Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Can I cross-examine ICL at trial.

ICL response to my email to be available for cross-examination at trial

"… it is highly unusual for an Icl to be cross examined. If you have issued a subpoena against the ICL please provide proof of the same ,and advise of the authorities you will be submitting in obtaining an Order for Cross Examination"

I know this guy is corrupt and has committed criminal offences – swearing knowingly false affidavits in collusion with mother to admit her unlawfully obtained recordings, a fake Court application for orders that the Court request VLA to reinstate the mother's legal aid, he arranged for the mother to attend a psychiatrist without court documents and after the appointment was cancelled to vary the Order for disclosure of her medical/counselling/family history of psychiatric interventions, to claim that she has complied with the Order and I am preventing this evidence being available at trial be refusing to pay for the report, increased in cost by %500,  and then corrupted if not co-authored the family report, and covered up child self-harming.

33 of 35 of his cases as ICL have involved a non-represented party failing to appear at trial usually with some form of mental illness. Before my case he opposed consent orders between the parents that had been in effect for 6 months, 12 months later father hospitalised in psych ward and no appearance at trial. No contact. He had been primary carer of children.

ICL refuses to comply with Notices to Produce documents evidencing knowingly false affidavit and seeks to avoid being called for cross-examination at trial.

Do I need to subpoena him, can I subpoena him 2 weeks before trial  He hasn’t filed affidavit as ordered by the Court. I believe it went straight into the family report.

He has met child once 18 months ago. She thereafter became suicidal, ranaway and self-harmed. He wants to interview her again a week before trial. I have refused to allow this. 
Although i cant make sense of all your weird stuff i am of the belief that the ICL is a party and as a party the other parties should have the right to put them in the stand and question them 100%

Nothing i say should be taken as legal advice. I am not a Lawyer. If i help you it is of your own free choice to listen to what i say or not. I do not create documents for you. I do not represent you.... Purple Monkey Dishwasher
The Wolf said
… i am of the belief that the ICL is a party and as a party the other parties should have the right to put them in the stand and question them 100%

That makes sense, thank you.
He also claims to be exempt from Notices to Produce and refused to respond to Notice to Admit.
Does one require leave of the Court to file these or are they just served between parties and produced at trial.

At this point I would have to disagree that the ICL can be called as a witness and cross-examined, in a parenting matter.  

The Guidelines for ICL's clearly states that it is not the ICL's role to be a witness, and, the ICL is technically not a party, but rather, "acts" as a representative of a party (the child/ren).  As ICL's are lawyers they are also governed by the same rules of confidentiality etc as other lawyers.  

If the other side is represented by a lawyer, are you allowed to call their lawyer and cross-examine them as well? No, not unless you are taking legal action against the lawyer. .

I would be happy for you to prove me wrong here srldad101 and would be very interested to hear how you go this.

Any opinions expressed herein are strictly for informational purposes and are never to be taken as legal advice.
SWAMBO said
If the other side is represented by a lawyer, are you allowed to call their lawyer and cross-examine them as well? No, not unless you are taking legal action against the lawyer. .
I think the difference is the opposition Lawyer represents a third parties argument but often, as we all know, the ICL represents their own argument under the guise of a childs argument, and that argument can go unchallenged and therefore often leads to the ICL wielding great power via opinion but being unanswerable for their opinion or evidence

They have counsel at hearings to represent their views and that is why i think the ICL should be able to be asked questions on their, sometimes bizarre recommendations and opinions :-)

Nothing i say should be taken as legal advice. I am not a Lawyer. If i help you it is of your own free choice to listen to what i say or not. I do not create documents for you. I do not represent you.... Purple Monkey Dishwasher
The Wolf said
SWAMBO said
If the other side is represented by a lawyer, are you allowed to call their lawyer and cross-examine them as well? No, not unless you are taking legal action against the lawyer. .
I think the difference is the opposition Lawyer represents a third parties argument but often, as we all know, the ICL represents their own argument under the guise of a childs argument, and that argument can go unchallenged and therefore often leads to the ICL wielding great power via opinion but being unanswerable for their opinion or evidence

They have counsel at hearings to represent their views and that is why i think the ICL should be able to be asked questions on their, sometimes bizarre recommendations and opinions :-)

I agree that ICL's should be required to provide full and frank disclosure of actions taken and sufficient evidence to support their positions. But what should happen and what is allowable are different things entirely. They are lawyers, can have a lot of power in parenting matters and have almost as much impunity as a Judge. Contrary to popular belief, some are actually quite good at their roles :)    

The same lack of transparency could also be said of Court appointed 'expert' report writers.  Yes, you can cross-examine them but they do not need to show any proof of the accuracy of their reports. Their notes could be wrong!     

srldad101 - As far as I remember from your other posts here, plan A was to have the ICL discharged. I guess this didn't work, hence plan B.  If this doesn't work, and, you have hard evidence (or it could be obtained) that the ICL is not performing his professional duties and responsibilities, then my only other suggestion would be to make an external complaint to the Legal Services Commission, Legal Aid Victoria or both.  

Any opinions expressed herein are strictly for informational purposes and are never to be taken as legal advice.
SWAMBO said
srldad101 - As far as I remember from your other posts here, plan A was to have the ICL discharged. I guess this didn't work, hence plan B.  If this doesn't work, and, you have hard evidence (or it could be obtained) that the ICL is not performing his professional duties and responsibilities, then my only other suggestion would be to make an external complaint to the Legal Services Commission, Legal Aid Victoria or both.  

Waste of time trying to discharge a ICL. Can't find any successful caselaw after 2001. Apparently they are not paid much more than their secretaries so not many decent lawyers want the job. Those that do have another agenda

Gardner "My experience has been that some of these individuals are using their seemingly benevolent advocacy of children in the service of venting rage upon men, and they are, for the most part, derived from the group of overzealous women who have found this field to provide a wonderful opportunity for this outlet. Others are poorly trained and/or simpleminded and believe that they are indeed joining a noble cause. Whatever the motivations of these individuals, examiners do well, these days, to be wary of engaging the services of someone whose primary label is "child advocate." To date, I have not seen one child advocate in the context of a child-custody dispute who has been useful to the children whose position they advocated. And this has been especially the case when a false sex-abuse accusation has emerged as a spin-off from the PAS. Rather, they have provided children with pathological empowerment [or by 12A their mother's deposing what they say the child said) and often entrench PA delusions and even sex-abuse delusions (19, 21).

What surprised me was this guy just stood at the bar and made things up including that I was being charged with criminal offences - out of thin air. Never met me or spoke to me before. Reviewing his past cases he does the same thing every time - no contact, cards & gifts, regardless of the intent of the law, psychiatric assessment, mental trauma, case abandonment. 33 of 35 cases have involved an unrepresented party abandoning the case with some sort of induced mental illness. Even when I produced two psych reports and defeated his application for father only to be psych tested 4 times he just fabricated that the Order had been made "some time ago" and I was in contempt and notations would be added to the orders that the father does have a psychiatrc illness, etc…..

He has gone right over the top now trying to prevent trial and accountability. I know he has co-authored the family report. One gets to know his style, the tricks. the distortions of fact, conflation.. Problem is if I say this I;m the one in trouble. Legal Services not interested in a lawyer behaving badly against an SRL, its your own fault, and ICL's are untouchable.

The only way is to prosecute the ICL in other jurisdictions. A privately prosecuted IO seems the easiest and most appropriate.



srldad101 said
 He has gone right over the top now trying to prevent trial and accountability. I know he has co-authored the family report. One gets to know his style, the tricks. the distortions of fact, conflation.. Problem is if I say this I;m the one in trouble.

The only way is to prosecute the ICL in other jurisdictions. A privately prosecuted IO seems the easiest and most appropriate.

I don't think you'll have much success with any form of action against the ICL. After some further reading of my own, I don't think the ICL's other cases would support your position of him being corrupt either.

srldad101 said
  Before my case he opposed consent orders between the parents that had been in effect for 6 months, 12 months later father hospitalised in psych ward and no appearance at trial. No contact. He had been primary carer of children.

In the case you have mentioned above, while the father insisted he was primary carer, the children had actually lived primarily with the mother and spent significant time with the father.

During the course of proceedings, the parents sought to enter into Final Orders by consent.  The ICL opposed the orders sought by the parents due to concerns which had been raised some 6 months earlier, in relation to the mothers mental health by the father in the fathers own filed materials, as well as concerns of same raised about the mother in an 'expert' report.

Due to both the ICL' strong opposition for the orders to be made on a Final basis, combined with concerns raised at a previous hearing by the Senior Registrar, and the Judges own concerns, the Judge instead made orders for a return date, with the interim orders to continue, an increase in the fathers time with the children, and for further evidence as to the mother's current mental health status.

By the Final Hearing, almost 1 year later, the father (with reasons unknown to anyone given he had continued to spend time with the children and raise the same allegations about the mother), sent the mother private communications (upon the matter being set down for final hearing) saying he would no longer be seeing the children and simply vanished from their lives.  He would also not answer any telephone calls from the children to him.

In this case, if there was a mental health issue also of the father, it was not seen by the expert report writer, and I cannot see how the ICL was biased against the father at all.  The ICL took the serious allegations made by the father against the mother well into account when opposing the consent orders.

srldad101 said
 Reviewing his past cases he does the same thing every time - no contact, cards & gifts, regardless of the intent of the law, psychiatric assessment, mental trauma, case abandonment. 33 of 35 cases have involved an unrepresented party abandoning the case with some sort of induced mental illness.

Looking at a number of his cases, it would appear that there are a number of matters that have involved past criminal histories of parents, past Children's Court proceedings (where finding of risk were held), past drug use, past DHS involvement, past violence, past child abuse.

Yes, there are many matters where there has been an SRL.  Yes, there have been some no contact orders, but at least 1/2 of these have been made against the mother, with the full support of the ICL.  Others have been made as the result of a party failing to attend the final hearing, usually the father.  Many of the SRL's were represented up to the point of Trial, at which point the lawyer filed a notice of discontinuance and the party failed to attend the trial.  In some cases the fathers time has been increased with the support of the ICL.

Judging by the cases I have read, I cannot say that the ICL is at all bias against fathers, nor has he failed to act in the best interests of the children (in most of his other cases), which is what I assume you are trying to depict with the quote you have included from Gardner?

You may well be correct that he has done several underhanded things in your own case, but I do not believe this is fully supported by the ICL's other cases. The cases he has been involved with are very complex. You will have a very difficult time trying to prove the ICL is corrupt.

Any opinions expressed herein are strictly for informational purposes and are never to be taken as legal advice.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets