Camoes & Blizzard & Anor

The father sought orders under s 90SN of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to vary or set aside final property orders made on 8 December 2015, alleging exceptional circumstances and hardship. The dispute arose from the mother retaining the two children of the relationship in Country I, contrary to an order of the Court. While the father had initially succeeded in obtaining assistance from the State Central Authority for the children's return, an appeal court overturned this judgment based on the views of the nine-year-old child. Consequently, the Australian parenting orders remained in force, and no equivalent orders appeared to exist in Country I, leaving the father with continued caring responsibility.

The court was required to determine whether the circumstances were exceptional and constituted hardship warranting the variation or setting aside of the final property orders. Specifically, the court considered the impact of the children's retention in Country I on their care, welfare, and development, and whether the father's need to travel to Country I to maintain contact constituted hardship in the context of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989*. The court also addressed the discharge of a stay order concerning child support assessments, which had been granted pending the determination of Hague Convention matters.

In its reasoning, the court found that the circumstances surrounding the children's retention in Country I were exceptional, relating to their care, welfare, and development. However, it considered hardship a difficult issue to establish, particularly as the father's application was predicated on the necessity of incurring travel costs to Country I. The court noted that the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* makes specific provision for departures from administrative assessments where such travel costs are incurred, highlighting a clash between legislative principles. Ultimately, the court refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the father regarding the variation of property orders.

The court made several orders, including dismissing the father's application under s 90N of the *Family Law Act 1975*, discharging a stay order concerning child support assessments *ab initio*, and ordering the mother to pay the father's costs fixed at $18,200. The solicitors acting as trustees for the mother were directed to pay these costs. Other injunctions were discharged, and a copy of the order and reasons were to be served on Mr AA. The mother's notice of discontinuance was to be treated as a discontinuance of all proceedings.