CHIAO & WEN

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by Mr. Chiao (the father) for a recovery order, a Commonwealth information order, and interim parenting orders concerning his child, C. The respondent, Ms. Wen (the mother), and the child's location were unknown, and the mother had repeatedly failed to appear in court proceedings. The father sought these orders due to the mother's repeated non-attendances and the child's prolonged absence from his life, having not seen the father for two years.

The court was required to determine whether to grant a recovery order for the child, considering the paramountcy of the child's best interests. This involved assessing the impact of the mother's non-compliance and the child's expressed reluctance to spend time with the father, as indicated in family reports. The court also had to consider the legal principles governing the disclosure of location information and the issuance of recovery orders under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Justice Berman reasoned that while family reports indicated the child's reluctance to see the father and concerns about the mother's influence, a failure to act would perpetuate delays and further estrange the child from her father. The court noted that the Independent Children's Lawyer did not oppose the recovery order, acknowledging the need for decisive action to facilitate a meaningful relationship with both parents. Applying the principles from *Hall & Hall* and *Wood & Wood*, the court found that family reports are valuable but not determinative, and the judge retains responsibility for the ultimate decision. The court concluded that granting the recovery order, despite the potential distress to the child, was in her best interests to prevent further estrangement and advance the proceedings.

The court made orders pursuant to section 67N of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for Centrelink to provide information regarding the location of the mother and child to the court registrar. Leave was granted to disclose this information to the father's solicitors and a process server, with a restraint on the solicitors divulging the information directly to the father. A recovery order was issued authorising the taking possession of the child and delivery to the father. Interim orders were made for the child to spend time with the father during the adjournment, and further consideration of the matter was adjourned.