Chivers and Katagi

The Family Court of Australia considered an urgent application by the father, Mr Chivers, concerning his child, S, with the mother, Ms Katagi. The dispute arose after the mother and child travelled to India for a holiday and had not returned to Australia. The father alleged that the mother had intended to remain in India, and proceedings had been commenced in India concerning parenting orders for the child.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to make orders regarding the child, given that the child and mother were in India and that India is not a signatory to the Hague Conventions. The court also needed to consider what interim orders were in the best interests of the child, particularly regarding the child's habitual residence and the need for the child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents.

Justice Dawe found that the child's habitual residence was Australia, where the child was born and held citizenship, and that the father resided in Australia. Despite the existence of proceedings in India, the court determined it had jurisdiction to make orders in the best interests of the child. Applying the principles from *Goode & Goode* and section 111C of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court deemed service of the application on the mother in India to be appropriate. The court reasoned that it was in the child's best interests for the matter to be determined in Australia, the child's habitual residence, and that the child should be returned to Australia.

The court ordered that the mother return the child to Australia within twenty-one days and that the child live with the mother in Australia, provided she complied with the court's orders. The father was to spend time with the child as agreed between the parties. The matter was adjourned for further consideration, with directions for the mother to file any response and affidavit by a specified date.