Corrong and Corrong

In the matter of *Corrong and Corrong*, Murphy J of the Family Court of Australia made orders concerning the welfare of a child, B, born in March 2000. The dispute involved the father's compliance with orders regarding the child's location and delivery.

The court was required to determine whether a Recovery Order should be issued to ensure the child's safe return to the mother. This involved authorising law enforcement and other officers to locate and recover the child from the father's specified addresses or any other location where the child might be found. The court also considered the father's obligations to provide an address for service and the Independent Children's Lawyer's role in obtaining relevant documents.

Murphy J reasoned that the father's failure to comply with previous orders necessitated the issuance of a Recovery Order. The court applied principles relating to child recovery, authorising officers to take all necessary steps, including searching vehicles and premises, to find and recover the child. The order specified that the child was to be delivered to the mother. Further orders were made to facilitate the investigation of the father's assertions and to ensure the child's best interests were paramount, including the provision of relevant reports to a Family Consultant.

The final orders directed the father to deliver the child B by 5.00 pm on 29 July 2009 to the office of the Independent Children's Lawyer. In default, a Recovery Order was to be issued, authorising law enforcement to find and recover the child and deliver them to the mother. The Recovery Order was to remain in force for twelve months. Additional orders addressed the father's notice of address for service, granted the Independent Children's Lawyer leave to issue subpoenas, and outlined procedures for inspecting and copying documents.