A & GS & Others

This appeal concerned the interpretation of the *Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986* (Cth). The central dispute revolved around whether an individual, other than a designated Central Authority, possessed the legal standing to initiate proceedings under the Regulations seeking the return of a child to their habitual residence. The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining this question, as well as whether the Regulations conferred jurisdiction on the Court to entertain such an application when made by a non-Central Authority.

The Court was required to consider the meaning and operation of specific provisions within the Regulations, namely regulations 6(1) and (2), and regulation 14, in conjunction with section 69C of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). A further issue was whether regulation 16(3)(d) mandated the Court to examine the human rights and fundamental freedoms of a child who was not the direct subject of the application made under the Regulations, and to what extent the scope of this provision extended. The Court also had to address whether the majority decision in the Full Court’s earlier ruling in *Panayotides* should be overruled, and the principles governing such a determination.

The Court analysed the legislative intent and framework of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It was held that the Regulations, as presently drafted, confer standing and jurisdiction to apply for a return order exclusively upon the Central Authority. The Court reasoned that the language of regulations 6 and 14, read in context, clearly delineates the role of the Central Authority as the sole applicant. Furthermore, the Court determined that regulation 16(3)(d) does not require consideration of the rights of children not directly involved in the application, as its focus is on the child who is the subject of the return proceedings. The Court declined to overrule *Panayotides*, finding no compelling reason to depart from the established majority decision.