VIC ICL

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

dave_J

Active Member
4 November 2021
8
1
31
Scenario is that a family report has been undertaken some months ago, but ICL refuses to engage with young teenage children prior to upcoming future proceedings. No reason given. Children have requested to speak with her as they believe their interests are not being represented.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
5,152
720
2,894
The kids don't get to decide. The ICL decides because they are under 18...

Give us some more details and you might get some good advice.
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
2,011
294
2,394
ICL refuses to engage with young teenage children prior to upcoming future proceedings
So are you saying the ICL has not engaged with the kids AT ALL, or is refusing any FURTHER engagement?
I assume they were interviewed by the family consultant who is submitting a report? Are you aware if the ICL & FC have liaised over this case?
 

dave_J

Active Member
4 November 2021
8
1
31
Family Report was obtained some time ago and so will be some months out of date before next hearing.
ICL has not engaged with kids at all unless you consider that Family Report is considered "engagement"
When you ask liaised? I am not sure. Not particularly or at all to my knowledge. I am concerned that kids are being made to accept arrangements that are currently being communicated explicitly as not wanted - they are exhibiting increased levels of anxiety around this (hence request to ICL to engage), however at time of report kids were not forthcoming with their wishes - they did not connect well with the report writer.
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
2,011
294
2,394
however at time of report kids were not forthcoming with their wishes - they did not connect well with the report writer.
Probably not a wise choice, but they are still kids & a FC can't insist they express their views & wishes or even communicate. It probably will be noted in the report though they were given the opportunity but declined.

That said, the ICL does appear to be in conflict with a number of the guidelines for ICL's endorsed by the courts. Here's a few I found without even looking hard

SOURCE >>> https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/FCFCOA ICL Guidelines 0921.pdf
  • The ICL does not take instructions from the child but is required to ensure the court is fully informed of the child's views, in an admissible form where possible.
  • The child has a right to establish a professional relationship with the ICL
  • The ICL should seek to provide the child with the opportunity to express his or her views in circumstances that are free from the influence of others
  • The ICL should ensure that there are opportunities for the child to be advised about significant developments in his or her matter if the child so wishes, and should ensure that the child has the opportunity to express any further view or any refinement or change to previously expressed views.
  • It is expected that the ICL will meet the child unless: .... the child is under school age;..... there are exceptional circumstances, for example where there is an ongoing investigation of sexual abuse allegations and in the particular circumstances there is a risk of systems abuse for the child ...... there are significant practical limitations, for example geographic remoteness.
But then there is this >>>>
  • The assessment about whether to meet with the child and the nature of that meeting is a matter for the ICL. An assessment may be made in consultation with any Family Consultant or other expert involved in the case.
So I guess It's *possible* the ICL has spoken to the FC about the interview & report & has drawn some conclusions, who knows... That said, if you have a lawyer, I would be expressing your concern that the kids views are at risk of not being presented, & your concern that the ICL may be negligent in refusing to meet them if they have made a formal request to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dave_J

dave_J

Active Member
4 November 2021
8
1
31
Probably not a wise choice, but they are still kids & a FC can't insist they express their views & wishes or even communicate. It probably will be noted in the report though they were given the opportunity but declined.

That said, the ICL does appear to be in conflict with a number of the guidelines for ICL's endorsed by the courts. Here's a few I found without even looking hard

SOURCE >>> https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/FCFCOA ICL Guidelines 0921.pdf
  • The ICL does not take instructions from the child but is required to ensure the court is fully informed of the child's views, in an admissible form where possible.
  • The child has a right to establish a professional relationship with the ICL
  • The ICL should seek to provide the child with the opportunity to express his or her views in circumstances that are free from the influence of others
  • The ICL should ensure that there are opportunities for the child to be advised about significant developments in his or her matter if the child so wishes, and should ensure that the child has the opportunity to express any further view or any refinement or change to previously expressed views.
  • It is expected that the ICL will meet the child unless: .... the child is under school age;..... there are exceptional circumstances, for example where there is an ongoing investigation of sexual abuse allegations and in the particular circumstances there is a risk of systems abuse for the child ...... there are significant practical limitations, for example geographic remoteness.
But then there is this >>>>
  • The assessment about whether to meet with the child and the nature of that meeting is a matter for the ICL. An assessment may be made in consultation with any Family Consultant or other expert involved in the case.
So I guess It's *possible* the ICL has spoken to the FC about the interview & report & has drawn some conclusions, who knows... That said, if you have a lawyer, I would be expressing your concern that the kids views are at risk of not being presented, & your concern that the ICL may be negligent in refusing to meet them if they have made a formal request to do so.
The inference is that i have "interfered" with the kids (horrible choice of words as sounds like something very untoward) - but in that I have discussed matters with them, when reality is they are simply old enough to know what they want, seem to have turned a corner since the report and are now having meltdowns every week when they are due to return to the other parent. When they ask to stay put - all I can tell them is that they can't and that hopefully they get the chance to discuss their wishes (again) with someone before we move to a more permanent arrangement.....it is very hard to know what you can and cannot say to the children. If ICL is anything to go by all that should be said is "Dad and mum are working on a plan"
ICL is well known to simply accept the recommendations of the report. From my investigations they have never gone against the recommendations of a report and have never particularly engaged with kids...I am not sure what they are getting paid for really :/
 
  • Like
Reactions: sounfair!

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
2,011
294
2,394
ICL is well known to simply accept the recommendations of the report. From my investigations they have never gone against the recommendations of a report and have never particularly engaged with kids...I am not sure what they are getting paid for really
If the ICL is blatantly acting contrary to guidelines there may be good reason to apply to court to have that person removed or at least file a complaint with Legal aid VIC...

See here for info >>> I have a problem with an independent children’s lawyer | Victoria Legal Aid
 
  • Like
Reactions: dave_J

dave_J

Active Member
4 November 2021
8
1
31
interestingly that link has a section for if the child is not happy...I've been warned - by a lawyer - that the children shouldn't even know the ICL's name! nevermind lodge their own complaint....yet I am reading literature that says the child should be involved in matters as much as they want to be (obviously with consideration to age, appropriateness etc.) I would verge on saying a young teenager would be well within their rights to know the name of their ICL??? I've been told even that is "too much information" and a 14 year old should be told "us parents are working on a plan" and thats it....
 

Atticus

Well-Known Member
6 February 2019
2,011
294
2,394
I've been warned - by a lawyer - that the children shouldn't even know the ICL's name! nevermind lodge their own complaint
If you don't know their name you don't need to find out what it is to file a complaint. Just your case name, number should be enough for legal aid to see who has been appointed.
I've been told even that is "too much information" and a 14 year old should be told "us parents are working on a plan" and thats it....
There is actually good reason to not discuss family court proceedings with kids. YOU as a party to proceedings don't want to be seen to be exerting any influence or verbalising the kids in any way.. That's apart from the added stress & trauma that a kid can feel from a parent talking about these things directly with them.

Now I can't know your ICL's reasons for refusing to hear the kids..( and there may be legitimate reasons), all I have to go on is what you have written, & on that all I can do is provide you with info (as I have) & to say that as far as the role of an ICL goes, refusing to engage with kids they are representing even after being asked to by the kids is a biggie.