Chu and Lorde

[2017] FamCA 363

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHU & LORDE [2017] FamCA 363

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – remove from the Commonwealth of Australia

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Chu

RESPONDENT: Mr Lorde

FILE NUMBER: CAC 478 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 24 May 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Canberra

PLACE HEARD: Canberra

JUDGMENT OF: Gill J

HEARING DATE: 24 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self-representing

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Self-representing

Orders

1. The mother’s application to take the children, R, born … 2008, and C, born … 2012 out of the Commonwealth of Australia on holiday from 4 June 2017 to 13 June 2017 is refused.

2. The application is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Chu & Lorde has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA

FILE NUMBER: CAC 478  of 2012

Ms Chu

Applicant

And

Mr Lorde

Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application is initiated by an Application in a Case filed by the mother on 3 May 2017.  While it is the case that there is no outstanding children’s case, and hence no basis on which an Application in a Case can be filed, I will deal with the matter as though it was a final application in respect to a specific matter. 

2. What is sought by the mother is permission to take the children from Australia, that is to take R and C from Australia for a period of nine days from 4 June 2017 to 13 June 2017.  That travel is to be on a cruise ship that will travel through the South Pacific, departing from Sydney and returning to Sydney. 

3. The application is contested by the father. 

4. The final judgment in this case was handed down on 20 March 2017 that is approximately two months ago.  A central determination in that case was the question of risk of the children being removed to China.  In that application the mother sought permission to relocate with her two children to China or in the alternative to visit China with the children.  As outlined in the judgment the mother is of Chinese origin.  In dealing with the risk associated with the removal it was identified that the particular risk was one of the children’s retention in China.  The result of that would have been, in my estimation, the ending of the relationship between the children and their father.  The risk that that may occur was of significant magnitude and caused me to make orders prohibiting the removal of the children to China, to make orders for the retention of passports and restraining the removal of the children from Australia. 

5. In the application made today I am unable to differentiate the risks in relation to this travel as opposed to the risks identified in the judgment.  Once the children leave the Commonwealth of Australia I am unable to assess that the same risks that I identified in the previous judgment would not similarly arise.  What is sought by the mother today is a significant change to orders that were made about two months ago, orders which then focused upon the best interests of the children and dealt in particular, with the need to preserve meaningful relationships with their parents.  There is an insufficient change in circumstances as to justify a reconsideration of those matters and I refuse the application for travel and dismiss it. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Gill delivered on 24 May 2017.

Associate: 

Date:  29 May 2017