Counsel to assist — lawyer appointed to represent child or young person — whether Court can appoint counsel to assist to represent the interests of the child — statutory interpretation — ultra vires — Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 81 and 83 — Family Courts Act 1980, ss 9B and 9C — Care of Children Act 2004, s 7. The circumstances for appointing a lawyer for a child or children in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 (DVA) are limited to circumstances where an application is made on behalf of a child or children in a representative capacity. An appointment as counsel to assist the Court in order to represent the interests of the child is ultra vires. Counsel to assist (s 81(1)(b)) had been appointed by the Court to represent the interests of the children in regards to a previous application for a temporary protection order. No representative application had been made in respect of a child or children. Counsel made a subsequent enquiry whether or not the appointment was to remain for an upcoming hearing to determine whether the temporary order was to be made final or not. While DVA, s 81(1)(a) allows the Court to appoint a counsel to assist, ss 9B and 9C of the Family Courts Act 1980 (FCA) define the roles of lawyer to represent children or young persons and counsel to assist respectively. The two roles are distinct. The Judge had directed counsel to assist to represent the interests of the children, however, counsel to assist’s role is limited under s 9C to providing independent legal advice to the Court on any factual or legal issue, offering an impartial perspective on any issue, or undertaking any required task under any other Act. The Court found that an interpretation that counsel would be offering an impartial perspective was not open in light of the inconsistency with s 81(1)(b) which specifically provides for the appointment of lawyer for children only in circumstances where a representative application is made in respect of a child or children. Following fundamental principles of statutory interpretation one section must be read in light of the surrounding and other sections of the Act, and cannot be interpreted in isolation. The Judge noted that if Parliament had intended that children could be represented in DVA proceedings in the same manner that they are represented in Care of Children Act 2004 proceedings, then the DVA would have provided for the appointment of lawyer for the child under the Act. As the appointment was without legal foundation the appointment of counsel to assist the Court was terminated. Judgment Date: 20 January 2016. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *