Ahmad & Hadi

In the matter of *Ahmad & Hadi*, heard before Tree J of the Family Court of Australia, the father sought to initiate parenting proceedings in Australia. The central dispute concerned the jurisdiction of the Australian court to make parenting orders, particularly in circumstances where parallel parenting proceedings were already underway in another country. The father's application was predicated on the assertion that the child was habitually resident in Australia, a key factor in establishing the court's jurisdiction under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to make parenting orders concerning the child. This required a determination of the child's habitual residence, a question to be assessed at the time of the relevant hearing, and an examination of whether the conditions for exercising jurisdiction under sections 69E and 111CD of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) were met. The Court also considered whether there was any basis for exercising jurisdiction in relation to a Commonwealth personal protection measure.

Tree J reasoned that the evidence presented did not establish that the child was habitually resident in Australia. The Court applied the principles governing habitual residence, noting that this determination is fact-specific and assessed at the date of the hearing. Having found no basis upon which to conclude that the child was habitually resident in Australia, and no other grounds for exercising jurisdiction under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the Court concluded that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the father's application. Consequently, the father's Initiating Application filed on 21 November 2019 was dismissed.