DEACON & DEACON

The parties in this matter were the mother and the father, who disputed the residence of their children. The mother sought for the children to live with her in Australia, while the father sought for them to reside with him in the United States of America. The case came before Foster J of the Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it had jurisdiction to make parenting orders, given the interplay between the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-Operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Furthermore, the court was required to determine the interim parenting arrangements for the children, considering their best interests, including established relationships with both parents, the mother's historical and present role as primary carer, and allegations of family violence impacting the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

Foster J reasoned that the court possessed jurisdiction by virtue of the Hague Convention and the *Family Law Act*. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act* and focusing on the children's best interests, the court found that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility should not apply due to issues of family violence. Consequently, the mother was granted sole parental responsibility. The court made orders for the children to live with the mother in Australia, while also fashioning orders designed to ensure the children maintain a meaningful relationship with the non-resident father. These orders were to be registered in a competent court of the United States to facilitate their enforcement.