Custody hearing by speaker phone

Caroline Overington | December 13, 2008

A SHORTAGE of Family Court judges is forcing couples to agree to hearings involving the custody of children and other divorce matters before a judge who is sitting in another state, and visible only on a video screen.

Two South Australian women this week complained to The Weekend Australian that decisions about their children were delivered to them by a Family Court judge who was not in the courtroom.

In one case, a woman, who cannot be named because it would identify her children, said the decision in her custody case was delivered by a judge who was in Brisbane while she was in Adelaide. She was told by a judge on speaker phone that primary care of her children had been granted to her ex-husband.

The judge had not believed her claim that the husband had sexually abused the children.

In another case, a decision was handed down by a Family Court judge in Victoria to a woman in a courtroom in Adelaide.

The use of video screens and speaker phones has become relatively common in the court system in recent years, including in the Federal Court and inquiry hearings. Supporters say tele-conferencing has quickened the pace of justice, and made it cheaper.

Interstate and overseas witnesses, for example, regularly appear on video screens to avoid the cost of flying to a hearing. In the NSW Supreme Court last month, a New York-based witness in the murder trial of Gordon Wood gave evidence by video.

The use of such technology in Family Court matters is more controversial, although a spokeswoman for the court said yesterday that it was done only with the agreement of the parties.

Agreement is something of a slippery concept: it may be that parties are told that a matter can be heard either with an absent judge, or not for six or more months, when the judge can next fly to town.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said the new technology had allowed for "quick resolution of matters" that might otherwise take months to resolve.