Meet Neisha Shepherd, Independent Children's Lawyer
What do you, as an Independent Children’s Lawyer, do?
I’m a private lawyer with my own firm NLS Law in NSW who undertakes ICL work, and my matters take me across NSW (City, Regional and remote) — and sometimes I also meet children in other states and territories. In practice, what I do goes far beyond the court room and is hours of work. This work is one of the most important parts of my practice.
A core part of my work is meeting children carefully, respectfully, and in a way that feels safe for them. I spend time listening and talking with them. This often occurs on my weekends. I pay attention not only to what they say, but how they say it: their tone, their hesitations, what they avoid, what feels hard to name, and what matters most to them. Sometimes that means doing what it takes to make sure the child isn’t left out because of geography or logistics.
I’ve gone on road trips of six hours (one way) just to meet a child in person, I have flown to the Northern Territory, to Victoria and driven to remote towns in NSW. It’s important that children can meet their ICL and they are not invisible where it is appropriate to do so. My role is to make sure the child’s voice is heard in a system that can easily overlook it when parents are in a dispute. That doesn’t mean I simply repeat a child’s wishes back to the Court.
It means I work to understand their experiences and ensure those experiences are properly placed before the Court in a way that is developmentally appropriate and doesn’t place responsibility for the outcome on the child.
Alongside that, I gather and analyse information from multiple sources, schools, doctors, psychologists, family reports, and other relevant material and I work closely with others to understand the child’s emotional world, safety, and developmental needs. I test the evidence, challenge assumptions, and ask difficult questions that others sometimes avoid.
I act as an independent advocate for the child, assisting the Court to make decisions that will hopefully help shape the child’s life in a positive way: where they live, who they spend time with, and how safe and supported they will be growing up. I work hard to try and help the parents reach agreements if it is safe for a child to do so.
Why is this role important?
In family law matters, the dispute between parents is about the child, parents are trying to reach the best outcome for their child. Sometimes they need an ICL to assist them to do so.
Children don’t usually walk into courtrooms and tell their story and they do have very important views and information as they have lived the experience. They can be caught in the middle of adult conflict, loyalty binds, fear, or trauma. Without an ICL in complex matters their reality can be filtered, or even distorted, through the perspectives of others, they can also not be heard at all.
This role helps ensure decisions are safe for children and grounded in the lived experience of the child and are focussed on positive outcomes that are trauma and child focussed. It brings balance to a system that can otherwise become adversarial and adult-focused, and it keeps the case anchored to the question that matters most: what will best protect this child’s safety, stability, and long term wellbeing, let’s focus on the child’s best interest?
It also matters because children’s access to being heard in a country as large as Australia shouldn’t be limited. In regional and remote areas it is hard for those children to have access to ICLs unless someone is actively committed to reaching them and this is a role that is important to me.
Why have you chosen to be an ICL?
I chose this role because advocating for children and young people has been the centre of my working life since 1989, prior to becoming a lawyer in 2003. Before I became a lawyer, I worked with children and young people for 13 years. Over time, I saw how often their experiences were misunderstood, minimised, or spoken about around them rather than with them. I chose to study and practise law so I could be a stronger advocate for children’s voices especially in a system where decisions can have lifelong consequences.
I’ve been an ICL for a long time, and advocating for children and young people is the most important work I do. There is something profoundly meaningful about being the person in the room whose role is to keep the parties focussed on the child and the needs of the child. When I meet with children, I’m very conscious that these conversations can be hard. So the atmosphere I create matters. I focus on helping children feel safe, respected, and not judged because the way I meet child, and the way they are listened to, can shape whether they feel heard at all and their experiences moving forward. To make a difference in a child’s life is one of the most important things we can do as a lawyer.
Can you give an example from your own personal experience of the impact ICLs can have?
In one matter, a child was described very differently by each parent, one narrative suggested everything was fine, and the other suggested significant concern. When I met the child, what emerged wasn’t dramatic or rehearsed it was subtle: hesitation, anxiety, and a careful way of speaking that reflected fear of getting it “wrong,” or fear of consequences. By spending time with that child I was able to build a much clearer picture of what was really happening.
That insight changed the direction of the case along with the other information that I had, and the final outcome prioritised safety and emotional stability in a way that wouldn’t have happened if the child’s experience hadn’t been properly understood. For that child, they were able to have a relationship with both of the parents and attend their activities without feeling the centre of the conflict. Through mediation in a very complex case, we were able to resolve the issues after 18 months of litigation.
Another example is where the impact becomes clear much later. I’ve had young people come back and speak with me after they turned 18 about their experience of being heard when I was their ICL. They’ve told me it mattered that they felt the Judge listened to them, and they could even remember some of the small activities I did when we met. That stays with me, because it’s a reminder that for children, being heard isn’t abstract it’s something they feel in the way you speak to them, the time you give them, and the care you take with their story.
One child who came back to me explained how they went on to finish school, had a relationship with both their parents and was studying at university. That child wants to be a children’s lawyer. Another child came and spoke to me, she was hurting herself when I met her. She agreed to speak to a counsellor when I met her. I was able to link her in with a counsellor and have the matter urgently listed before the court. A court child expert was able to see the family urgently. The child was able to have her views recorded in the report.
Over time the parents were able to reflect on the conflict that she had experienced. The young person’s views were put before the court and she felt heard. The parents were able to come up with Orders that worked for her. The young person wanted the Judge to know that she felt heard and also about the positive things that she was now doing. The young person stopped self-harming, she had help and the parents had a pathway forward.
Not all matters for an ICL are positive and we deal with lots of no contact matters and serious family violence cases. I have had children tell me that they can now sleep at night as they do not have to spend time with the person that physically hurt them. I have had to get immediate assistance from Department of Communities and Justice where children have been unsafe as a mandatory reporter and I have had to relist matters urgently before the court to seek urgent orders.
Our job is tough but the difference an ICL can make in a child’s life is worth the late nights and early mornings, the work during all our holidays or when we are on sick leave or in multiple courts. What is important as an ICL is are we able to bring the child’s reality into focus especially when it’s quiet, complicated, or easy for adults to miss.
What are the biggest challenges you think currently face ICLs in Australia?
We’re seeing more matters involving family violence, trauma, mental health concerns, substance misuse, and high-conflict; dynamics all of which require time, care, and specialised understanding. At the same time, there are resource constraints: limited funding, delays in accessing expert reports, and increasing pressure on the court system. There’s also a practical challenge that’s easy to underestimate: geography.
In a state like NSW, meaningful child engagement can involve significant travel and time. If we want children to be properly heard especially outside metropolitan areas the system has to support the reality that doing this well is logistically demanding. The most pressing challenge is funding and resourcing, particularly access to agents and counsel and the simple fact that there are not enough experienced ICLs to meet demand.
Many of us are covering multiple courts and carrying very large caseloads because the pool of available ICLs is too small. The funding model also doesn’t reflect the reality of the work. There is often no funding for an agent when we cannot physically attend a Directions Hearing or a Compliance and Readiness Hearing, and no adequate provision for briefing counsel and preparing properly for final hearings.
Just as importantly, there is no practical allowance for the time it takes to meet with children, or to have additional meetings when a case becomes more complex or runs longer than expected. Instead, matters are frequently funded by a single modest lump sum whether the case resolves quickly or runs for one or two years. On top of this, hearing dates can be allocated with limited consultation, sometimes resulting in listings that conflict with existing commitments, even where the ICL is unavailable.
There are also ongoing out-of-pocket pressures: no disbursements for printing, court books, or tender bundles for final hearings, despite the volume of material these matters often involve. And where an ICL is asked or ordered to remain involved after final orders, there may be no funding at all to cover that continuing work. Sometimes we have to justify why we need funding for a final hearing or interim hearing and requisition and it is as if we are not believed when the request is made, this creates more work and time we do not have and submissions we have to write.
The difficulty is that many of us keep doing this work because we believe in it and we know how much it matters for children, but that commitment is also what leaves ICLs stretched thin, and it’s not a sustainable way to support a role that is so central to child-focused justice.
Last Updated on 13/05/2026