DBL & GJL

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, comprising Kay, Warnick, and May JJ, considered an appeal concerning the interpretation and application of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) in relation to parenting orders. The dispute arose from an application to vary existing parenting orders, with the primary issue being whether the court had jurisdiction to make the requested orders given the circumstances of the child's residence.

The central legal question before the Full Court was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the court possessed the necessary jurisdiction to make the proposed parenting orders, particularly in light of the child's habitual residence. This involved an examination of the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act* concerning jurisdiction and the circumstances under which Australian courts can make orders concerning children who may have a connection to more than one country.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of international jurisdiction as established by the *Family Law Act* and relevant case law. Their Honours affirmed that the court's jurisdiction was engaged by the child's habitual residence within Australia at the time of the application, notwithstanding the proposed relocation of the child. The court emphasised that the focus of the jurisdiction provisions is on the child's connection to Australia at the commencement of proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.