DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, YOUTH AND WOMEN & FULTON

This matter concerned an application by the Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women against Ms Fulton, the respondent mother, regarding her two sons, X and Y. The dispute involved the potential removal of the children from Australia and a change in their usual place of residence. The orders were made by consent before Hogan J of the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the immediate protective measures necessary to safeguard the welfare and location of the children. This included considering the children's objections to being returned to New Zealand, the maturity of their views, and the appropriate steps to ensure their safety and presence within Australia pending further proceedings. The court also needed to establish a procedural framework for the ongoing litigation, including the filing of documents and the preparation of a report under Regulation 26 of the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986 (Cth).

In its reasoning, the court applied principles relating to child protection and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. By consent, the court issued injunctions restraining the respondent mother from removing the children from Australia or changing their usual place of residence within Queensland. The court also ordered the surrender of passports and placed the names of the respondent and children on the Family Law Watchlist. Furthermore, a Family Consultant was directed to prepare a report addressing the children's views on their return to New Zealand, considering their age and maturity. The court also set out detailed directions for the filing of evidence and the conduct of the hearing.

The orders made were interim in nature, pending a further hearing on 24 August 2018. The court directed the respondent mother to file and serve various documents, including an answer and cross-application, and affidavits of evidence. Directions were also given regarding the notification of requirements for interpreters or audio-visual equipment and the process for cross-examination of witnesses. Service of documents on the respondent was permitted via a provided email address, dispensing with usual service rules.