D v Director-General Department of Community Services [2006] NSWSC 511

D v Director-General Department of Community Services [2006] NSWSC 511

Although Dr Milch had not been shown to have acted otherwise than properly and professionally, D's mistrust of him meant there could be no confidence that she would willingly and comprehensively cooperate in a further assessment, which was necessary for the assessment to be of value. Dr Newman was also unsuitable for a court-ordered assessment because her role as D's treating psychiatrist created a real concern about her ability to detach herself from D's interests and report with regard to all concerned, particularly E. The appropriate course was for another suitably qualified medical expert, identified by the parties as Dr Robinson, to conduct the assessment subject to confirmation of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Adoption Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Pre Hearing Orders Regarding Evidence Before Rehearing of the Adoption Application
Outcome
Short minutes to be filed; the Court indicated it would not order assessment by Dr Newman, would order assessment by Dr Robinson subject to confirmation of willingness and proper definition of the assessment, and would permit confidential disclosure to proposed experts under a controlled regime.
Legal Topics
['adoption of Children' 'pre Hearing Expert Evidence' 'medical Examination Orders' 'confidential Disclosure to Expert Witnesses' 'restriction on Publication of Identity in Adoption Proceedings']
['family Law' 'adoption' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['adoption of Children' 'pre Hearing Expert Evidence' 'medical Examination Orders' 'confidential Disclosure to Expert Witnesses' 'restriction on Publication of Identity in Adoption Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Adoption Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Pre Hearing Orders Regarding Evidence Before Rehearing of the Adoption Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether D, Mr and Mrs F and E should be ordered to attend an assessment by Dr Newman, Dr Milch, or another medical expert for the purposes of evidence at the new adoption hearing.' 'Whether D should be authorised, notwithstanding s.180 of the Adoption Act 2000, to provide documents or details from the proceedings to proposed expert witnesses on a confidential basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Dr Milch had not been shown to have acted otherwise than properly and professionally, D's mistrust of him meant there could be no confidence that she would willingly and comprehensively cooperate in a further assessment, which was necessary for the assessment to be of value. Dr Newman was also unsuitable for a court-ordered assessment because her role as D's treating psychiatrist created a real concern about her ability to detach herself from D's interests and report with regard to all concerned, particularly E. The appropriate course was for another suitably qualified medical expert, identified by the parties as Dr Robinson, to conduct the assessment subject to confirmation of...

Court Disposition

Short minutes to be filed; the Court indicated it would not order assessment by Dr Newman, would order assessment by Dr Robinson subject to confirmation of willingness and proper definition of the assessment, and would permit confidential disclosure to proposed experts under a controlled regime.

Orders

  • ["The parties were directed to provide a more succinct agreed description of the assessment to be made by Dr Robinson when furnishing an indication of Dr Robinson's consent." "Subject to comments on form, the Court proposed an order that, notwithstanding s.180(1) of the Adoption Act 2000, D may furnish to any person...