CARRINGTON & GUNBY

In the Family Court of Australia, Justice Berman considered a dispute between Mr Carrington and Ms Gunby concerning their child. The core of the disagreement involved the father's retention of the child for three months, contrary to existing consent orders made in 2013 which stipulated the child was to live with the mother. During this period, the mother had limited contact with the child, only able to communicate by phone once a week. The father alleged the child was at risk due to the mother's partner, while both parties made allegations of family violence.

The court was required to determine whether the father had contravened the existing consent orders, and if so, what orders were necessary to ensure the child's return to the mother. Furthermore, the court had to consider the father's alleged contravention in light of the rule in *Rice v Asplund*, which requires the court to consider the best interests of the child and whether circumstances have changed since the original orders were made. The court also had to address the father's refusal to return the child unless specific new orders were made, and the appropriate penalty for any contravention found.

Justice Berman reasoned that the father's actions constituted a contravention of the consent orders. The court applied the principles of *Rice v Asplund*, noting that while the child was significantly older (11 years compared to 5 when the original orders were made) and demonstrated maturity, the father's retention of the child presented a risk that outweighed the potential harm of further litigation. The court found the contravention to be serious, warranting a penalty under Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Consequently, the court ordered the father to forthwith deliver the child to the mother. If this did not occur within 48 hours, a recovery order was to issue, directing law enforcement to find and return the child. The father was prohibited from removing the child except in accordance with current orders, with the possibility of arrest without warrant for further breaches. The father's time with the child was suspended for 21 days, and the mother was temporarily restrained from allowing the child contact with Mr E. The father was sentenced to 21 days imprisonment, suspended on the conditions of good behaviour and compliance with court orders for six months. The court also made directions regarding the child's re-enrolment at school, communication between the parties, and a future child inclusive conference.