BREEN & BREEN

In *Breen & Breen*, Foster J of the Family Court of Australia considered the jurisdiction of the Australian court in a matter involving a child habitually resident in Ireland. The dispute arose when the father retained the child in Australia during a holiday, contrary to existing custody orders made in favour of the mother in Ireland. The father contended that circumstances of urgency existed, which would permit the Australian court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it possessed jurisdiction to make parenting orders concerning the child, given the child's habitual residence in Ireland, and whether the circumstances warranted the exercise of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. Additionally, the court was required to determine the appropriateness of registering existing Irish parenting orders for enforcement in Australia and whether a recovery order should be issued to facilitate the child's return to the mother.

Foster J found that no circumstances of urgency, as contemplated by Article 11 of the Hague Convention, were present to permit the Australian court to exercise jurisdiction. Consequently, the court declared that the Irish custody order made by the Circuit Family Court in Dublin on 6 February 2008 be registered for enforcement in Australia. The court further issued a recovery order pursuant to section 67Q of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), directing law enforcement agencies to locate and return the child to the applicant mother. Following the child's return, the father was restrained from contacting or approaching the child under section 68B of the Act, and all other outstanding applications before the court were dismissed.