DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY & CARTER

This matter came before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia on appeal from a decision of Coleman J. The appeal concerned the interpretation and application of the *Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986* (Cth) in relation to the summary return of a child. The primary dispute involved the father's alleged acquiescence in the child's retention in Australia by the mother.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether Coleman J erred in his findings regarding the father's acquiescence in the child remaining in Australia. Specifically, the court considered whether the period of time the father took to initiate formal proceedings for the child's return was unreasonably long, whether the father's actions or inactions clearly and unequivocally demonstrated an intention not to pursue the summary return, and whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the father had abandoned his life and interests in the United States, thereby negating any practical basis for his return.

The Full Court found that Coleman J's approach was affected by error. They identified inconsistencies in his Honour's reasoning regarding the commencement of the period for assessing acquiescence, particularly in light of the birth of a second child and the father's subsequent actions. The court noted that the father had not been cross-examined on his intentions regarding the summary return during the relevant period, and the mother's own evidence suggested she feared the father might attempt to remove the children from Australia. Furthermore, the court questioned the finding that the father had abandoned his mobile home in the USA, noting evidence to the contrary. The court concluded that the evidence did not clearly and unequivocally demonstrate the father's acquiescence, and that Coleman J's ultimate finding was surprising given his earlier assessment of the evidence.

The Full Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by Coleman J. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for redetermination.