs to be any part redacted in order to conceal the Mother's personal home address. If there is, Ms Hawdon will inform the parties, and Ms Hawdon will attend to the redaction, and this is appropriate, and it is at the direction of the Court.
5. The Mother was concerned about the relevance of the material. I have already indicated that the documents are, or at least could be, documents which are highly relevant to the matters that need to be determined by the Court. The Mother objected because she thought the subpoena was too broad. That is not the case at all. I am persuaded by the argument made by Ms Hawdon, the Independent Children's Lawyer. In any event, the fact of the matter is I would not mind how broad a subpoena is if it is directed to a Contact Centre. The only reason an Independent Children's Lawyer will be serving a subpoena on a Contact Centre is to obtain information to assist the Court in determining where the best interests of this child lie.
6. The mother also, I note, sent to the Court an email today, Thursday, 13 November 2025 at 9.18 am, where she said that she suffered:

"...a recent episode of post-exertional malaise and a debilitating migraine, I am currently unwell and unable to attend the upcoming electronic court event."

1. Now, because it was sent today, I can only assume she is talking about today's court event. The Court cannot act on emails from litigants. If there was medical evidence, I could give it some proper consideration, but this sort of email is not sufficient to persuade the Court to adjourn the hearing of the Mother's own objection to a subpoena.
2. The Mother was not even required to come down to Brisbane to Court, all she had to do was attend by video link. Not only that, the Commonwealth of Australia, via this Court, has paid for a Country E interpreter to be available and on the line to assist the Mother. The Mother, by giving such very late notice to the Court of her apparent inability to attend, has no doubt meant that the interpreter will have to be paid in any event. I excused the interpreter when the matter was called on this morning. There is nothing presented by the mother that would persuade the Court to adjourn this morning. There is no affidavit; there is no medical evidence; there is no medical evidence on affidavit. There is simply nothing but an email.
3. I have heard from the Independent Children's Lawyer sufficiently in relation to the question of the Notice of Objection to the Subpoena. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever in any of the points raised by the Mother in her Notice of Objection.
4. The parties are not going to be allowed to look at this subpoenaed material until a further direction issues from the Court. Ms Hawdon will get the go-ahead when she has got some time to deal with it, and then, once Ms Hawdon communicates to the Court that the material has been redacted, then the parties may inspect the material.

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