Bakal and Kapicic (No 2)

In *Bakal and Kapicic (No 2)*, Dawe J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for a recovery order concerning a child, B. The father had failed to return B to the mother as previously ordered by the Court. The father's stated reason for non-compliance was that the child was too distressed to be returned to the mother.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether a recovery order should issue given the father's non-compliance with existing orders, and how to best ensure the child's welfare and best interests in the circumstances. This involved balancing the importance of a meaningful relationship with both parents against the need to protect the child from harm, and determining the appropriate immediate steps to secure the child's return to the primary caregiver.

Dawe J reasoned that the father's failure to comply with the Court's previous orders necessitated the issuance of a recovery order to ensure the child's safety and return. The Court found that the father's concerns about the child's distress did not justify his unilateral decision to withhold the child from the mother, particularly in light of existing orders. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother, specifying the time and location for handover. The Court further ordered that if the child was not returned by a specified time, a recovery order would issue, detailing the child's and father's addresses and directing the child's return to the mother. Additionally, the father's contact with the child during the adjournment period was suspended, and all considerations of the child's best interests were adjourned to a later date before Justice Berman.