BANKS & GALLI

This matter concerned an urgent application brought by the mother (the Applicant) against the father (the Respondent) regarding the whereabouts of their two young children. The mother alleged that the father had retained the children and that she did not know his or the children's location. The proceedings were initiated following the issuance of a Provisional Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for the protection of the mother and children, indicating a context of family violence. The court granted the mother leave to proceed ex parte.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the mother sole parental responsibility and make orders for the children to live with her, and crucially, whether to issue a recovery order for the children under section 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court was also required to consider its obligations under the *Family Law Act 1975* concerning the timely action upon a Notice of Child Abuse, Family Violence, or Risk of Family Violence, which had been filed eight days prior to the orders being made.

Judge Scarlett reasoned that the circumstances warranted the granting of the application. The court applied the principles governing the issuance of recovery orders, which require a belief on reasonable grounds that a child has been taken or is being kept in contravention of a parenting order or in contravention of the Act. The court also considered the broad powers available under section 67T(d) of the Act, interpreting "any other person concerned with the care, welfare and development of the child" to encompass the mother in this context. The court further exercised its power to grant an injunction under section 68B of the Act for the personal protection of the mother and children, and authorised police to arrest the father without warrant if he breached the injunction.

The court made orders until further notice, granting the mother sole parental responsibility and ordering the children to live with her. A recovery order was issued, authorising law enforcement officers to locate and recover the children and deliver them to the mother, and to arrest the father if he took possession of the children again. The Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink was directed to provide information regarding the location of the children and the father. The father was also restrained by injunction from removing or taking possession of the children, approaching their residence, or communicating with them except through a legal practitioner, and was prohibited from stalking, harassing, or intimidating the mother or children. The matter was transferred to the Newcastle Registry.