DAVEY & YARDLEY

In the Family Court of Australia, Dawe J considered an application by Ms Davey concerning her child, D. The mother sought orders for the return of the child to her care, as the location of the child and the father was unknown. The core of the dispute revolved around the child's welfare and the mother's role as the primary caregiver.

The court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the child to be returned to the primary caregiver, Ms Davey. Additionally, the court considered issues of jurisdiction, specifically the principle of *forum conveniens*, and whether orders should be made in accordance with the court of another jurisdiction, although the specific details of any other jurisdiction's orders are not elaborated upon in the provided text.

Dawe J reasoned that the best interests of the child necessitated his return to the mother, who was identified as the primary caregiver. The court applied principles relating to child recovery and parental responsibility, ultimately granting extensive orders to facilitate the child's return and ensure his safety. These orders included the father delivering up the child, the mother having sole parental responsibility, and the child living with the mother.

The court further issued a Recovery Order under section 67U of the *Family Law Act 1975*, authorising law enforcement to find and recover the child and return him to the mother. Injunctions were also granted restraining the father from removing the child from the mother's care or from South Australia or Australia without consent or court order. The child's name was to be placed on the Australian Federal Police Watch List for two years, with provisions for its removal or extension upon further court application. The mother was granted liberty to apply for a replacement passport and to publish the orders to relevant authorities to assist in the child's recovery. The question of costs was reserved.