Bamford and Mandes (No.3)

In the matter of *Bamford and Mandes (No.3)*, Judge Terry of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application concerning parenting orders for a child. The dispute involved the father, the applicant, and the mother, the respondent, regarding the child's living arrangements and parental responsibility.

The court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the child, including whether to discharge existing orders, where the child should live, who should have parental responsibility, and whether a recovery order should be issued. The court also considered the role of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and the potential for future orders regarding the child spending time with the mother, depending on her attendance at a subsequent court date.

Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975*, the court made interim orders discharging all existing parenting orders. The child was ordered to live with the father, who was granted sole parental responsibility, with a note that the father would need to enrol the child in a local school. Crucially, a recovery order was issued pursuant to section 67Q of the Act, directing law enforcement officers to locate and return the child to the applicant, with broad powers to stop, search, and enter premises. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was tasked with serving these orders on the mother. The matter was adjourned for further consideration, with the court indicating that if the mother attended, it would consider orders for her to spend time with the child. However, if she failed to attend, the court indicated it was likely to make final orders granting the father sole parental responsibility and dictating the mother's time with the child, potentially supervised and subject to the father's written agreement.