ADEL & BANES

[2018] FamCA 821

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADEL & BANES [2018] FamCA 821

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Parenting – where mother seeks parenting orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that she have sole parental responsibility and the child live with her and the father spend time with the child – where the father seeks a recovery order by way of enforcement of an order of a court in the United States of America which provides that the child live with him and be returned forthwith to the United States of America which has been registered by this Court pursuant to r. 23 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth).

FAMILY LAW – REGISTERED OVERSEAS CHILD ORDER – effect of registration of overseas order – court’s jurisdiction to make parenting orders whilst registration persists – where this court can only vary a registered overseas child order with either the consent of the parties or if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that a child’s welfare requires the court to exercise jurisdiction in the proceedings – necessity to demonstrate that the welfare of the child is likely to be adversely affected if a subsequent parenting order is not made or there has been such a change in circumstances for the child since the making of the overseas order that a subsequent parenting order ought be made.

FAMILY LAW – INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER – role of independent children’s lawyer – where independent children’s lawyer to investigate preliminary mediation in accordance with Victoria Legal Aid’s Hague Mediation Model – independent children’s lawyer to oversee implementation of order for communication by telephone between father and the child.

FAMILY LAW – DIRECT JUDICIAL COMMUNICATION – the International Hague Network of Judges – direct judicial communication only by consent.

Family Law Act 1975
Family Law Regulations 1984
Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1986
Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children

APPLICANT: Ms Adel

RESPONDENT: Mr Banes

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3771 of 2017

DATE DELIVERED: 10 October 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 10 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Starnet Legal

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Orders

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. This matter be fixed before me for a determination of interim issues, being the father’s application for a recovery order and the mother’s application for interim parenting orders, on Thursday 3 January 2019 at 10.00 am in the Judicial Duty List estimated to take one hour (“the adjourned date”).

2. By not later than 3 December 2018 the respondent mother file and serve any evidence in response to the father’s evidence made 1 October 2018.

3. All parties be in a position on the adjourned date to make submissions in relation to jurisdiction and exchange any written submission prior thereto.

4. Until further order, the father have electronic communication with the child X born … 2013 (“the child”) three times per week as agreed and, absent agreement, between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm on Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday (Melbourne time) for a duration of 30 minutes.

5. Pursuant to section 68L(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 the interests of the child X born … 2013 be independently represented by a lawyer AND IT IS REQUESTED that Victoria Legal Aid arrange such representation and the independent children’s lawyer be appointed in sufficient time to be able to make recommendations about what interim parenting orders would be in the best interest of the child by the next return date and in the meantime to investigate the availability of mediation through the Victoria Legal Aid Hague Mediation program and the implementation of the order for electronic communication between the child and the father.

6. Forthwith upon appointment by the said Victoria Legal Aid or otherwise the independent children’s lawyer file a Notice of Address for Service.

7. Within 48 hours of notification of such appointment the solicitor’s for the respective parties provide to the independent children’s lawyer copies of all relevant documents relied upon.

8. The parties be and are hereby restrained from making any complaint to a professional body or association concerning the conduct of any Single Expert engaged for the purpose of this proceeding, or permitting any other person to do so, without first obtaining leave of the Court. This injunction will remain in full force and effect following completion of the proceedings unless specifically referred to in final orders and specifically discharged.

9. Pursuant to section 62G(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 and without prejudice to the father’s application for a summary return of the child to the United States a family report be prepared.  The parties and child X BANES born … 2013 attend upon a Family Consultant nominated by the Director of Child Dispute Services in the Melbourne Registry of this Court for the purposes of the preparation of a Family Report to be made available to the Court and the parties. The parties to comply with all reasonable directions as to attendance upon the said Family Consultant as and when required by the said Family Consultant and, if necessary, the father attend electronically.  IT IS REQUESTED that by not later than the adjourned date, the Director of Child Dispute Services advise my Chambers and the parties of the dates upon which assessments for the report can be commenced and the report will be released.

10. The family report deal with the following matters:-

    a)      whether the child’s welfare requires that this Court make orders which are at variance with the Order made on 20 September 2018 in California, United States of America;

    b)      whether the welfare of the child is likely to be adversely affected if alternative parenting orders are not made by this Court;

    AND for the purpose of assisting the child’s welfare the family consultant have regard to the following:

    c)      any views expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that may affect the weight that the court should place on those views;

    d) the matters set out in s60CC of the Family Law Act;

    e)      an assessment of the capacity of the parents to cooperate with one another in relation to day to day parenting matters as well as long term parenting issues;

    f)      an observation of each of the parties with the child (unless it appears to the Counsellor that such an observation taking place is not in the immediate best interests of the child);

    g)      recommendations as to how the matters in issue between the parties and/or arising out of the proceedings, may be resolved in the child’s best interest to the greatest extent possible;

    h)      what, if any, conditions would need to be imposed to make an immediate return to the United States of America to enable implementation of the parenting arrangements of the State of B order tolerable for the child and/or in the best interests of the child.

11. For the avoidance of doubt the family consultant be and is hereby authorised to have reference to:-

    a)      all documents filed in these proceedings;

    b)      any documents produced on subpoenae and released for inspection by all parties;

    c)      any documents provided to him by the independent children’s lawyer who will give notice to the other parties to the proceedings of what documents are so provided; and

    d)      any documents or things referred to in this Order.

12. Until further order, notwithstanding any other order to the contrary, the parties and any independent children’s lawyer be at liberty to provide any mediator or expert with a copy of all relevant expert reports in this matter including, but not limited to, family reports and parent and children’s issues assessments.

13. IT IS DIRECTED that any party wishing to cross examine on a document or tender a document into evidence at the final hearing, ensure that his or her counsel has a minimum of 5 copies of any such document available at the time of cross examination, evidence or proposed tender (being a copy for counsel for each party, a copy for the witness and two copies for the Court).

14. The mother and the father participate, by themselves and their legal advisers, in a preliminary Hague Mediation which the independent children’s lawyer appoints, through the Victoria Legal Aid Family Dispute Resolution Service, and the independent children’s lawyer notify my Associate, as soon as possible of the date and time of the conference, once appointed.

15. IT IS REQUESTED that the family consultant be available to discuss the matter by telephone with the independent children’s lawyer on the day of any round table conference appointed pursuant to paragraph 13 of this Order.

16. Notwithstanding any other order to the contrary, for the purpose of application to Victoria Legal Aid Round Table Dispute Management the independent children’s lawyer is hereby authorised to provide to Victoria Legal Aid Family Dispute Resolution Service Management:-

    a.   any family report;

    b.   any document referred to in this Order;

    c.   any document filed in these proceedings; and

    d.   any other report by a professional in this matter that the independent children’s lawyer considers is necessary.

17. Henceforth, the address for service of the father be recorded in the Court records as N Street, City D, State of B, United States of America, … and his telephone number as … and email …

18. I reserve liberty to the parties to apply for further interim parenting orders if the father is present, or proposing to be present, in Australia prior to, or for, the adjourned date and the parents are able to agree on what face to face time the child should spend with the father.

19. IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Order and my reasons for decision may be provided by the father, the mother or the independent children’s lawyer to the Central Authority for Australia or the United States of America in the event that the father makes an application for a return of the child to the United States of America pursuant to Chapter III of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

20. My reasons for decision be transcribed and when settled placed on the Court file and a copy provided to the parties.

AND IT IS NOTED that the father intends this day to make an application for the return of the child to the United States of America pursuant to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Adel & Banes has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 3771 of 2017

Ms Adel

Applicant

And

Mr Banes

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter comes before me in the judicial duty list having been sent in by the Senior Registrar.  Proceedings concern the child X (female) born in 2013 (“the child”).  Mr Bowden, a solicitor, appears on behalf of the mother who attends court.  Mr Banes, who is the father, appears by telephone from the State of B in the United States of America.

2. I have made an order for telephone communication between the father and X, which was by consent, and otherwise made procedural orders including the appointment of an independent children’s lawyer.  I have adjourned the proceedings to the judicial duty list on 3 January 2019 before myself. 

3. I have directed that all parties be in a position to make submissions as to the court’s jurisdiction on the adjourned date. I do not regard the Order made today or the participation of any party today to have prejudiced any position he or she may subsequently adopt in relation to jurisdiction or what orders this court is competent to make.

Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”)

1. Pursuant to s 67K of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act’) I have appointed an independent children’s lawyer for X within the meaning of Division 10 of Part VII of the Act. Once appointed by Victoria Legal Aid, their role is to form an independent view, based on available evidence, of what is in X’s best interests and then act in these proceedings in what they believes to be the best interests of X. The independent children’s lawyer is not a legal representative retained by X and they is not bound by any instructions from X. The role of the independent children’s lawyer is to deal impartially with the parties, to ensure that any views expressed by X are fully put before the court, to analyse documentary, expert evidence and reports and to distil from that evidence significant matters for the purpose of properly drawing them to the court’s attention. The independent children's lawyer is also under a specific duty to take steps to minimise for the child the trauma associated with proceedings and to facilitate an agreed resolution of matters at issue in the proceedings to the extent that it is in the best interests of the child to do so. The independent children’s lawyer will be appropriately familiar with this matter by the adjourned date.

2. Independent children’s lawyer is also required to make submissions in relation to jurisdiction on the adjourned date.

Proceedings

1. Each parent seeks parenting orders from this court in relation to X.  However these are not the only proceedings between the parents.

2. On 19 July 2018 orders were made in the Superior Court of the State of B in and for the County of City D in proceedings D…04 which provided that the father have primary physical custody of X and allowing him to bring X back to the United States.  The order states that the mother was in City D “for a three-day hearing and was present when the orders were made.”

3. On 20 July 2018 the order made by the Superior Court of the State of B in and for the county of City D on 19 July 2018 was registered in this court at Melbourne pursuant to Regulation 23 of the Family Law Regulations 1984 (“the Regulations”).

4. On 24 July 2018 the mother filed an initiating application in this court seeking interim and final parenting orders in relation to X.  On 3 August 2018 the mother filed an amended initiating application in which she seeks final orders that she have sole parental responsibility for X, X live with her and spend time with the father to “be particularised following completion of the spend time arrangements are specified in the mother’s interim orders sought.  Her application seeks interim and procedural orders as follows:

   a)That the orders made by the Superior Court of the State of B in and for the County of City D on 13 July 2018 by Judge … and registered in the Family Court of Australia in proceedings on 20 July 2018 be discharged.

   b)That any subsequent or other orders made by the Superior Court of the State of B in and for the County of City D be discharged.

   c)X live the mother.

   d)X spend time with the father, in Australia at times when he is able to visit her for a period of not less than one week during each visit (maximum of six times each year).

   e)X communicate with the father by Skype or similar application, as agreed between the parties in the absence of agreement, at least three times each week, between the hours of 5 PM and 6 PM (Australian Eastern standard Time), with the father to initiate the call.

   f)The parties keep each other informed at all times of the residential addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses and advise each other of any changes within 48 hours.

   g)Such other orders as a court deems appropriate.

5. On 24 July 2018 the father filed an application in a case in this court.  He essentially sought registration of orders made in City D on 19 July 2018 which gave him primary physical custody of X.  He sought an urgent hearing and that child be recovered and forthwith return to him. This application was amended by a further application in a case filed 2 October 2018, set down for hearing today, in which the father seeks the following orders: –

   a)A dismissal of the mother is amended initiating application and any and all previous and future applications.

   b)The enforcement of the child custody order another orders made by the Superior Court of the State of B, County of City D on 20 September 2018 soon as they are registered the Family Court of Australia.

   c)That X live with the father.

   d)That the mother forthwith return X to the applicant Mr Banes (whose address for contact and service is shown on the amended application is N Street, City D, State of B).

   e)A recovery order pursuant to section 67Q of the Family Law Act 1975.

   f)Orders empowering the Australian Federal police and other police forces to act in aid of the recovery order.

   g)The mother spend time with X pursuant to the order made on 20 September 2018 in City D.

   h)The father be excused from filing a certificate from a family dispute resolution practitioner.

   i)That X be removed as an affected family member in the intervention interim intervention order made at Suburb F on 23 July 2018.

   j)“That [X] be temporarily placed with the Victorian child protective services or any other equivalent organisation until the applicant, Mr [Banes], arrives in Melbourne to return [X] to [City D], [State of B], where she will be protected from the potential abduction by respondent, Ms [Adel].”

   k)Any other orders this court deems appropriate.

6. The father also filed a response to an application in a case on 2 October 2018 seeking the same orders as are set out in his amended application in a case.

7. The 20 September 2018 State of B order modified the previous order from 19 July 2018.  The State of B order itself is included in a document entitled “Attachment to findings and order after hearing”.  It is worth summarising the order and the findings in some detail and I do so as follows: –

   a)The father have sole legal and physical custody of X.

   b)Both parties have the right to appeal the orders.

   c)If no appeal is made in 30 days of the order (“the stay period”), the father is ordered to retrieve X on the 32nd day following the order, or July 17 2018.

   d)The mother is to facilitate the return.

   e)For the stay period, the father is to have ‘virtual visitation’ with X five days a week, for 30 minutes each time, at 7.00am Australian time.

   f)When X is returned to the U.S. the mother have ‘virtual visitation’ five days a week for 30 minutes each time at times agreed by the parties that are in the best interests of the child.

   g)When the mother is in City D she is to have a supervised visitation with X for up to five hours each day.

   h)Neither party is to make negative comments about the other parent.

   i)Both parties are to ensure that X is always under the supervision of a competent adult.

   j)Both parties must keep the other parent informed of their current contact information and notify the other parent within 24 hours of any change.

   k)Both parties are to ensure X is not exposed to any third party who is under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

   l)The mother is to complete a parenting and co-parenting course by September 30 2018.

   m)The mother must remove/dismiss all order in Australian Courts, including removing X from the “no-fly” list.

   n)The Court authorised the law enforcement and child abduction unit to enforce the orders.

   o)The mother must immediately send proof of her sending the child X’s passport to the father upon the mother’s return to Australia.

   p)A review hearing and Family Resolution Conference is scheduled for December 10, 2018.

1. A summary of the recorded findings is:-

   a)The Superior Court of the State of B in and for the County of City D has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in the case pursuant to the Uniform child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Family Code Section 3048 et seq.).

   b)The country of habitual residence for X is the United States.

   c)A violation of the orders may subject the party in violation to civil or criminal penalties.

   d)The court orders are enforceable in Australia.

   Domestic Violence

   e)There is no credible evidence of domestic violence.

   f)The mother’s testimony regarding domestic violence sounded fabricated and contrived.

   g)The mother’s testimony regarding the father’s drinking and playing with guns every night is not credible.

   h)The mother’s testimony that the father shot a hole in the wall with a gun is not credible given. It was clear from a photo and text message that the hole was not caused by a gun.

   i)The mother may freely use the father’s car and often drive the father to school and, therefore, was in no way held captive, as she testified.

   j)The mother had anger issues which was shown in videos shown as evidence in the trial.

   Credibility

   k)The father was credible.

   l)The mother was not credible.

   m)The mother was “a very different person” when she testified in court from the person the court observed on the videos shown as evidence in the trial.

   n)The mother used profanities in front of the child to refer to the father as “awful names without thinking of the damage this could cause to X”.

   o)The Court found it to be “disturbing” that the mother did not undertaking a co-parenting class or sign up for “Talking Parents”, despite being order to do so.

   p)The mother did not comply with court-ordered visitation until she was told if she did not comply it would weigh heavily against her retaining custody and was sanctioned $3000 (U.S. Dollars).

   q)The mother missed 88 court ordered visitations.

   r)On 5 April 2018 the mother chose a visitation time of 05:00AM Australian time for X to speak with the father, knowing that a more convenient time could have been chosen.

   s)The Court found it to be “disturbing” that the mother would wake X at 05:00AM so the father would not have a meaningful visitation.

   t)The Court found it to be “disturbing” that the mother allowed X to call someone else “daddy” and refer to the father by his middle name.

   u)The mother has not and will not encourage frequent and continuing contact with the father. The father would encourage the contact.

2. On 8 October 2018 order made by the Superior Court of the State of B in and for the County of City D on 20 September 2018 was registered in this court at Melbourne pursuant to Regulation 23 of the Regulations.

3. On my calculation, when the proceedings are again before the Superior Court in City D, on Monday, 10 December 2018 at 1:45 PM, that will be approximately 7:45 PM Melbourne time.  Our court will be closed.

Background

1. The mother and the father married in 2008 and separated on 1 November 2016 by which time X was approximately three years old. 

2. On 1 November 2016 the mother brought X departed the United States of America for Australia apparently without the father’s consent.  The father said that he knew nothing about the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Hague Convention”) and, when he consulted lawyers to assist him to recover X, they did not tell him about the 1980 Hague Convention.

3. The father said that he subsequently made an application pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention but it was rejected.  He said he was required to obtain domestic orders to support his case.  That does not make sense to me.  In any event, there has been no application accepted pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of X to the United States of America although the father said that he would be making that application today.  It is not immediately apparent what the father hopes to achieve with a return application under the 1980 Hague Convention at this point in time.  The wrongful removal of X from the United States occurred well over a year ago and so the first enquiry would be whether X is settled in Australia within the meaning of r. 16(2)(c) of the Family Law (Child Abduction) Regulations 1986 (Cth)  which implement Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention.

4. The parents were divorced in May 2018.

5. Orders were made in City D on 19 July 2018 (see [7] above). The mother was apparently in court in City D.  It appears that, armed with the order of 19 July 2018, the father came to Australia and tried, unsuccessfully, to recover X.

6. On 23 July 2018 an interim intervention order was made in the Magistrates Court at Suburb F pursuant to the Magistrates Court Family Violence Protection Act 2008.  The applicant was a member of the Victoria police.  The affected family member is the mother with X being included as a second named affected family member. The order is directed to the father whose address is recorded as C Street, Suburb E.

7. The intervention order is expressed in usual terms. It prohibits the father from damaging property of the mother, attempting to locate or follow her, from publishing any communication about her on any electronic medium, approaching within 5 m of her, going to or remaining with within 200 m of G street, Suburb M or any other place where she lives works or attend school child care. The respondent may do anything that is permitted by an order made under the Act, a child protection order or a written agreement about child arrangements or communicate with the mother through a lawyer or a mediator. The order similarly prohibits the father from doing these acts or things in relation to X who is, as indicated, also an affected family member.

8. It is recorded that the father was at court when the interim intervention order was made and that a copy was handed to him at 10:40 AM on 23 July 2018.  Insofar as it is an interim intervention order is it is expressed to last ‘is until final order, unless varied or revoked; or if the application is withdrawn”.  I do not know whether the order it remains extant.

9. On 24 July 2018 the mother filed a notice of child abuse, family violence or risk of family violence.  She alleged (more or less in her words):

   ·The father has physically assaulted me whilst we were living in the United States.

   ·The respondent is verbally abused me on a frequent basis before I left him in November 2016.  He used to call me names and put me down.

   ·On one occasion the respondent assaulted me in front of our daughter.

   ·The respondent has loaded guns in the house.  I found one loaded gun in the bottom drawer I kept X’s sleepwear.  I also found drugs in the house in another loaded gun under the cushions on the sofa in the living room.  The respondent had also kept a loaded handgun in the bathroom and in the living room at night.

   ·The respondent used to yell at X when she was only four years old.  He would call her a liar.

10. During the father’s visit to Australia in July 2018 he saw X for an hour or so.  He then returned to the United States of America.

11. On 3 August 2018 the Department of Health and Human Services, Preston, provided a response to the mother’s notice of family violence.  The Department does not intend to take any further action relation to the matter and notes that there had been no previous child protection reports.  A summary is provided, as follows:

    The current report raises concerns for an incident where the father, [Mr Banes] arrived in Australia with a court order allegedly from the United States of America (USA) allowing him full custody of the child.  The father attended the family home to remove the child however no one answered the door and police were contacted.  Further concerns were raised to the father’s alleged illicit substance misuse and perpetrating historical physical and verbal family violence whilst the family were residing in the USA.  The child is in the primary care of her mother, Ms [Adel].  The father has been unsuccessful in his attempt to remove the child from Australia to the USA.

    Follow-up with the Victoria police determined there was no information that would warrant further Child Protection involvement.  It is noted that the mother is linked in with appropriate supports.

    It is respectfully recommended that the matter be managed via the Family Court with no role for Child Protection at this time.  This report will be classified as a Child Well-being Report and closed at intake phase.

12. On 20 September 2018 a further and more extensive order was made in the American proceedings (see [12] above).  Apparently the mother appeared before the court in City D on this occasion as well.  The order made 20 September 2018 has now been registered for enforcement in this Court.

Effect of registration of the State of B order

1. Under s 70J of the Act, a registered overseas child order may only be varied where the court has jurisdiction. This court will have jurisdiction where:

   a)each person with whom the child is supposed to live, or spend time with, or have contact with or has rights of custody or access to the child, under the overseas order consents to the exercise of  custody by the court (s 70J(1)(a)); or

   b)the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the child’s welfare requires the court exercise jurisdiction in the proceedings (s 70J(1)(b))

2. Under s 70J(2) of the Act, if this court exercises jurisdiction, the court may not make a parenting order in relation to the child unless it is satisfied:

   c)that the welfare of the child is likely to be adversely affected if the order is not made (s 70J(2)(a)); or

   d)that there has been such a change in the circumstances of the child since the making of the overseas child order that the Subdivision C parenting order ought to be made (s 70J(2)(b))

3. Under s 70K of the Act, in the event this court makes an order about the child subject to the registered overseas child order, the court must cancel the registration of the overseas child order.

Would direct judicial communication be of assistance?

1. The adjourned date of these proceedings is 3 January 2019.  The American proceedings before the court in City D on 10 January 2018.  I suspect that the only thing worse for children than having parents fighting over them in one court is to be fought over in two courts from two separate countries.

2. For the avoidance of doubt, the parents, those who advise them and the independent children’s lawyer are at liberty to provide to the proper officer of the court in City D a copy of the order which I have made today and these reasons.

3. As between the United States and of America and Australia there can be direct judicial communication through the International Hague Network of Judges.  I am a judge of that Network as are my Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice.  The Network Judges in the United States are:

   ·Judge Judy Kreeger of the 11^th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Miami;

   ·Associate Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo of the Family Court, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Washington D.C.;

   ·Justice Peter Messitte of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt; and

   ·Chief Judge Mary Sheffield, Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield, MO.

   With the consent of each party to the proceedings, it is possible to introduce discussions between myself as the sitting judge in this case and the judge who has conduct of the proceedings in City D.

4. If it appears that some communication between judges will be of assistance to the parties, the parties should consider making their consent to such communications knowing to known to me on the adjourned date.

5. I note that the United States of America has signed the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“the 1996 Hague Convention”) but it has not ratified or acceded and, as such, the 1996 Hague Convention has not entered force between Australia and the United States of America.  I suspect that we would be in for a far easier time if the 1996 Hague Convention had entered into force.

Conclusion

1. I have made the order in relation to telephone communication to which the parents agreed.  As indicated I have appointed an independent children’s lawyer.

2. The parents will be assisted with mediation as arranged by the independent children’s lawyer.

3. I will draw the order in relation to the preparation of a family report to reflect the matters set out in the sections referred to above particular to the registration of the overseas child order.

I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 10 October 2018.

Legal Associate: 

Date:  11 October 2018